# How important are surnames?



## Meg the Healer (Mar 22, 2012)

Now that I can finally spell important without putting a "t" in front of the "n" twelve times......

I've just kinda realized that I don't really have anyone with a last name - with the exception of my male MC - which is Thomas Bane. Does this even matter? Of course I don't have a lot of "of anything" either. Like Alastor of the Mordendio Demon horde. He's just Alastor - and the people who know him know what clan he's a part of and the ones that don't - typically don't care.

I figure this is a different strokes mentality - but I'm wondering if I should consider adding a last name or not.

What do you think?


----------



## Saigonnus (Mar 22, 2012)

I personally think that in most cases for secondary characters and random NPCs it is unnecessary since they don't generally play a major part in the story. In truth, I give every character even the most insignificant one a last name even if it isn't mentioned in the story. I do this because as the story unfolds, a lesser character may surprise me and I want to give them a larger part in the narrative and it may become necessary to give him one (not hard since he has one already). 

At the least, main characters should have one, even if you never mention it or only mention it once as it adds a smidge of detail that makes him seem more human to the readers. Often times last names might give the reader extra information about the character. For example during Medieval Europe a persons surname was often their occupation or place where they come from, depending on the culture. For example, you could have Athos D'Aquitaine meaning he's from the french region of Aquitaine or Jonas Miller, signifying he decended from a Miller (one who grinds grain into flour). 

It may not seem that important, but it is good for adding a bit of detail to a character.


----------



## Devor (Mar 22, 2012)

I don't use surnames in my worlds.  I find them frustrating to think up, impersonal and unwieldy in the text.  I just give everyone a unique name and run with it.

Surnames weren't always used.  People used to use their profession or location or heritage to identify themselves.  Bob the blacksmith, son of Fred, of Oldwool Hill.  It's worth mentioning, some people would have named their homes and their farms and used that name to identify themselves.

The thing is, if you give a surname to your main character, you should give one to everyone in that culture.


----------



## JCFarnham (Mar 22, 2012)

I use surnames. Then again I write Urban Fantasy. We do like our last names in the modern world don't we 

With regards to having trouble choosing them, well, I don't personally worry about it too much. We don't [usually] choose our _own_ surnames so it follows that it wouldn't really matter for a fictional character. In fact I don't really pay much attention to "well chosen" first names, aside from trying to find something at least vaguely memorable. My Mc is Catherine Lewis, middle name Sophie. Not a terribly interesting name on the face of it, but take her initials and ... well that's a memorable quirk right?

haha

I wouldn't sweat it too much, besides making sure you pick something inidicative of the era you're writing in...


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Mar 22, 2012)

To me, surnames are just as important as first names. Together they form the full name of the character, which becomes a reflection of his or her identity. The hardest part for me when creating characters is always getting the name just right.



Meg the Healer said:


> I've just kinda realized that I don't really have anyone with a last name - with the exception of my male MC - which is Thomas Bane.



See? If he was just Thomas, I'd have no idea what to think of him. There are thousands of Thomases. 

"Thomas Bane" sounds like some sort of badass. That gives me _expectations_. It tells me his isn't just some random Thomas.



Devor said:


> Surnames weren't always used.  People used to use their profession or location or heritage to identify themselves.  Bob the blacksmith, son of Fred, of Oldwool Hill.



Sure, but if he's Bob the Smith, then "Smith" _is _his surname. Everyone is going to call him Bob Smith, because "Bob the Blacksmith of Oldwool Hill" is just too much of a mouthful and there are only so many Bob's in the country anyway. That's where names like Smith or Taylor comes from to begin with.

Same thing goes for Fredsson, or O'Fred, etc, etc.

What I mean is, there is actually no reason for people to lack surnames, because surnames will eventually develop on their own since people will always need to keep track of which Bob they are gossiping about.


----------



## Devor (Mar 22, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Sure, but if he's Bob the Smith, then "Smith" _is _his surname. Everyone is going to call him Bob Smith, because "Bob the Blacksmith of Oldwool Hill" is just too much of a mouthful and there are only so many Bob's in the country anyway. That's where names like Smith or Taylor comes from to begin with.



I think it's up for discussion at what point the identifier becomes a surname.  If Bob the Smith is _at_ Oldwool Hill, people will identify him as Bob the Smith.  But if he left Oldwool Hill to visit the city, he would just be Bob of Oldwool Hill because nobody there would care he's a smith (unless possibly he was selling something).  Furthermore, if his smithy burned to the ground, and he decided to retire or beg in the streets, nobody would call him Bob the Smith anymore.

If his "name" changes depending on where he is or who he's talking to or what stage of life he's at, then I wouldn't consider it part of his name.


----------



## Rikilamaro (Mar 22, 2012)

Surnames matter just as much as your characters want them to. I have several characters with and several characters without them. It defines their station in the story and can also give clues as to who may end up being more than just a passing character. 

In short, it's completely up to you and what fits in your book.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 22, 2012)

Don't forget that other types of surnames existed as well.... Names like Short, Little, Grossman, Brown, Etc.  In a time when people often had the same given name, questions were asked like, "Which Michael."  "Oh, Michael with brown hair."  And Michael became Michael Brown.  In Germany it was also popular to name people for areas, but on a smaller scale than say England.  In Germany you might be named for a landmark you lived near.  One thing to remember is that in our own history, there were many periods where travel was difficult, and people were raised and died within a few miles of where they had been born.  In fantasy where there's lots of travel and the world is more interconnected, it's probably unrealistic for people to be named for something which isn't in the immediate vicinity, but it's sort of fun if you feel like it fits.  

I had a town called Hawksrill in one of my books, and instead of using the whole word, the character's surname was shortened to Hawk.  I felt it was a pretty good compromise.  I tend to only have my upper-class characters' surnames inherited.  Common people are named by occupation or location or not at all.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 24, 2012)

I think you can get away without giving every character a surname, easily. Since you had a character named Alastor, it reminds me of a rather simple, modern example. The TV show, _Supernatural_, set in the modern world. The main characters have surnames, as they are American men. Sam and Dean Winchester. The names serve a distinct purpose, not just in terms of symbolism, but in terms of conveying something: they're related. Many other characters have surnames, simply because they are all part of the same culture as Sam and Dean (modern American). Bobby Singer, John Winchester, etc. Everyone who was born and raised in America has a surname.

Other 'cultures', if you will, exist in this world, though. Angels and demons. The angels don't have surnames. Gabriel, Balthazar, Castiel, Raphael, Michael, Lucifer. The demons and other evils don't, either. Alistair, Crowley, Ruby, Lilith. In these cultures, surnames simply aren't present. Some of them have titles. Archangel Gabriel, Castiel - Angel of Thursday. Some argue that surnames and titles are interchangeable, such as "John the Blacksmith" simply being "John Smith", and while that is true in as far as how the evolution of surnames occurred, they *are* different things. Nobody would say that King George's surname is 'George' or 'King', so why would you say that John the Blacksmith's surname is 'Smith'. There's still a step in the evolution of the surname that needs to take place, so you can *definitely* get away with it if you'd rather do that.

For your story, Thomas Bane. Surnames have not always been universal in Earth's history. Surnames in some cultures were a sign of the elite class. People with pure, historical blood would have a surname. Other times, surnames were a sign of the common man. The elite had titles, unique names, prestige. But how can you tell one John from another amongst the rabble without a second name to set them apart? Further, throughout all of history and in many cultures, surnames were sometimes given to you as much as your first name. Perhaps Thomas Bane was born Thomas, and a witch or a queen or a god named him 'Bane'. That would give you a perfectly good excuse to give him the name Thomas Bane while having other characters with only a first name.

And finally... we really don't need to know a character's surname. Perhaps Alastor *does* have a surname. But that doesn't mean we - or you - need to know it. There are entire novels written without telling us the character's *given* name. They go through the whole book as "The father" or even just "He". If you can write a book without so much as a "hey John", you can write a book without a "hey John Smith".


----------



## kadenaz (Mar 24, 2012)

Surnames are always hard to remember


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Mar 24, 2012)

kadenaz said:


> Surnames are always hard to remember



Only if they don't matter to you. Too often, the surname becomes an afterthought.

The trick is to make the readers think of the character's full name as his or her identity. He's not Bruce, or Mr Wayne. He's _Bruce Wayne._ Just "Luke" is too bland, and just "Skywalker" sounds weird. It has to be _Luke Skywalker._ Etc.


----------



## Meg the Healer (Mar 25, 2012)

Ophiucha said:


> I think you can get away without giving every character a surname, easily. Since you had a character named Alastor, it reminds me of a rather simple, modern example. The TV show, _Supernatural_, set in the modern world. The main characters have surnames, as they are American men. Sam and Dean Winchester. The names serve a distinct purpose, not just in terms of symbolism, but in terms of conveying something: they're related. Many other characters have surnames, simply because they are all part of the same culture as Sam and Dean (modern American). Bobby Singer, John Winchester, etc. Everyone who was born and raised in America has a surname.
> 
> Other 'cultures', if you will, exist in this world, though. Angels and demons. The angels don't have surnames. Gabriel, Balthazar, Castiel, Raphael, Michael, Lucifer. The demons and other evils don't, either. Alistair, Crowley, Ruby, Lilith. In these cultures, surnames simply aren't present. Some of them have titles. Archangel Gabriel, Castiel - Angel of Thursday. Some argue that surnames and titles are interchangeable, such as "John the Blacksmith" simply being "John Smith", and while that is true in as far as how the evolution of surnames occurred, they *are* different things. Nobody would say that King George's surname is 'George' or 'King', so why would you say that John the Blacksmith's surname is 'Smith'. There's still a step in the evolution of the surname that needs to take place, so you can *definitely* get away with it if you'd rather do that.
> 
> ...



That's a fair point.  I just seemed to notice this as well. With some exceptions - there seems to be a lot of calling people by the first name in Modern America and last names in Modern Britain. Maybe this is why I was wondering how important last names really are. And you were pretty close to the reason why Thomas's last name is Bane. So spot on!


----------



## The Blue Lotus (Mar 25, 2012)

I asked myself the same question.

I decided they were "real" thus they had to have a last name, even if it is only mentioned in passing. 

However my work has a lot of formailties in it and not having a last name would be very odd. 

For example:

Embarassed Trinity extended her hand "Err, hey new guy do you have a name?"  

 "David." the man replied with a nod.

"David...?" she asked pointedly, annoyed with his flippant disregard of professional courtesy.

I guess in the end it is up to you however, there will be situations where it would seem ludicrous not to have a last name. Keep that in mind.


----------



## Chilari (Mar 26, 2012)

I used to prefer to not use surnames, because it was easier to only have to think of one name, and I wasn't using them anyway. But when there's a city population where not everyone knows everyone else, surnames serve as identifiers, so realistically I felt I needed to use them - even if it was just to denote profession or the father's name. But even as far back as archaic Athens, the father's name and what part of Attica someone was from were used to identify people. So why shouldn't any other culture, especially if they are more technologically or socially advanced than that.

For the story I'm working on at the moment, I've created a surname system which uses profession and marital status, and also includes things like if they were born into an elite/ruling class family, what their rank is if they're in the military, and for married women with jobs, both their husband's and their own professions. This means the surname is subject to change if you get a promotion, get married, or change jobs. It also means that unrelated people with the same job have the same surname - and that people with knowledge of someone's death can really screw up when addressing that person's widow before she's found out.

I think giving surnames to characters, while not always necessary, can serve to flesh out the world more. It tells the reader you've thought about it, enables you to distinguish between people of different cultures in a subtle way by giving them different systems for their surnames, and enables formal and informal modes of address.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 26, 2012)

I had a cool little list of stuff I tried to post, but i hit back on my browser and it went away... anyways, it was about nicknames, and i found it here Regia Anglorum - Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman and British Living History 850-1100AD

Maybe that might give you some more ideas.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 26, 2012)

I think like a lot of things in writing, it depends. Sometimes characters even don't have first names or names at all.  The important thing is how well the name given to the character works in capturing the essence of character. Sometimes a first name like Bob will work. Other times just the last name like MacGyver Or both, Thurston Howell the Third. It all depends on what the name says about the character like Lord Bad Ass of the Tushywack Clan. And as always it's up to the author to determine these things.


----------

