Character Names -- When and How

[Asura Levi]

Something that aways block me when I start anything is how I should introduce my characters, beginning with the Main Character.

The two ways I use often and never know which is 'better' are:
- Describing his actions and giving his name straight away.
OR
- Describing his actions without naming him and waiting until a proper dialogue to refer to him by the name.

I really stuck every single time I'm faced with this.

So I was wondering, how you guys do/prefer/fell more confortable, both reading and writing.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Personally, I think it really depends on your narrative flow. If you only have one character in the scene it's ok to put off identifying them for a paragraph or three, but that being said I also think it is a good rule of thumb to get them named asap, to better cement their identity in the mind of the reader. And if you introduce more than one character at a time, it is imperative to identify them quickly to avoid reader confusion.

 

[Trick]

I don't think I've ever done it the same way twice. I know that my most recent MC intro was in 1stP POV and since he's a thief basically writing a memoir I have him tell the story of the first time he stole something. No names are mentioned until the scene closes and since he's an epic and famous character it closes with him giving his name in an almost Name of the Wind esque way. As Rothfuss's Kvothe put it, "You may have heard of me..." Though I didn't use those words, it has a similiar feel.

Now that I've rambled, I guess I'm saying you can introduce them in the way their personality dictates.

 

[BWFoster78]

I've never understood, assuming you're using 3rd person limited, why you would hold off naming the character. It's a crucial piece of information that helps the reader connect to the character. It's also a piece of information that's known to the POV character, assuming he doesn't have some form of amnesia.

 

[Trick]

There could be any number of reasons to hold off naming the character. Maybe you want the feel of mystery around the MC or you want to let readers decide what they think before they have a lingual way of identifying the character. I would just avoid going past chapter one without it. That's just me though. I know of one book that never names the MC.

 

[BWFoster78]

There could be any number of reasons to hold off naming the character. Maybe you want the feel of mystery around the MC or you want to let readers decide what they think before they have a lingual way of identifying the character. I would just avoid going past chapter one without it. That's just me though. I know of one book that never names the MC.

I think you can do that if you're using 3rd person omniscient or the POV of a different character who doesn't know the identity of the character. If you're in a person's head, though, the person knows their identity unless they have some form of mental problem.

To not give the character's name from the start, imo, is a break from POV in 3rd person limited.

 

[Trick]

I think you can do that if you're using 3rd person omniscient or the POV of a different character who doesn't know the identity of the character. If you're in a person's head, though, the person knows their identity unless they have some form of mental problem.

To not give the character's name from the start, imo, is a break from POV in 3rd person limited.

If I was in your head right now, seeing things from your point of view, would you be thinking about your name?

On the other hand, if you're introducing yourself to me, then you would of course give me your name. I think that when and where the story begins dictates when the MC introduces themselves.

 

[BWFoster78]

If I was in your head right now, seeing things from your point of view, would you be thinking about your name?

On the other hand, if you're introducing yourself to me, then you would of course give me your name. I think that when and where the story begins dictates when the MC introduces themselves.

The point is that I know my name. To artificially withhold information known by the character is, imo, one of the worst things a writer can do.

By starting with "he" instead of "Bob," you're essentially doing something like:

Bob walked into his house and observed a rectangular piece of furniture, red with fluffy cushions.

Bob knows that the piece of furniture is his couch. Not calling it a couch is a break in POV.

 

[Trick]

BWFoster78 - I see your point better now. I don't disagree, I guess I could say what I meant better. What I'm thinking of is a gradual shift in narrative distance. The farther away you start the less you need any names. As you get closer and more intimate, names become required. IMHO a writer can use narrative distance to dance around the MC's name to create a desired effect. I don't think it should be prolongued in most situations but it can work.

 

[BWFoster78]

Trick,

As I've stated many, many times: An author can do whatever he wants, as long as it works.

I think, though, that the method you described should be used with care. Readers tend to get annoyed when they feel that the author is trying to deceive them (against their will instead of with it, anyway).

On a personal note, I find the lack of a character name at the very beginning to be quite annoying. I want to be inside the character's head and as quickly as possible.

Thanks.

Brian

 

[Trick]

I don't know about others but I wouldn't use it as deception so much as a tension builder. I agree it has to be used with care though. To be honest, I think the only time I would employ it is how I mentioned earlier - to let the reader make a judgmenet of the character without yet having a label for them.

Thank you for the discourse

 

[Asura Levi]

Hey, got more answer them was expecting. I like who it developed.

Actually, my initial goal was more to know what you guys use. As stated, some situations demand the name to be given straigh away (if you are introducing more than one) while in other you can delay a little.

When I'm faced with the former is fine, names must be given, but whenever I have a third person POV about a stranger, I end up holding his name and using 'synonyms' that describe him and what he does (traveller, hunter, wizard, soldier). Something that an outsider would see and interpret.

I know, in the end is what it works best for the situation, but I still get indecise whenever it happen.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I think there's a few ways to do this.

1. The setting sun cast long shadows over the group of travelers. Trees, towering above blah blah... The lone sniper in the shadows watched as the men made their way through the canyon, waiting for his perfect moment.

Okay, if you do it that way, it can lead into the POV and giving the name of the sniper, but sets up the scene first. I don't find it distracting.

2. Cecil peered down the stock of his crossbow, watching, waiting as the travelers made their way through the canyon. He'd only get one shot. Better to wait a moment and make it count.

Okay, so if you divulge the name right off the bat, you get right into the character and maybe bypass the set-up. Either works fine, I say, But it depends how you want your reader to see things. Do you want to set the imagery first or have them focus more on the character first?

I would say either of these could otentially be very powerful and they both have a different feel. Some writers will favor one over the other. Now, if the question were different, say, asking whether delaying a chapter to give the name, I would have to say that would be distracting. I would never advocate waiting to name a character, especially a pOV character, that long.

In the case of first person, I think it can be alright to wait a bit longer. Here's a first person thing I wrote up and how I introduced his name on page two:

I can’t remember how I got this job. I figure I’ve worked for Santino for five years. My car’s an ’08, my lease is month-to-month, and I have pictures of a dog on my wall I can’t remember. And there’s no trace of fur in my house. My driver’s license says I’m thirty-two, but I’m betting it’s fake. I don’t recognize the name Harvey Sanderson, anyways. I remember my parents, nice people. I doubt they’d name a kid Harvey. They seemed to care too much, for that.

 

[BWFoster78]

Caged Maiden,

While I agree that both methods have a different feel and can both be powerful, I urge authors to consider the modern marketplace. Simply put, unless you have a name or a lot of publicity behind you, you don't have a lot of time to draw in a reader. If one happens upon your book's Amazon page, your best hope is that he'll be interested enough to check out your sample. If he gets that far, you better reel him in fast, or you're going to lose him.

Take your two examples:

The setting sun cast long shadows over the group of travelers.

Yawn. I don't care about the weather. This does nothing to draw me in. Based on that one line, I'd be off to find another book.

Cecil peered down the stock of his crossbow.

Now there's a hook. I have a character performing an intriguing action. What's going on here? I'm not sure if I'm going to buy the book, but I'm interested enough to go to the next line.

Thanks.

Brian

 

[Creed]

Take your two examples:

The setting sun cast long shadows over the group of travelers.

Yawn. I don't care about the weather. This does nothing to draw me in. Based on that one line, I'd be off to find another book.

Cecil peered down the stock of his crossbow.

Now there's a hook. I have a character performing an intriguing action. What's going on here? I'm not sure if I'm going to buy the book, but I'm interested enough to go to the next line.

But these are two very different lines, and if they mirror each other then the comparison is more useful. Let's change it…

Cecil peered down the stock of his crossbow.

As you said, interesting.

The assassin peered down the stock of his crossbow.

Now how about that? The use of "the assassin" is far more intriguing than just plain old "Cecil". Now I get the impression of mystery, and that there's something interesting going to happen. True, in either line it's interesting, but assassin implies the death of an important person, and that mystery provides a better hook than Cecil.
As a reader I may also scoff at the idea of someone named "Cecil" about to kill someone. Shallow, I know.
BWFoster78 says that the name is important in getting "inside the character's head and as quickly as possible," but I'm of a different opinion. The actions and dialogue and thoughts are important, and if the author can withhold a name AND manage to create that mentioned sense of tension or mystery, then they have elicited an emotional reaction from me. Which, I might add, is far more connecting or important than a name- even if the character shares mine.
If a character is absolutely essential to the plot, then their name is probably best given immediately. But calls them "Bill" or call them "the assassin in the black garb" and I'll still know the same amount about this person.
Waiting can be effective, and whether reading or writing that's a good thing. Giving the name off the bat can be… quicker… more immediate. I suppose it depends on the situation, the character, and altogether the mood.

 

[Asura Levi]

Creed, in this scenario, 'the assassin peered down...', would you keep using assassin or similars or would you name the character soon after?

 

[BWFoster78]

Creed,

To be clear, I specifically addressed Caged Maiden's two methods in my post. Method one: setting leading to character. Method two: starting with character.

The way you wrote your opening, to me, implied that my comparison was somehow invalid. Apologies if I misread that. I'm going to proceed as if you agree that starting with character is better but disagree on the particulars.

To me, it relates back to POV.

Are you using 3rd person limited or omniscient?

If the former, I feel like you're either a) trying to trick me as a reader or b) don't realize you're breaking POV. Neither way makes me want to read further. (Though I will readily admit that I'm much more particular about such things as the average reader.)

The real trouble, however, is in the lack of deep POV. If you're going to do something like that for the first line, you aren't inside a character's head. You'll probably pepper your entire work with filters through a narrator like: Cecil saw a target and Cecil heard a crossbow bolt.

To me, you're either deep inside your character's head or you're not. Truthfully, I have no interest in reading something from an unknown author that isn't written from a deep POV.

 

[Trick]

To me, you're either deep inside your character's head or you're not. Truthfully, I have no interest in reading something from an unknown author that isn't written from a deep POV.

Spoken like a writer, not just a reader, IMO. I think Creed's above example is perfect. A further narrative distance introducing you to the character and situation may only need to last a sentence or two but it can be creatively beneficial. Then, shorteneing the ND puts you into the character's head and you know more about him, and might even feel more comfortable. I say 'you' in a general sense because I don't think that you, BWFoster, will ever agree with this, and that's okay. I see your point too, I just feel a bit differently.

 

[Creed]

Creed, in this scenario, 'the assassin peered down...', would you keep using assassin or similars or would you name the character soon after?

In this case I would not keep the name a secret for very long, unless this assassin is a one-time-offer and doesn't appear again. Through my example I establish a character (however nameless, as of yet), and action, and a mood. I don't need to continue with pronouns for much afterwards to keep that feeling stuck in the reader's mind.

The way you wrote your opening, to me, implied that my comparison was somehow invalid. Apologies if I misread that. I'm going to proceed as if you agree that starting with character is better but disagree on the particulars.

I do agree that starting with character is a good place to start, but I was also commenting on the invalidness of the comparison. Of course you were just using CagedMaiden's example, but for a proper analysis of our subject the two were apples and oranges.

Are you using 3rd person limited or omniscient?

Third person limited, following a wide cast of characters. It's important for authors like me to be able to use tricks and take risks in the goal of gaining interest, and the highest goal of any author should be to elicit emotion, not portray it. I think this name idea is one of many different ways to get that emotion.

If the former, I feel like you're either a) trying to trick me as a reader or b) don't realize you're breaking POV. Neither way makes me want to read further. (Though I will readily admit that I'm much more particular about such things as the average reader.)

I suppose you could call it a trick, but it isn't that kind. As for the rest of the paragraph, I see you're a very observant person, and that's a good thing. But I also see that this comes as a sort of orthodoxy in your reading and writing. Convention. You are concerned for all of us in terms of getting ourselves out there, and that these sorts of "tricks" can only be done by the well known. But this isn't a stunt, it's just a offering way of conveying it, and that carries a risk.
Just to show that it can be a good thing for the reader and writer (assuming the consumer-base is not composed of people do observant as yourself) I'd like to bring forward the book Fight Club. It's a great book, with very intriguing characters, and the MC is never named. For me this was brilliant, especially after I did my analysis of the novel and it's Buddhist themes. The lack of a name is a useful tool, and yet we are absolutely in the character's head, considering the narrative to be a single continuous thought stream. Now consider it as Chuck Palahniuk's debut novel.
It's a little bit of a tangent, but it has value for the conversation. The MC knew his name, even with Tyler Durden playing around in his head he knew it and even told Marla Singer his name in a Café. It's being kept from us not as deception, but as a tool to illustrate the character- lack of physical identity and inherent insanity aside. Of course I wouldn't recommend keeping it a secret for very long, especially if it's not in the first person.
In conclusion (this is not an essay), giving the name of a character immediately or later is dependent on the author's intentions and the character(s) in the setting. When I read about "an assassin" preparing to work, I ask myself "Who is this man?" and wonder about his intentions, his employers, etc. more than I would if it was "Cecil". In my humble opinion even just that one sentence without a name can elicit curiosity and mystery that poor old Cecil couldn't do on the first line. Both BWFoster78 and Trick are correct I think, but I'm sure that most readers are more forgiving in this "deception" and "POV breaks". And, after all, "An author can do whatever he wants, as long as it works." So readers should remember each side of the argument and consider their desires and the efficacy of whatever method they choose.

 

[Trick]

Earlier I mentioned that I knew of a book that never named the MC. Fight Club is exactly the book I meant. And, of course, it's fantastic. However, just because it was done by Chuck Palahniuk does not mean it should be done by me. I doubt I could pull that off and get a movie deal to boot!

Thank you Creed and BWFoster for the very worthwhile back and forth on this. I feel I've learned something from this post.