Advise on handling name changes

[S. Borne]

I'd like some advise. I have gods in my published books, and the same gods with different names in my "how it all began" manuscript. This is intentional. But I didn't address this change. I do have a codex where I note it however. The plan is to create a vibrant world where I can now play between the genesis and Spirals in Ash. My question is, should I address it in the manuscript, perhaps in the Epilogue, or keep it in the codex, which I can publish with the manuscript?
Codex excerpt: The divergence of names between the codices of Spiralkeep and the chronicles of Greymoor is not mere erosion of memory. In the centuries after the god‑wars, scattered sects unearthed fragments of the old scrolls. These sects, desperate to anchor their rituals, misread the glyphs and spirals, mistaking dominion for identity.

Thus Pyreth was re‑spoken as Ilyrion, his fire remembered only through visions of burning cities. Thalos became Maroth, his tide misinterpreted as inevitability rather than covenant. Graven was renamed Serathis, stone twisted from foundation into suffocating imprisonment. Sylith was recalled as Kaelith, her prophecy mistaken for inevitability, stripping mortals of choice.

Only Vorath and Aelthar endured unchanged. Hunger and balance were too central to be misread, too deeply carved into mortal survival to be forgotten.

The sects’ misinterpretations spread through Greymoor’s rituals, until the distorted names became the only ones spoken. What began as error hardened into tradition, and tradition became truth. In this way, the kin’s names fractured as surely as their dominions, leaving mortals to worship echoes rather than origins.

 

[pmmg]

If that is the tone of the writing of it, I would include it at the end.

One way this might be handled is a clash between purists, and those who use the new names as to which is more holy or accurate. Thus, you could bring up the names in a story context.

 

[ThinkerX]

Glen Cook put it best:

'Gods have more names than a two-hundred-year-old con artist.'

In real-world mythology, the names and functions of various Gods shifted from place to place and time to time.

 

[pmmg]

Glen Cook put it best:

'Gods have more names than a two-hundred-year-old con artist.'

In real-world mythology, the names and functions of various Gods shifted from place to place and time to time.

I would go with this, but for it being a fantasy world where these Gods may be actual. When Zues turned into Jupiter, there was no actual Zues to assert his preference, but he might have if he had been a real being. So, if the Gods dont like it, they can make it clear that the names are wrong.

I was thinking more along the lines of how Yeshua, became Jesus. And how some might choose to say, you are saying it wrong if you are not using Yeshua.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Does it have an impact on the story? Are both sets of names used in the story? If it's a nice to know piece of worldbuilding, then including it in an apendix or similar is fine. If it somehow plays a role in the story, then you need to explain it in the text somewhere.

Most readers aren't going to hunt for little clues at the back of the book. So don't force them to do so to make sense of your story. If it's just flavoring however, like in Lord of the Rings when Morgoth is mentioned, then go for it. It'll deepen your world.

 

[S. Borne]

Thank you all for the responses. I have a growing codex with everything going on in this world, so I may keep track of everything. And a Nortantis map that keeps getting updated. I want to play between the two ages in the timeline, and end the series with a spectacular and definitive ending... World building is quite a challenge.

 

[TheKillerBs]

I would go with this, but for it being a fantasy world where these Gods may be actual. When Zues turned into Jupiter, there was no actual Zues to assert his preference, but he might have if he had been a real being. So, if the Gods dont like it, they can make it clear that the names are wrong.

I was thinking more along the lines of how Yeshua, became Jesus. And how some might choose to say, you are saying it wrong if you are not using Yeshua.

Zeus never turned into Jupiter. Zeus is the deity's name in Greek. Jupiter is his name in Latin. Both come from PIE *dhyeus (with the addition of *pater in the case of the Latin).

ETA: re: the "if you don't say it Yeshua you're saying it wrong crowd", this sentiment is especially funny when you consider that in the first century, the 'ayin was not pronounced in Galilee (and was pronounced as a purely pharyngeal consonant rather than as a pharyngealised vowel elsewhere in the Aramaic-speaking world) in the first century, so they're also not pronouncing Jesus' name as He would have.

 

[S. Borne]

Zeus never turned into Jupiter. Zeus is the deity's name in Greek. Jupiter is his name in Latin. Both come from PIE *dhyeus (with the addition of *pater in the case of the Latin).

ETA: re: the "if you don't say it Yeshua you're saying it wrong crowd", this sentiment is especially funny when you consider that in the first century, the 'ayin was not pronounced in Galilee (and was pronounced as a purely pharyngeal consonant rather than as a pharyngealised vowel elsewhere in the Aramaic-speaking world) in the first century, so they're also not pronouncing Jesus' name as He would have.

There aren't any gods to dislike names, names are abstract. The gods are essence fragments. They don't care what people call them, as long as they are called. As long as their essence is called, no matter the name.