How many characters do you name, and based on what?

[Finchbearer]

Real life is indeed stranger than fiction.

It was more a response to pmmg saying ‘The world is full of superfluous people.’

In fiction we get to curate and create the readers viewpoint to any greater or lesser extent. In a city, unless there is a zombie apocalypse, we as the reader are going to assume there are other people there, but as writers we get to choose how much we describe that, and to what extent characters become characters at all.

 

[Karlin]

The waiter serving you a drink doesn't require a name. Though in real life I will likely ask him/her for their name. As usual, I can't helpp but mention some Chinese side to this:

Romance of the Three Kingdoms is acclaimed as one of the Four Great Classical Novels of Chinese literature; it has a total of 800,000 words and nearly a thousand dramatic characters (mostly historical) in 120 chapters.[1] The novel is among the most beloved works of literature in East Asia,[2] and its literary influence in the region has been compared to that of the works of Shakespeare on English literature

The 1,000 characters might be easier to handle if you know Chinese...

 

[Ban]

It varies. I follow pretty much what you do, Ban. If it's a walk-on character or an indirect character, they won't usually get a name. If they're in more than one scene, or if they're in a scene where they have lines and directly affect events, then it's likely they will get a name.

All add some more nuance. I'm currently writing a series. So I've become aware that if I use a name in Book 1, I probably want to avoid that name in Book 5, if they are in fact two different characters. This tends to put a strain on my character lists. Sort of balancing that out is that my character group moves across multiple cultures, so what's a common name in Langobardia is not going to be the same up in Frisia. Elf names differ from dwarf names, and so on.

This extends, btw, to objects. If I start making up names for plants, animals, and so on, that now becomes a story-telling issue. Is the elf name for a walnut tree the same as the dwarf name for the same tree? Is it called the same in Albion as it is in Ungarn? It's easy to think, only if it matters, but the mattering part is up to me and it does tend to be on the the list entitled "Things That Distract Me From Writing".

There is some worldbuilding potential for overlapping words in the sense of loanwords or doublets, but restricting specific words to specific (con-)languages seems to be the simplest approach. For my current work I only use one conlang, which finds its expression exclusively through place names and words that have been retained in the dialect these people speak. The conlang informing that dialect would in the real-world be deemed critically endangered, so it does not feature in the story as a fully-fledged thing. The few folks speaking it are simply described as speaking it, without the words themselves being shown.

Straying off-topic, I wonder in regards to "Ungarn" if that German name has become the common word for Hungary in your setting? I presume the Hungarians themselves still refer to their country as Magyarország, but names shift and are adopted in often strange patterns. The myriad names of Germany can attest to this.

 

[Ban]

For me, if it makes sense for a character's name to come up, then the name comes up. I don't concern myself with the number of names given out. I just try to make sure everything is clear about who characters are if they show up a second time.

In my WIP, I probably have well over a dozen or two named characters that show up only briefly and are never seen again. For example, I have a pawnshop owner that only shows up for one scene, but they're named because someone else in the scene knows them and calls them by name. In another scene a character is talking to the bartender in a tavern, and the bartender is interacting not only with the POV character, they're interacting with the patrons sitting at the bar. The patrons and the bartender know each other, so they call each other by name.

From my perspective, the world starts to feel really small when the only names you hear are for characters that play major roles in the story.

That's a fair approach. The concern regarding the amount of names started for me because I am trying to constrain the story and its world to something that is short, standalone, but re-readable. I feel that the more characters and plot-lines there are (especially unresolved), the more an audience might expect more of the world to be shown in future installments. For me, this tale should become something concise, but which can be read a second time to gain a new perspective on its relatively simply narrative. One way I hope to achieve this is by making each character that appears be in some greater or smaller capacity meaningful to the main characters, so that each of their brief appearances add to the experience. I think that the longer and more sprawling a story is, the less need there is for such a tight cast.

 

[Mad Swede]

Any character who interacts with one of my protagonists or one of my antagonists has a name. The name may not get mentioned in the story, but they have a name. This allows me to re-use these characters as well as giving the setting and the story a bit more depth. To me it is important, in that in real life everyone you meet has a name, a life and some sort of aims in life. You may not know them, but these things are what make them people - and people matter.

 

[JBCrowson]

I tend to come up with names for most characters, even if I don't use them in the text, as I find they make a searchable list easier.
My guide to using the name in the text for non central characters is roughly "if the POV character has need to use it, ask it or tell it to someone else then I'll put it in at the point that use / asking, telling happens."

 

[LittleOwlbear]

My protagonists of course and beside that... it depends, if the pov character should know someone's name. If they are supposed to know their name, I will give them one. Even if it reduces the amount of names in a novel, I feel it's unnatural that a pov character doesn't call someone by their name, even if it's only in their own mind.

 

[Gurkhal]

Personally I love bloated settings with a ton of characters, not all of whom plays a significent part in the whole of the story, because life in my experience is just like that.

Stories which have trimmed down on the ammount of characters bores and drive me to disinterested in what happens at large and it feels so very artificial.

Not to mention that keeping a grey mass of people on the border of existing at all means that I couldn't care less what happens to them. So when the author tries to raise the stakes and say "Thousands of lives are at stake!" I'm like "So what? I've barely seen a hint of their existance so what do I care if they barely exist or don't exist?"

Give me faces, names and people popping in and out of the story. Make me see and feel how the characters are moving around and within a living society and world and I will care if thousands of lives are at stake.

 

[Daan Doornbos]

An 'old' thread, but I would like to reply as well, because currently busy naming and filling out side characters. I think this matters a lot because it adds to the immersiveness and cohesion of the story. But it should be used with moderation. And be to the point. The reader should feel there's a certain depth to your world, but he should not get lost or become bored out.

 

[pmmg]

My protagonists of course and beside that... it depends, if the pov character should know someone's name. If they are supposed to know their name, I will give them one. Even if it reduces the amount of names in a novel, I feel it's unnatural that a pov character doesn't call someone by their name, even if it's only in their own mind.

In conversation, oft times people speak to each other without ever speaking the others name. And at times becomes awkward to find a way to include it. Like, if the MC knows their name, and its not conversational to speak it, they would not ask, and the other would not likely volunteer. And if they know their name, but the author has not introduced the character yet, it can lead to an awkward presentation as well. Its something to wrestle with with the art of the prose. And, of course, may people are called things that are not really their names.

Properly introducing character is a art, one not to be taken lightly.

I will maintain my disagreement with Finch on this one. But, if any want to name every character that appears on camera, they are welcome to. I will agree that once named they can have more depth, and that names in general help make real the world.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

An 'old' thread, but I would like to reply as well, because currently busy naming and filling out side characters. I think this matters a lot because it adds to the immersiveness and cohesion of the story. But it should be used with moderation. And be to the point. The reader should feel there's a certain depth to your world, but he should not get lost or become bored out.

Oh, hon. This site's well over a decade old, and some folks just have a fondness for the necro. Enjoy! lol

 

[MudDobber]

I actually thought everybody always names all their characters.

 

[pmmg]

What was the name of the orc that laughs at Aragorn when he is pulled over the cliff in the Two towers?

Was he not a character? He had lines of dialog.

 

[Gurkhal]

What was the name of the orc that laughs at Aragorn when he is pulled over the cliff in the Two towers?

Was he not a character? He had lines of dialog.

The audience might not get to know the name of said Orc, but I wouldn't be suprised if he didn't have a name in the script and a name the actors knew.

EDITED: As someone once wrote, even if you have things moving in the background its important for the author to know of them even if they don't came into the stage light.

 

[dollyt8]

I don't necessarily recommend this, but my process is basically if a character appears more than once, I give them a name. So I probably name a lot of characters that aren't very important.

 

[pmmg]

The audience might not get to know the name of said Orc, but I wouldn't be suprised if he didn't have a name in the script and a name the actors knew.

EDITED: As someone once wrote, even if you have things moving in the background its important for the author to know of them even if they don't came into the stage light.

I picked that orc cause he's listed as 'unnamed orc' in the credits.

Now, the action figure companies may have given him a name, which is where a lot of star wars characters got their names, but that's not the point. The fact is, characters can appear in stories, play a role, and not have names, and there is no reason to invent them.

There is no harm if you want to figure out their names, but....there may also be not enough benefit to matter. I don't have to know their names to know the background as to why they are there.

/this thread

 

[Demesnedenoir]

They aren't actors in a movie with a union, so they don't get paid... I name piles of people, heh heh. If ever they form a union and demand a pay structure that increases their wage because they were "named" then lots of things will change.

 

[Gurkhal]

If my characters were unionized I would probably name more of them so that they could make a decent living out of their jobs.

 

[Daan Doornbos]

I picked that orc cause he's listed as 'unnamed orc' in the credits

Well, given the attention we're paying him right now perhaps he's earned himself a name?

Also, this topic reminds me of Planescape Torment: its main character was called the Nameless One. Which is a name as well, at the same time it's not. Entire story was built around this guy.

 

[Mordred Lung Silver]

This question is asked purely out of curiosity, as I don't believe there is a right or a wrong approach. It was prompted by an activity today, as I have sifted through my work-in-progress to decide which characters I ought to remove, unify or adapt. Part of this process entails the removal of names of those characters I deemed too inconsequential to burden my reader with. I based these decisions on a simple consideration. Namely, does the character feature in two or more chapters that aren't directly linked (for example, chapters 5 and 12, not 5 and 6), and are they physically present in those scenes? This culled family and friends of characters who otherwise had no role in the story, relegating them to "son of" or "wife of." I believe this cuts down on clutter, reducing the amount of mental juggling I ask from the audience. In regards to the second point, historical characters are of course partially excused, though even with them I prefer their presence to be physical in a sense (monuments, icons, armour, etc...). All in all, I wager I will be left with just over twenty named characters once this tale is complete (most being contemporary). So now I turn the question to you. What is your approach?

I agree that naming a character is an indicator of their importance. I would say that it should probably coincide, roughly, with when the reader is likely to agree with that importance. In other words, when is this character someone the reader wants help keeping track of, in and of themselves, and not just a reflection, contrast, or foil, for another character.