Using names too often?

[Holoman]

Hi

I had some feedback on my writing recently that I used character's names too often and it got a bit repetitive. I think this mainly affects a scene in which there are 3 people interacting in quick succession so I need to make it clear who is talking/doing something.

The reader said I should refer to them under other names so it's not so repetitive, like 'the young man'. But my thoughts on this is that it reads really badly and just confuses the reader as they start to think there is another person there that hasn't been introduced.

For example in this part I use the name 'Darius' four times in hardly any words, and the reader said it got a bit grating.

‘You going to walk, or do I have to keep carrying you?’ Morden asked, turning to Darius.

‘I’ll walk,’ said Darius. He had no wish to be manhandled any further.

‘If we run into anyone, I’ll keep them busy while you two carry on ahead,’ whispered Belth. ‘We can’t afford for Darius to get caught.’

Darius wondered..etc

Does this kind of thing annoy readers or is it just this person? The only way around it I think is to rewrite it so that I don't need to use his name so much.

 

[La Volpe]

I do find that it tends to become grating. But you might be able to cut out some of that.

E.g. 'You going to walk, or do I have to keep carrying you?’ Morden asked, turning to Darius.
‘I’ll walk,’ said Darius. He had no wish to be manhandled any further.

Either of the two underlined bits can be removed without changing the meaning. And if only Darius is being carried, then there is no need to mention "turning to Darius" after the first line, and you can just remove both. If it's important that he turned, you can just say "turning around" or whatever.

In places where edits like this can't happen, I would try to reshuffle things so you can avoid the repeated name. It has the same effect as the repeated words, e.g. The door swung open. With a lunge, John swung his sword at the revealed guard. It's technically fine, but it irks me a bit.

 

[Penpilot]

The reader said I should refer to them under other names so it's not so repetitive, like 'the young man'. But my thoughts on this is that it reads really badly and just confuses the reader as they start to think there is another person there that hasn't been introduced.

NO-NO-NO. In this instance, don't use different labels to refer to one person. You hit the nail on the head on what one of the big issues with that are. There's even a name for this type of thing. It's called the 'Burly Detective Syndrome."

First, you can try to rewrite things to space out and/or reduce the number of proper names, but I wouldn't force it. Second, readers who are engaged in the story probably won't even notice. What they will notice is a previously unknown 'young man' suddenly showing up.

To me, unless it's something like "Bob walked down the street. Bob hummed a tune. Bob thought it was a nice day. Bob couldn't wait to start work." I wouldn't worry too much about it, especially when dealing with three characters. IMHO when a scene has more than two characters, it's important to be clear about who's speaking and doing actions.

And I repeat, readers won't notice. It's like the word 'said' or 'I'. they're practically invisible within the context of an interesting story. But don't take my word for it. Take a peek into some of your favorite books. See how often proper names are used in the same type of context.


Edit. Here's a definition I googled to what the Burley Detective Syndrom is.

"Burly Detective" Syndrome

Fear of proper names. Found in most of the same pulp magazines that abound with "said" bookisms and Tom Swifties. This is where you can't call Mike Shayne "Shayne" but substitute "the burly detective" or "the red-headed sleuth." Like the "said" bookish it comes from the entirely wrong-headed conviction that you can't use the same word twice in the same sentence, paragraph, or even page. This is only true of particularly strong and highly visible words, like, say, "vertiginous." It's always better to re-use an ordinary, simple noun or verb rather than contrive a cumbersome method of avoiding it.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I didn't find that excerpt you posted annoying at all. It sounds fairly natural. Maybe if this sort of thing went on for many pages, it would get irritating. I don't know. It ultimately comes down to what you think is too much.
However, please, please, PLEASE do not replace the characters' names with things like "the young man." It's annoying, confusing and, as you pointed out, sounds unnatural.

 

[FifthView]

It depends.

Lately, I'm leery of saying yes or no to a simple rule, when questions are raised about it here, because context can make a large difference.

In a short section like the given example, it's not so big a deal, especially if these instances are relatively rare and spaced out. But like La Volpe, I think that frequent uses of a proper name can become grating, for me. If the entire story or book were written like that, I'd probably not like it. I don't know how much this is a matter of personal preference.

Similarly, avoiding the use of other tags or descriptions for characters, out of fear of Burly Detective Syndrome, can be taken to extremes or at least can be rather limiting.

Even in a short section like the example, La Volpe's suggestion can make the passage flow a little better:

'You going to walk, or do I have to keep carrying you?’ Morden asked.
‘I’ll walk,’ said Darius. He had no wish to be manhandled any further.​

I haven't read whatever precedes this, but I'd think that the context was clear. Morden had already been carrying Darius? So there's no great need to point out that Morden was speaking directly to Darius, i.e., was turning to Darius?

I like using action tags also. Is that the proper term? I mean something like this:

'You going to walk, or do I have to keep carrying you?’ Morden asked.

‘I’ll walk.’ Darius had no wish to be manhandled any further.

Belth leaned closer to them. ‘If we run into anyone, I’ll keep them busy while you two carry on ahead. We can’t afford for Darius to get caught.’

Darius wondered..etc​

I don't know if they are crouching, etc., so maybe Belth doesn't lean. Said is often not noticed by readers, but using asked and then whispered does draw a little more attention, and using these with the names can accentuate the names also, particularly when that structure is repeated in a short span:

• Morden asked
• said Darius
• Belth whispered

So maybe going with some action tags might limit, a little, the sense of repetition.

Again, I don't think that the repetition is so bad in your short example, so this might not be an issue in that context. If the story is rather engaging, a reader might have no problem even with longer stretches of that kind of quick back and forth between multiple characters. I'm not sure to what degree this is an issue of varying styles or personal preferences.

Burly Detective Syndrome becomes an issue when multiple tags for a character, or descriptions, are used merely as substitutes for the proper name. But sometimes using a single tag can be useful for reminding readers of important context, i.e., if the tag is meaningful (rather than being a mere substitute.) So for example, if multiple people are debating a strategy for tomorrow's attack, using "the younger man" could accentuate the fact that the character is rash, less experienced, etc., while the other two older, more experienced tacticians are thinking more rationally. But you do need to establish the context earlier, so that readers don't become confused with the reference.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I'm going with FV on this, in a small sample, not so bad, but a continuation of this would get annoying to my editor-brain first, then my reader-brain. I wouldn't dismiss the critique out of hand, I'd take a good hard look and pare things down.

 

[Caged Maiden]

If you have three or more people in the scene, use their names. When you edit, try to take out as many as possible without distorting things. The plain answer is that readers WANT to know who's talking and who's moving/ doing something, and by getting too fancy, you risk being unclear, and unclear writing is what most makes scenes confusing.

If you have a person who is identified by their profession or something, it's okay to use:

"Could you give me a hand?" Joe asked. Amulets fell from the table, too many for him to hold all at once.
"I'm a bit busy," the wizard replied, his arms full of scrolls. "Get Bob to help you."
"Bob's waiting downstairs with the horses. Hurry up, now. Are those scrolls really that important?"
"I'm right here," Bob said, entering the ransacked tower. "The horses are tied up and saddled."
"You left them alone?" Fred shuffled toward the door, with his wizard robe tied up like a maid's apron, holding a dozen or more scrolls. "Get back down to the horses. Didn't you hear? There are thieves looting this town..."
Bob chuckled. "You don't say..."
"Yep, true story."


Plainly, if you have multiple people talking, you need to have names to identify speakers. The thing is, writing a conversation should be a combination of dialogue tags and beats, and as long as you can have people doing things, the names don't feel rapid-fire.

Hope that helps. I can't say why the reader felt the names were too much, but for me, the bit you posted read just fine. Especially if it's not how you typically write all dialogues, like when only two people are speaking. I tend to be a dialogue tag minimalist, but I don't shy away from using names, because it's the easiest way to be clear.

 

[Holoman]

Thanks all. Ill have to try and tidy any bits where it gets excessive just be reordering. And the action tags is a good idea, thanks fifthview

 

[Incanus]

What FV is calling 'action tags' are sometimes called 'dialogue beats'. I'm fond of them and use them regularly. But like anything, moderation is called for. I also occasionally use titles like Caged Maiden said. I'm probably guilty of using 'the burly detective' thing from time to time as well. But that's what editing is for (well... that and twenty-million other things).

 

[troynos]

Using things like "the young man" only works if you've established earlier who the 'young man' is otherwise it can seem like a new person has entered the scene. If the three have clear roles, can use that as it's been established already and the reader will know who "the warrior" is (for example).


‘You going to walk, or do I have to keep carrying you?’ Morden asked, turning to Darius.

‘I’ll walk,’ said Darius. He had no wish to be manhandled any further.

‘If we run into anyone, I’ll keep them busy while you two carry on ahead,’ whispered Belth. ‘We can’t afford for Darius to get caught.’

Darius wondered..etc

One thing to do is establish a POV character for the scene. If Darius is the main character for that scene, you can replace his name with pronouns. Just need to make sure it's clear who the "he" is.

Without seeing how many times 'Darius' appears before the first instance in this sample, it's hard to tell how grating it could be. There is an abundance in this small sample and some rewriting can get rid of some, as well as a previous sentence or two establishing a POV character.

The "Darius wondered" would make it seem like he's the main pov for that scene.


Darius leaned against the wall as the other two crept forward.
‘You going to walk, or do I have to keep carrying you?’ Morden asked, turning back towards him.
‘I’ll walk,’ he replied having no wish to be manhandled any further.
‘If we run into anyone, I’ll keep them busy while you two carry on ahead,’ whispered Belth. ‘We can’t afford for Darius to get caught.’
Darius (or he) wondered..etc

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Is Darius the POV character? If so, whenever there's a tag like "he thought/he wondered" you know it's Darius without being told. However, if you are using an omniscient POV this won't work.

 

[Holoman]

Darius is the POV, but I find sometimes I have to use 'he' for other characters if there are lengthy bits about them, so frequently switch who 'he' is referring to. Don't know if that's a problem or not.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I find you can also use characters' characteristics and mannerisms to indicate who they are in dialogue without using their names. For example, one character might tug at their earlobe or play with their hair when they're nervous. If only one character carries a sword, they might be doing something with it like examining his reflection in the metal. Like this:
"Next time I put together a questing squad to defeat an Evil Lord, it sure won't include you losers," he said, examining his reflection in the blade of his sword." If he's the only character with a sword, we know who he is. Upon reading this, I'd think you would have to include the character's name anyway if it was completely ambiguous who was talking, but if there is some indication (like if another character addressed him just before), clues like the sword might make things clearer.
A character might stutter, use a particular swear (possibly reflecting their religious background) when upset, be very polite, have an accent--anything visible in their dialogue that no other character does. You might not even have to use dialogue tags with the character's name for these.
Keep in mind though that these have to be used *VERY* sparingly. Or else they'll get annoying, FAST.

 

[Russ]

Using names too often can be annoying, but not using them enough can not only confuse readers but can also mess with using "psychic distance" effectively and lower your ability to subtly convey emotions and opinions.

If you are in doubt I would err on the side of more names rather than less.

 

[RedMetalHunter]

From a reader's perspective, in a well written conversation, you can tell who's speaking by the content alone. With three or more speakers this can still be the case, if you are familiar with the characters and their personalities shine through.

I find that "said Joe" virtually disappears, but other tags tend to stick out more.

 

[bradford177]

Awesome conversation everyone. This is something I have been struggling with myself as I finished up my first book. I just did the first edit, now it looks like I will go back for a second and make some conversational changes.
I think I might have BDS in my story.
Thanks