Skip to main content

The naming of names

When I was at school and first discovered I had to write (it can be a bit of an obsession), I mostly wrote fiction. Though I'm now primarily writing non-fiction, I'm still working on that fiction side. One thing I find particularly tricky is the names of characters.

It should be easy. Just pull a few random names out of a hat, perhaps pick a few surnames out of the phone book and you're away. But somehow, it doesn't work like that. Apart from anything else, some names have a particular resonance.

I've just finished re-reading The Difference Engine, William Gibson and Bruce Sterling's excellent steam-punk what-if about a Victorian Britain run using Babbage's mechanical computers. Apart from a rather hasty, tacked-on ending, it is brilliant, and I love the fictional Victorian names, often attached to products. There's something solidly of the period about a Cutts-Maudslay carbine, for example.

Of course, it's partly association. If you take a modern product-linked name like Dyson, it might seem this couldn't seem at all old fashioned, even though it has some earlier connections. (Is James Dyson related at all, I wonder to the physicist Freeman Dyson or Freeman's dad, the excellent church composer George?). But if you detach 'Dyson' from its modern connotations and attach it, say, to the 'Dyson Patent Steam Eradicator' or whatever, it does take on a period feel.

Even so there are definitely names that work for a particular book and names that don't. I'm not sure if there's any magical technique for determining the right names, or just trial and error. I know, for instance, that for me, whimsical names really don't work. I hate it in Dickens, it's the worst part of J K Rowling's books and though they both get away with it because of other aspects of their writing, it's an unnecessary irritation.

Without doubt, the naming of names has and always will have a certain significance, and should never be underestimated as a challenge.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense