1 Topic by Dirk B. (edited by Dirk B. 2019-07-07 22:35:29)

Topic: Overuse of character names - Writing Craft

One of my reviewers suggested I reduce the number of references to my character, Father Romano. I currently refer to him solely as Romano, and use his title, Father, in dialogue. Is it common practice to always refer to someone by one name only throughout a story? I could also refer to him as the Father or as a priest. I used to do something like this in my stories to break up the repetitive references to a character solely by one name.

Before:

Romano was about to leave when he noticed Connor sitting on the floor on the far side of Damiano’s bed, supporting the younger boy’s head like a pillow. Romano motioned for Connor to get up. Connor eased his arm free and followed Romano out of the room.

After:

Romano was about to leave when he noticed Connor sitting on the floor on the far side of Damiano’s bed, supporting the younger boy’s head like a pillow. The Father/priest motioned for Connor to get up. Connor eased his arm free and followed Romano out of the room.

Technically, the last reference to Romano could be changed to 'him', but it was suggested by someone else that I name him there for clarity.

Thoughts?

Thanks
Dirk

Quote Post 1

2 Reply by Temple Wang (edited by Temple Wang 2018-12-21 05:14:35)

Re: Overuse of character names - Writing Craft

In cases where “from context” it is clear who “he” or “him” is, it would help to use a pronoun because the repetitiveness of the name is grating.  I don’t get confused at all by: He motioned for Connor to get up.  Connor eased his arm free and followed him out of the room.

There’s no right or wrong. I think some people’s opinion on this might stem from whether they edit by sight or by ear.  I edit by ear, so I tend to be attuned to how things “sound” when read aloud, often even letting that trump “rules”.

Quote Post 2

3 Reply by j p lundstrom (edited by j p lundstrom 2018-12-21 13:56:51)

Re: Overuse of character names - Writing Craft

Dirk B. wrote:

Technically, the last reference to Romano could be changed to 'him', but it was suggested by someone else that I name him there for clarity.

Thoughts?

Thanks
Dirk


I agree with Temple that naming the character three times within three contiguous sentences is a bit much. It 'sounds' repetitive to the reader, as if the author can't think of another way to designate the character.

The problem is that when dealing with multiple male (or female) characters in a scene, a writer needs to clarify which one is doing and saying what. To make it 'sound' better, you should probably use those other names (the priest, Father, etc.) you've given the character. In another context, you would use such names as the detective, the cowboy, the teacher, and so on to keep things straight.


Most often, you would name the character in the first reference, then use the other designations in succeeding sentences. Since you've already established the characters in the reader's mind, you could use terms with descending specificity, so you would end up with something like this:

"Romano was about to leave when he noticed Connor sitting on the floor on the far side of Damiano's bed, supporting the younger boy's head like a pillow. The priest motioned for Connor to get up. The boy eased his arm free and followed him out of the room."

Of course, as always, the choice is up to the author.

Quote Post 3

4 Reply by Dirk B. (edited by Dirk B. 2018-12-21 19:11:30)

Re: Overuse of character names - Writing Craft

One more, following Temple's suggestion of using context to infer who 'he' is, even thought there are two males in the paragraph.

Before:

Romano decided he’d take a wait-and-see approach. In a few days, Alessandro would probably have another seizure, and Romano would have his answer. In spite of himself, he felt a slight thrill at the possibility that Connor was right. If only Romano could still feel the Holy Spirit the way Connor did. It had been so long. Yet, even Mother Teresa suffered dark, spiritual emptiness, in her case for almost half a century. And, unlike her, Romano was no saint. The knot in his stomach returned, reminding him he had an anguished prayer to finish.

After:

Romano decided he’d take a wait-and-see approach. In a few days, Alessandro would probably have another seizure, and he would have his answer. In spite of himself, he felt a slight thrill at the possibility that Connor was right. If only he could still feel the Holy Spirit the way Connor did. It had been so long. Yet, even Mother Teresa suffered dark, spiritual emptiness, in her case for almost half a century. And, unlike her, Romano was no saint. The knot in his stomach returned, reminding him he had an anguished prayer to finish.

All opposed?

Quote Post 4

Re: Overuse of character names - Writing Craft

off topic, but this darts in a lot of places and introduces a lot of clauses. How about:

Romano decided he’d take a wait-and-see approach. Alessandro's next seizure would answer all questions.
(New paragraph for topic shift)
Was Connor right? If only he could still feel the Holy Spirit the way Connor did.  Yet, even Mother Teresa suffered dark, spiritual emptiness, in her case for almost half a century. And, unlike her, Romano was no saint.
(New paragraph)
The knot in his stomach returned. He had an anguished prayer to finish.

*In spite of himself = dropped because I can't connect it to the rest of the passage
*It had been so long. = dropped because I can't tell what it had been so long since

Quote Post 5

Re: Overuse of character names - Writing Craft

Dirk B. wrote:

After:

Romano decided he’d take a wait-and-see approach. In a few days, Alessandro would probably have another seizure, and he would have his answer. In spite of himself, he felt a slight thrill at the possibility that Connor was right. If only he could still feel the Holy Spirit the way Connor did. It had been so long. Yet, even Mother Teresa suffered dark, spiritual emptiness, in her case for almost half a century. And, unlike her, Romano was no saint. The knot in his stomach returned, reminding him he had an anguished prayer to finish.

All opposed?

Not that I am one to complain about this, but I'll do this out of evil fun, the paragraph just runs on and on with TMI. That is why in first inspection it is difficult to follow who is doing what for which reason -- and Mother Teresa joins in, too.  Best then to keep names instead of pronouns. Would it not be even greater fun to substitute gender-neutral pronouns?

Quote Post 6