posted
One thing I notice over and over in these 13 lines is the effort to insert a name or names early. My feeling has always been to hold off such aspects a bit. I would appreciate some thoughts and theory on why or why not.
posted
Yeah, it feels like a device to me in many cases also, unless for some reason it just clicks with the narration.
Posts: 1888 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've found that whether or not you put a name in the first thirteen depends largely on the flow of the story. If it's not necessary to differentiate one person from another at the beginning can differ between openings. I've written intros (I've written a LOT of intros, and not a lot of conclusions) that go either way.
Posts: 59 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The advice I've encountered most often is to use a name as soon as possible (OSC, James Scott Bell, among others). THe reasoning, as I understand it, is that it gives the reader something to hold on to right away. Something personal. Something direct. Until the name comes, we're left thinking about an abstract "him" or "her".
I have seen no names use to great effect for quite some time. But more often than not I'm left wondering, okay, who the heck is this person? Why isn't their name being revealed? I expect a name right away, I've noticed in my own reading. It doesn't feel forced to me, unless there's a title associated with it. It feels natural--of course the person would be identified. And when we're immersed in POV, it seems more natural to me to have a name than just "he" or "she". One step closer to specificity.
There's a rule in journalism: If the story in any way involves a dog, get that dog into the article. And if you use the dog, you'd better get the dog's name. The idea being, of course, that having the name is essential for readers to make that leap from just an anonymous, random dog, to Benji, or Lassie, or what have you.
[This message has been edited by annepin (edited July 11, 2008).]
quote:The advice I've encountered most often is to use a name as soon as possible (OSC, James Scott Bell, among others).
I have heard this as well. In fact I heard editors are tired of writers withholding the name as if when they reveal it, it will mean something more.
Posts: 1168 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it depends on the point of view. Told from the first person, your protagonist isn't going to think to himself "Hmmm, here I am, Jack Stryker. In the first person POV, the name of the protagonist is almost secondary.
One of my favorite Science Fiction novels, Starship Troopers, it's quite a while before you learn the protagonist's nickname (Johnny), later to learn his first name (Juan), and even later to learn his last name (Rico). I found this effective, because it showed the lack of need.
For a story told in the second person, the name of the protagonist is more important, if only because you are being asked to step into the personage of the narrator.
Third person is really where it's most useful to know the name of the protagonist, because he or she is external to your point of view. In these cases, knowing the name earlier might be better, especially with an omniscient third person narrator.
posted
Bell in his Plot and Structure strongly urges introducing a character as soon as possible, in the first sentence if possible. In one chapter he gives a fascinating list of what he considers strong opening sentences and almost all contain a name.
In first person, you're introduced to the character since it's in their PoV even if you don't know their name. In the more common third person, if they're not given a name it's very hard for the reader to feel like they know them. I think he is referred to by rank in Starship Troopers when anyone speaks to him. I'd have to be able to actually find my copy to check that though--and forget that being possible. LOL
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 11, 2008).]
quote: In first person, you're introduced to the character since it's in their PoV even if you don't know their name.
Right. Besides--as was discussed in some length on the Flash Fiction Online forum--"I" is a name (as far as making a connection to the character goes. Every time "I" is used in a first-person narrative, you know exactly who to reference. The thing to clear up quickly is gender, because people tend to associate first-person with male and it is a jarring surprise if you find out after you're invested in the story to suddenly discover the protagonist is a woman. Subtle clues, such as males tend to stare at breasts and rear-ends inadvertantly, would enough of a hint to set the gender tone.
Another reason for giving names early in the story--which hasn't been mentioned--is that names clue you toward an image, too. Jack has different connotations than Juan, Dmitri, Pierre, Culwch (pronounced Cull-hooch) or Patrick. That's part of what OSC meant when he referred to using stereotypes as a tool (as opposed to as acliche).
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited July 11, 2008).]
posted
What benefit is gained by witholding the name? Is there an opportunity to present the name and the writer waits, using an anonymous pronoun or other dodge to avoid naming the character? Why?
There can be good reasons, good answers to these questions. And then there can be clever writers who just want to show how clever they are.
Readers will get a much better idea of how clever a writer is by what he or she says, rather than by what he or she witholds.
posted
I see no benefit in withholding a name in a 3rd Person story. Especially because in any scene I use the characters names to help my reader understand who is doing or saying what and the first scene should be no different. If the person is known as something different to the main character then call them something different: eg Strider in LotRs or Mr Wolf in Pawn of Prophecy (the latter time finding out the characters actual name was a reveal due to the prolouge) but call them something, otherwise as a reader I would cast your book aside after a page.
quote:The thing to clear up quickly is gender, because people tend to associate first-person with male
Not everyone, IB. I tend to assume that characters are female. Whichever assumption the reader makes, it's jarring if they're wrong though so it should be cleared up.
I think the problem very often isn't that the author withholds the name but the author decides to do some "scene setting" or something like that instead of immediately introducing the character. Where I think that goes wrong is that we tend not to care much about a scene unless there's a character we can visualize there.
quote:What benefit is gained by witholding the name? Is there an opportunity to present the name and the writer waits, using an anonymous pronoun or other dodge to avoid naming the character? Why?
One benefit I can see to withholding the name is to allow the reader to preconceptualize the character, and then slowly tear down these preconceptions.
When I first read Starship Troopers, I first identified with the protagonist and figured him to be like myself, an anglo. When I first read his name, Johnny, that reinforced the image.
Later, I learned that his last name is Rico, and then that his first name is Juan, and finally, that he's Filipino.
If I had been told, in the hook, that the Filipino trooper Juan Rico was the protagonist, I might have put the book up. I know some would have. I believe that the point that Heinlein was trying to make through this was that it really doesn't matter, the race of a person, when it comes to bigger issues. When it comes to smaller issues, like the opening of a book, it does.
By contrast, the first line of Stranger in a Strange Land is "Once upon a time there was a martian named Valentine Michael Smith." In this book, the need to distinguish that Valentine is a martian who is human. This book is told in the third person.
So, what benefit? The name of your protagonist is a literary tool, like any other. The reveal of this fact should be handled as artfully as the identity of the killer in a whodunit. It can have great impact when revealed, or none at all.
posted
For me it's not a big deal either way, but as a reader I tend to feel that witholding names feels more like a device than stating it.
Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just out of interest, I looked at a number of my stories. Out of the four, three begin with the names of the MC, the very first word in fact, and the fourth had the MCs name at the begninning of the second sentance.
Personally, I like to know who I'm reading about, but not necessarily the character's full name and title. First or surname is enough to begin with, the rest can be fed to the reader as the story progresses.
posted
In first person, introducing a name can be counterproductive, since it breaks POV. It might be critical, however, to introduce the character's gender. Even if you think it's absolutely obvious, it might not be so for the reader.
In third person, I think a name should be thrown in fairly early, if only to avoid using "he" or "she" so often. If you're writing a third person story and not using the MC's name or "he/she" very often, you may need to take a look at the use of passives/and or if you're character is merely an observer in the story. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a third person story with an active character will have so many "He/she" as subject in the first thirteen that you'll want to throw in a name, just to break things up a bit.
posted
I'm inclined to go with putting the lead character name ("Scarlett O'Hara was not beautiful,") or at least a character name ("Marley was dead,") right at the beginning of the first sentence, as far as third-person limited narration goes.
(Was that the first sentence of A Christmas Carol? I think so, but my memory may be playing tricks on me.)
posted
It depends on if you've got something interesting there in the opening. If you detail a fire -- really make it engrossing -- or if you set the scene by a captivating description of the rainstorm the two characters are sitting out in, then by all means go with it. But you better be darn sure that the prose sings.
Opening with the character is far more mundane. You just have to make sure whatever said individual is about is really, really interesting.
That's true no matter how you open a story. Make it enthralling. Interesting. Unique somehow.
All the guidelines and rules fail if you haven't made the opening sentence/paragraph/page interesting.
posted
I totally agree that 'it depends'. I just got back from the store and decided to randomly pick up eight novels. 4 had the name [2 as the first word] and 4 didn't even in the first couple paragraphs.
I think thanks to you good folks my curiosity has been satisfied.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
