posted
In my novel, there are characters whose names are numbers. All of them have names four digits long. My question is the following: do I spell out the name Four Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Six each time, or am I safe just with the simple notation of 4536? Should I spell it out the first time and then simply use the shorter notation, or should I worry more about consistency and use only the numbers?
posted
I would just use the arabic numerals 4578 or whatever. When you write about C3PO or R2D2 you use the Arabic numerals (or at least, that's the way I usually see it) so I would assume the same convention holds. Also, writing out Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Eight is pretty long and hard to read; 4578 gives the exact same information in a much more digestible form.
Posts: 715 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't looked this up, but I believe the rule would be to use the numerals unless the number is at the start of a sentence. But, since the numerals are names, you probably could use them there, too, for consistency.
Posts: 4633 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
A general rule in prose is use numerals for counting numbers over one hundred, except, as Meredith pointed out, at the beginning of a sentence. However, as part of a title or name, time or a measurement a numeral is acceptable at the beginning of a sentence. Recasting a sentence to move a numeral out of first place is a recommended practice, though.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited August 01, 2009).]
posted
The reader's perceived name of a character needs to be consistent, unique from other characters and preferably concise. My opinion is that 4-digit numbers as names must use numerals to meet that sort of criteria. A reader can quickly recognize 4578 as a characters name once she gets used to the scheme. Distinction between 4578 and 4536 is made at a glance. It's much more work for a reader to wade through Four Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Six to distinguish it from Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Eight.
That consideration for the reader, in my opinion, overrides the general rules of prose. Numerals for the names could be placed at beginnings of sentences and can be used for short names like 3 as long as they are used consistently. That approach breaks some rules, but the reasons are good. Rules are not absolute. Breaking them at any time carries a cost, though. In this case, ease of reading is a much more important reason for setting a consistent style that varies from The Book.
posted
As I recall, in the early "Star Wars" novelizations, C3PO and R2D2 were spelled out as "See Threepio" and "Artoo Detoo." (I think---it's not in front of me as I write.)
If you mention their name / number in dialog, it's usually customary to spell it out...for everything else, it's okay to use the numbers.
I would recommend having drastically different numbers if you have more than one character with this name scheme. It'd be particularly hard on the sightreaders who learned to read as if each word were an ideogram and not broken down into letters. (Thank you, modern education.) The abovementioned 4578 and 4536 might be too close for some readers to distinguis the difference.
posted
I would use whatever the characters would use should they write their name, which I expect would be numerals. That would also probably be easiest on the reader.
Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might already have found your answer but I was thinking of this, this morning. In Les Mis, the prisoners are given numbers and that is how they are referred too, but no one says "four thousand five hundred and twenty seven," they say "four five two seven." So if you are going to go with the numbers for names, I would go with four five two seven or 4527 not four thousand five hundred and twenty seven.
Posts: 212 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's your story to tell, do whatever helps tell it the best. Identifying your characters with digits (4536) may give the story a certain Orwellian quality. Writing out the digits as words (Four Five Three Six) seems more like names to me, but they are foreign names. Writing out the entire number (Four Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Six) would be more comical.
Also, the way you handle dialog can be different from narration. The narrator should use each character's name while dialog should sound like what each character says. For example:
It was then that she saw the gun. 4536 drew it slowly from his trench coat, leveled at her chest. "What are you doing, thirty six?" she purred. "I thought you loved me!"
posted
It was then that she saw the Colt .45. 4536 drew it slowly from his trench coat, leveled at her chest. "What are you doing, 36?" she purred. "I thought you loved me! We were going to catch the 5.20 train--I've even paid the 3 and 6 pence for the ticket."
Personally, I would tire of reading a story where everyone is called by a number. I don't think it can be done elegantly--unless you make a compromise. If you have twenty charcters each called a variation of a 4 digit code it will make keeping track of them hard.
Besides, what about humanities proclivity for nicknames. WOuldn't 4159 get called 'big nose' if that was how he differed fromt the others?
I follow the wisdom of Stunk et al, who, I am fairly certain say, numbers should be written as words. Numbers as numerals in text seems wrong.
Three o'clock. Four thirty-six in the evening.
The Year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and twelve..
The option is of course to give them all the same first two digits or at least consider ones that are easier. In the example above you have only two numbers linked together (19+12), where as 'four thousand, two hundred and twenty-six' IS UNWIELDY. It is still better to say 'forty-five hundred and twenty-six' or even just 'forty-five-twenty-six'.
If you choose numbers that are single words for the first two digits e.g. 10-20...or 30, 40, 50 etc, then select, if you can others from the same groups you will get a variety. Some people can have three number names to make them standout.
e.g.
Twenty-forty.
Nineteen-sixty-five.
Twelve-thirteen.
Forty-five-fourteen.
Nineteen-seventy.
I think that, as names, text versions of words are preferable as you can capitalise...which will make it work.
Forty-five-fourteen turned and looked at the other prisoners. "The guards just told me, Twelve-sixteen died while trying to bust out. They shot him in the back as he scaled the fence." Forty-five-fourteen lifted his chin. "But remember, at least he died doing something he believed in." Thirty-double-zero looked up, wide-eyed. "But I thought he wasn't going...
[This message has been edited by skadder (edited August 06, 2009).]
posted
I was taught, in my high school English class, to always write out any number which is less than 10, and to use numerals for any number greater than 10. I guess I'm not stunned to find out this was wrong, given the general quality of that class -- but at 26, I'm getting too old to have to keep making these adjustments. I should have stayed in college, man.
So -- let me get verification. I should be writing out numbers that are less than 100, as well as any number which is used at the beginning of a sentence. Is that correct?
What's next, you'll tell me I won't have to use courier anymore?
posted
Associated Press style guidelines suggest spelling out one through ten (and ordinals first through tenth), numerals for higher numbers. I too encountered AP recommendations in grade school, MLA was introduced in my high school years. Space conservation for newpaper publication generally informs AP style recommendations. MLA style similar to Chicago style, generally for prose publication, spell out numbers up to one hundred, avoid starting a sentence with a numeral.
I don't see any impending change in Courier or any similar monospaced typeface being prefered in standard manuscript format. The spacious nature of monospaced typefaces is simply easier on a weary eye than a proportionally spaced typeface.
posted
This rule about writing numbers under a hundred seems rather arbitrary.
Above us, a million stars shone in the heavens like so many tiny diamonds...
or
Above us, 1000,000 stars shone in the heavens like so many tiny diamonds...
OR
It seemed to me like more than a hundred attackers. I guessed at least a thousand soldiers on horseback galloped towards us. My knees shook, but I shouldered my rifle...
It seemed to me like more than a 100 attackers. I guessed at least a 1000 soldiers on horseback galloped towards us. My knees shook, but I shouldered my rifle...
If anyone thinks that the numeral version looks better, well...it's up to you--your choice. I don't.
I think you have to make a choice based on the number you have to write, and the intended effect. I find numerals poke me out of the story a little--they are the language of mathematics not prose.
posted
Another Chicago recommendation, optional, is to spell out large numbers with less than two syllables, like a thousand, or a combination of a less-than-one-hundred-number word and a large number of less than two syllables, like two million, several billion, thirty-six trillion. AP and MLA follow suit. Chicago's index of recommendations for numbers is two columns long.
In spoken word transcripts, 1100 reads eleven hundred. $1100 reads eleven hundred dollars. 1,100 reads one thousand, one hundred. $1,100, one thousand, one hundred dollars. No and in modern number styles unless it's spoken in dialogue, interrogatory, colloquy, or soliloquy. 11:00 reads eleven o'clock. 11 a.m. reads eleven A-M. 11:30 reads eleven-thirty. 1100 reads eleven hundred hours in Zulu time.
Exceptions are the rule.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited August 06, 2009).]
In this instance we aren't talking about numbers--these are used in the text as names. I, therefore think that they should be written as words and capitalised.
(note: whenever I type the word 'capitalised', I give it a capital C--I don't mean to, it just does. The word itself must trigger my little finger to press the shift button--wierd)
posted
Prescriptive rules for standard written English are the rule for academic, science, business writing, whatever style manual applies and whatever rules of the publisher.
Descriptive rules, as in prose, are whatever works, often as exceptions to prescriptive rules.
Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Descriptive rules allow whatever exceptions persuade most persuasively. Rhetorical schemes as a general principle are grammatical vices applied in such a way that they're persuasive virtues.
One of my favorite schemes is syndetic connections: polysyndeton and asyndeton. Polysyndeton: multiple conjuctions, tends to slow reading pace down. Cormac McCarthy uses polysyndeton for visual descriptions. Asyndeton, absence of conjunctions, tends to increase reading pace. Staccato, short, sharp, snappy pace. Multi-syndetic connections are prescriptively deprecated in formal writing.
If there is one, the only absolute rule for a writer is use what works to best persuasive effect. In rhetorical schemes, and the more exotic tropes, exceptions are the rule.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
