posted
There are about 300 high frequency words (Dolch words) in the English language, such as the, and, is, as, etc. These are taught as "sight" words. Often these words do not follow phonetic spellings very well. Children are taught to recognize many of these words early during kindergarten.
Children are also taught rhyming patterns around this time. Recognizing and especially making rhymes is a developmental skill most children do not fully have or grasp until around 6 years old. That is why nursury rhymes play such an important role in a child's developing brain. The familiarity helps things click.
Phonetic awareness must make use of rhyming skills to be fully effective. Therefore most school systems focus on sight recognition and word families (words that rhyme but have different first consonants, such as bat, cat, fat, ect.) during the initial year of instruction. In late first and second grade, after the brain has reached a more analytical state of development, most schools begin focusing on phonics and word origens to assist children in decoding words.
Depending on the progress of the individual child, they may also begin focusing on grouping (phrases and clauses) and fluency.
I believe this is what is recommended by most of the national education associoations. There are obviously many schools that deviate from this in one way or another, but this is the method of most public schools. Also, it all largely depends on the individual child. For example, I developed a very early ability to phonetically read words, but it took me a long time to become fluent and comprehend phrases or clauses. My son appears to be the exact opposite - he is very fluent and has good comprehension, but has difficulty sometimes decyphering long unfamiliar words.
And bringing this back to character names, how readers learn to read, and to approach long, unfamiliar words may determine how receptive they are to strange names.
I recall the name of the "antagonist" in Patricia McKillip's Riddle of Stars trilogy, and how my approach to that name reflects my determination to apply "sounding it out" to give me something I could think whenever that name came up in the story. As I recall, I "pronounced" that name as something like Gist-es-slo-cum, even though that wasn't quite how it was spelled.
So I submit that if you create a name for a character that readers can manage to "pronounce" in one way or another, they will be more willing and able to think about that character at all.
posted
I'm pretty sure it was "phonics" that was taught where I went to kindergarten---but I could already make it through the book, and I have no idea where or how I acquired the skill. (I remember the book---it started with two pictures, then a picture captioned with a simple sentence, then more complicated sentences as it went on---I don't remember what they were about, but I remember being able to read them at once.)
Sometimes the naming systems some writers use seem to go out of the way to give trouble in pronunciation...I recall the names in Katharine Kerr's "Deverry" series (a pretty good series, but I lost touch around the eighth or ninth book), which seemed to kinda derive from Welsh. Now, the pronunciation of of Welsh names gets really odd...as if the choice of letters to symbolize certain sounds was deliberately chosen to confuse and annoy their English overlords. (Gaelic, too---which, come to think of it, might be another source for Kerr's nomenclature system.)
Should a writer avoid annoying the reader by using an unusual scheme for pronunciation?
posted
OSC said to never use accent marks or unpronouncable words to form character names (I believe he said he knew this from experience with the Ender sequels).
posted
I've just been sitting back and watching where this discussion went. It's been fascinating. A slow-motion example of the way conversation topics shift.
All from too many characters with names starting with V.
posted
Eh...I dont think as much "hijacking" goes on as people say. As Meredith says conversations grow, change, take different paths over time. And especially when talking about writing...its all connected.
Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Meredith pointed out, this topic started our rather small, but grew into something larger, and, I think, still helpful to writers.
I think it's okay for topics to grow out of their original purpose, (1) as long as the original purpose was served, and (2) as long as they don't grow toward flame war potential.
Edited to add:
I think I would define "hijacking" as being along the lines of taking a topic off on a tangent for the purpose of lecturing or complaining about something or other and generating discussion that really doesn't add any new insights or serve as any help to writers.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited November 23, 2009).]
quote:I think I would define "hijacking" as being along the lines of taking a topic off on a tangent for the purpose of lecturing or complaining about something or other and generating discussion that really doesn't add any new insights or serve as any help to writers.
You speak as if that has happened before lol
As far as character names: I no longer subscribe, as the addiction nearly ruined my life (not joking, almost lost a six figure job over it), but if you subscribe to World of Warcraft, they have a name generator for new characters that randomly creates some pretty good fantasy names.
posted
Well, a certain amount of free association is present in any conversation. I don't find it surprising that a conversation about names turned towards how a name is pronounced.
Yesterday, I got into a conversation that veered from our union business (it was after the union meeting), crossword puzzle words (two of us were doing one), where were you when Kennedy was shot (it was the anniversary date), earliest memories and how early they could be in one's life (eleven months in my case), and the earlies memories themselves. (All off-topic here, of course.)
(I don't use accents 'cause it's kinda hard to get at them through my keyboard. Just the other day, I was wondering how much effort I'd have to put into typing out some lyrics in French, with assorted accents.)
posted
I have a conundrum with a character name. The idea is that there is a character called the Piecemaker (a play on the term peacemaker). Now, one character knows of the Piecemaker and is telling another who only knows the normal term. It goes something like this:
"Beware the Piecemaker!"
"The Peacemaker? What are you talking about?"
Now, is the above correct or should both characters have the name of the Piecemaker spelled correctly?
quote:Now, is the above correct or should both characters have the name of the Piecemaker spelled correctly?
I would think that a change in spelling would only be necessary if the difference in spelling & meaning was actually part of what was confusing the person. Is there a person named Peacemaker in the story? If not then the second shouldn't be capitalized as it's not a proper noun and becomes merely noun.
Stuff like this reminds me of a NaNoWriMo word-padding exercise.
"Hi, my name is Don." "Dawn?" "No, Don. You know, Don, not Dawn." "Ah, I see now. Nice to meet you Don."
This particular bit of confusion wouldn't actually happen in real like as orally the words Don & Dawn are interchangeable and have the same meaning - a person's first name. Now, some sort of confusion like this...
"I gots one bit of advice for you Sallie. Beware the dawn." "Corleone? Where?!?" "No, dawn, not Don you lunk-head!"
...makes perfect sense, since the meanings are different. Now, I'm going to suggest that peacemaker be uncapitalized in your story, unless there actually is a character called The Peacemaker. Whoever is saying "Beware the Piecemaker" is probably going to have to explain the difference too, otherwise it won't make sense except as a clever internal joke to yourself that no one else will get.
Only you can answer which suits your story best.
[This message has been edited by Wolfe_boy (edited November 26, 2009).]
posted
Piecemaker, if its meaning is widely known in the story's milieu and developed as such early in the story should only require developing context for characters who aren't aware of its unconventional spelling, when needed. But that context could be brief or expansive.
If explained by the Piecemaker or the other character, it could be a character development opportunity.
In a dynamic context it could possess dramatic irony, where its unconventional spelling and therefore meaning would be known to an audience, the Piecemaker, naturally, and some characters, but not to other characters. Delaying or not revealing its import to the other characters is dramatic irony. The audience is in on the inside information, but the oblivious characters are not.
Of course, dramatic irony might also be used to keep an audience in the dark, too, which would work if the information is not immediately pertinent early on, but is vital later on and revealed in a dramatic way and not annoyingly untimely. Oedipus at Colonus by Sophocles, 406 BCE, is perhaps one of the best known examples of the use of dramatic irony.
"Beware the Piecemaker!"
"The Peacemaker? What are you talking about?"
I don't see sufficient context there for the second speaker to ask the questions. Actually, there's a seemingly likely possibility that the second speaker has knowledge of the Piecemaker but is feigning ignorance.
Also, opportunities to play Piecemaker off of piecemeal pose possiblities.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited November 26, 2009).]
posted
I would agree with Kathleen, unless you can make the misunderstanding apparent in some other way - like how the "Who's on first?" routine becomes apparent with Abbott and Costello. However, I'm not sure if that would be the style you're going for.
Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to deliberately spread my character first names across the alphabet, to keep myself from getting confused, to hopefully keep my readers from being confused, and because it allows me to use a convenient shorthand when drafting by referring to characters by their capitalized first initial :-). One thing I've been experimenting with is trying to match the sound of words with character facets for important characters.
On the phonics versus pattern matching when reading, I've always been fascinated by the observation that it's possible to "read" something like:
"Olny the fsirt and lsat ltetres need be in odrer for the biran to amesslbe the wrod."
I think that came out of some research from Princeton. I've fooled around with making up names using that premise, a silly example being a character with an underlying happiness to their persona being named "Jufyol".
Maybe it's because I learned to read phonetically, then studied Spanish later (spelling/pronunciation always consistent), but if I see a fictional name that I can't form a mental pronunciation of (even if it's not what the author intended), it will prickle at me every time I come across it.
posted
I'm currently reading and enjoying PALADIN OF SOULS by Lois McMaster Bujold.
OSC's advice is not to give characters names that start with the same letter. Evidently, she didn't read OSC's advice.
The main character is Ista. Her dead husband was Ias. Her daughter is Iselle and her granddaughter is Isara. Ista's new love interest is Illvin. Granted, only Ista and Illvin play any real part in the story. The others only appear by reference. But still, that's a lot of names that start with I.
Kind of makes my having one name that starts with V in each book pale by comparison.
posted
I sometimes do what JD Salinger did for Catcher In The Rye when he saw a movie marquee for Dear Ruth with the names William Holden and Joan Caulfield and mixed the two for his main characters name.
Posts: 710 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
I have a conundrum with a character name. The idea is that there is a character called the Piecemaker (a play on the term peacemaker). Now, one character knows of the Piecemaker and is telling another who only knows the normal term. It goes something like this:
"Beware the Piecemaker!" "The Peacemaker? What are you talking about?"
To me, Piecemaker is someone known for cutting up, slashing things, He might be someone who is trying to break up the union. Peacemaker is someone who tries to end war. They could well be the same person, once all opposition is gone, one has peace...
I do like the name you are using. He might make agreements and treaties that end up pitting one ally against the other. He is using tactics of peace to break unions into pieces.
When it comes to names, I do like to work phonetically, using spellings of names that the spell check says is wrong.
I read about and follow the suggestion, that one should be able to sound out the name and find it pleasing or at least can be pronounced.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
