![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
truepennyI don't know about where you are, but where I am? The roads are crap. I had an errand I absolutely had to run this afternoon, and I'm actually just grateful I made it there and back again without, er, untoward excitement.
*heaves huge sigh of relief*
*has coughing fit*
***
I'm thinking about names again. And, because I'm me, I'm thinking about my thinking about names.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
melymbrosia has been posting about a TV show called Everwood, about which I know purely fuck-all, except the characters' names. Two of them are named Ephram and Colin, and in the middle of reading Melymbrosia's thoughts about the slash or lack thereof in their relationship onscreen, I realized that I was interested, not because I know or care about the show (as I said, I don't), but because one of them is named Ephram. And "Ephram" is just such a cool name that something good needs to happen with it.
It's one of the things that maddens me about J. K. Rowling, that sometimes her naming is spot-on, and sometimes it just so isn't. "Albus Dumbledore" is a terrible name, even if dumbledore is an archaic word for bumble-bee. "Harry Potter" is a terrible name--yes, I know, couldn't sound more completely ordinary if she'd named him John Smith, but it's still a TERRIBLE name. (And it bugs the crap out of me that apparently Harry's parents didn't have the gumption god gave a walrus and ACTUALLY NAMED HIM HARRY. Harry's a NICKNAME. For "Henry," which isn't the world's greatest name, but at least gives you something with dignity to fall back on once you're no longer a child.) "Filius Flitwick"? A terrible name. And I'm not even going to start in on the horror that is "Ron Weasley."
But then she can come out with things like "Draco Malfoy" and "Severus Snape." (And "Tom Riddle," although "Lord Voldemort" has got to be one of the hokiest names EVER for a villain.) Draco and Snape both have REALLY GOOD names. I generally dislike alliteration in names, and boy oh boy does Rowling overuse it, but it works for Snape. And, yes, Draco's last name is as lousy a pun as "Voldemort," but "Draco" itself is just amazingly cool. And now I can't use it, because she has.
I wouldn't care if she were consistently good. Barbara Hambly is generally quite good with names, although sometimes she tries too hard, and I don't resent the fact that I can't name anyone Nandiharrow or Gil-Shalos or Dogbreath of Malincore, because she gets full use out of the names. It's one of the reasons I like Dickens, because he just has these amazing names; they come welling out of everywhere. And it's almost the only thing I enjoy about Mervyn Peake. But for someone like Rowling, who doesn't pay nearly enough attention (in my ever so NOT humble opinion) to the sound and rhythm and grace of English, and who persistently undercuts the credibility of her own world with stupid, jarring, unnecessary puns, to come out with these fantastic names ... it's unfair and it makes me cross.
I have a Thing about names. It's one of the things that has to be right in my stories or I can't go on. I've spent days stuck because I can't think of the right name for a particular character or place. And I fiddle with them endlessly.
I used to make them up, when I was younger, so that characters in the drivel I wrote as a teenager had names like "Cedarion" and "Hezekyah." But then my ear got more sensitive; I still make up surnames when I need to, but given names are far far more likely to be strange nouns or Francophone versions of Greek mythological characters. (Another one that pissed me off no end was Jacqueline Carey using "Phedre." 'Cause Carey's got a tin ear for names.) And then there's the Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names, which is my favorite reference book, bar none. It's wonderful. I recommend it highly if you're interested in this sort of thing. (If nothing else, the ODECN can save you from embarrassing anachronisms, like naming a character born in the eleventh century "Amanda," when "Amanda" is a literary invention of the seventeenth century. Highlander, I'm looking right at you.)
I don't know why names are like that for me. I think I've only written one story, ever, in which none of the characters had names. Usually, it's the first thing I figure out, and it's always the most important. If I have the name wrong, then I generally have the character wrong. I've had stories die under the weight of wrong names. (I've had them die of other causes, but the name problem is the most frustrating.) Names anchor characters for me, and they tell me things about characters that no other detail does. Objectively speaking, it's very weird.
And it also means that I can get interested in a character just for being named "Ephram."
*heaves huge sigh of relief*
*has coughing fit*
***
I'm thinking about names again. And, because I'm me, I'm thinking about my thinking about names.
melymbrosia has been posting about a TV show called Everwood, about which I know purely fuck-all, except the characters' names. Two of them are named Ephram and Colin, and in the middle of reading Melymbrosia's thoughts about the slash or lack thereof in their relationship onscreen, I realized that I was interested, not because I know or care about the show (as I said, I don't), but because one of them is named Ephram. And "Ephram" is just such a cool name that something good needs to happen with it.It's one of the things that maddens me about J. K. Rowling, that sometimes her naming is spot-on, and sometimes it just so isn't. "Albus Dumbledore" is a terrible name, even if dumbledore is an archaic word for bumble-bee. "Harry Potter" is a terrible name--yes, I know, couldn't sound more completely ordinary if she'd named him John Smith, but it's still a TERRIBLE name. (And it bugs the crap out of me that apparently Harry's parents didn't have the gumption god gave a walrus and ACTUALLY NAMED HIM HARRY. Harry's a NICKNAME. For "Henry," which isn't the world's greatest name, but at least gives you something with dignity to fall back on once you're no longer a child.) "Filius Flitwick"? A terrible name. And I'm not even going to start in on the horror that is "Ron Weasley."
But then she can come out with things like "Draco Malfoy" and "Severus Snape." (And "Tom Riddle," although "Lord Voldemort" has got to be one of the hokiest names EVER for a villain.) Draco and Snape both have REALLY GOOD names. I generally dislike alliteration in names, and boy oh boy does Rowling overuse it, but it works for Snape. And, yes, Draco's last name is as lousy a pun as "Voldemort," but "Draco" itself is just amazingly cool. And now I can't use it, because she has.
I wouldn't care if she were consistently good. Barbara Hambly is generally quite good with names, although sometimes she tries too hard, and I don't resent the fact that I can't name anyone Nandiharrow or Gil-Shalos or Dogbreath of Malincore, because she gets full use out of the names. It's one of the reasons I like Dickens, because he just has these amazing names; they come welling out of everywhere. And it's almost the only thing I enjoy about Mervyn Peake. But for someone like Rowling, who doesn't pay nearly enough attention (in my ever so NOT humble opinion) to the sound and rhythm and grace of English, and who persistently undercuts the credibility of her own world with stupid, jarring, unnecessary puns, to come out with these fantastic names ... it's unfair and it makes me cross.
I have a Thing about names. It's one of the things that has to be right in my stories or I can't go on. I've spent days stuck because I can't think of the right name for a particular character or place. And I fiddle with them endlessly.
I used to make them up, when I was younger, so that characters in the drivel I wrote as a teenager had names like "Cedarion" and "Hezekyah." But then my ear got more sensitive; I still make up surnames when I need to, but given names are far far more likely to be strange nouns or Francophone versions of Greek mythological characters. (Another one that pissed me off no end was Jacqueline Carey using "Phedre." 'Cause Carey's got a tin ear for names.) And then there's the Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names, which is my favorite reference book, bar none. It's wonderful. I recommend it highly if you're interested in this sort of thing. (If nothing else, the ODECN can save you from embarrassing anachronisms, like naming a character born in the eleventh century "Amanda," when "Amanda" is a literary invention of the seventeenth century. Highlander, I'm looking right at you.)
I don't know why names are like that for me. I think I've only written one story, ever, in which none of the characters had names. Usually, it's the first thing I figure out, and it's always the most important. If I have the name wrong, then I generally have the character wrong. I've had stories die under the weight of wrong names. (I've had them die of other causes, but the name problem is the most frustrating.) Names anchor characters for me, and they tell me things about characters that no other detail does. Objectively speaking, it's very weird.
And it also means that I can get interested in a character just for being named "Ephram."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-02-11 06:20 pm (UTC)From one Barbara Hambly fan to another!
no subject
Date: 2003-02-11 08:25 pm (UTC)I've been disappointed in her recent fantasy novels, although I like the Benjamin January mysteries very much indeed. My vote for her best book would be Traveling with the Dead, because it talks so beautifully about the difference between romance (Ysidro) and love (Asher) and because she's wickedly wickedly clever with the vampire cliches. And because I can read that book three times in a row without pausing for breath and still love it.
Also, she knows her history and she's not afraid to use it.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-12 05:46 am (UTC)Vampire containing books I have enjoyed are The Dragon Waiting and the Brust book it would be a spoiler to name, as you may not have read it.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-12 06:09 am (UTC)Traveling with the Dead and the book to which it is a sequel, Those Who Hunt the Night, are both very vampire-heavy books; I think the vampire characters outnumber the humans. But Hambly is not at all impressed by the vampire mystique, and both books are partly (TWHtN) or largely (TwtD) deconstructions of the glamorous vampire cliche made popular by a hundred years of Dracula movies. I don't think of either of them as horror, but my threshold is probably higher than yours. They're also very good pre-WWI historical mysteries. In fact, TWHtN is pretty much a historical mystery with vampires in--fairly light fare--and I guess my suggestion would be to read it, and if you like the characters to go for TwtD. I find the vampirism secondary, in both books, to its effects on the psychology of the vampires themselves (did that make any sense? even remotely?).
They're both high-quality Hambly; I can say that much with confidence.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-12 10:55 am (UTC)I prefer Those Who Hunt the Night because it is less about succumbing to vampire glamour, but you might be especially interested in Travelling with the Dead for its portrait of a stable and happy marriage. I do think they are vintage Hambly, replete with spies, the scientific method, and moral complexity.