I'm in the beginning stages of my next historical novel and am fretting over secondary characters' names. I've got the year (1285), the settings (England - London, Warwickshire, and Northumbria), the main characters' names, and a fair idea of the plot (social turmoil - so not a new thing for me). So why am I hitting the wall about the names of characters who will not be the main focus of the book? I dunno. But I do, at least once a book. So Virgo of me to want the names to be historically correct and still sound normal to 21st century readers.
My heroine is Lucy, named after a wonderful woman who I adore. My hero's name is Nicholas, named after my fellow Whine Sister Sherri's son. Both names were common and even popular in 1285, so that works, and although my research turned up a Lucy who married Sir Marmaduke, I don't think I'm going there. I've made it a point not to use names of family or friends, but I made exceptions for these two.
What makes it difficult is the scarcity of original names. Edward, Richard, John, Nicholas, and James are the most frequent in the London registers, but the king was Edward, so I can't use it or risk confusion. Same with women's names. There were thousands of repeats of Margaret, Eleanor, Alys (spelled about 50 ways), Ermegarde (yuck), and Mary. I've already used Margaret and Mary as main characters and the diminutive (of Eleanor) Nell in ON A HIGHLAND SHORE.
Sometimes I have fun with names - ugly sounding names for ugly spirited people, names with particular meanings, like Muirin, which means "of the sea" in "Daughter of the Sea" in THE MAMMOTH BOOK OF IRISH ROMANCES.
And then there are the surnames. I've frequently used family names. The Hale sisters are named after His Majesty's mother's family. The MacCurries were named after my mother's cousins. Burke was another cousin, changed to de Burke to suit the period. Sometimes I use names that have a special meaning to me - like Louisa, in the KILGANNON books, named with gratitude after Louisa May Alcott, who wrote LITTLE WOMEN, which started me down this path.
OK, enough procrastinating. Back to the name game! Let's see . . . maybe Marmaduke isn't so bad after all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kathleen: Thank you for the post.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I think a historical fiction writer should stick to authentic names. But it appears that some writers, and probably more readers, aren't so picky.
They wouldn't wince like I did when---to cite some actual examples of name-related anachronisms---I read about a character named "Pamela" in a novel set in twelfth-century England. Or Regency heroine named "Whitney." Nor would they wonder, as I did when I came across a medieval Scottish romance heroine named "Bronwyn," what she was doing with a Welsh name.
Of course, even I won't toss aside a novel just because of an anachronism here and there. How many movie-goers walked out on the film version of GONE WITH THE WIND because its Civil War-era Atlanta featured streetlights before the real one did?
Still, I think insisting on authenticity in personal names is a good idea. Most out-of-period details are forgotten as soon as the passage containing them is over. However, if a name is all wrong for the setting, the reader will be reminded of this error every time the character's name is mentioned.
---Mary Anne Landers
www.facebook.com/maryannelanders
Nicholas, love that name. Well done. Wishing Lucy lots of luck!
ReplyDeleteGood point about the anachronisms, Mary Anne, but some are so glaring that I just shake my head. Didn't know that about the streetlights in GWTW (frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn)(sorry, but it was too good to miss), but if Tara had been set just outside Philly, I don't think I could have gone on reading or watching
ReplyDeleteSherri, my Nicholas will be irreverant, witty, and a bit difficult at times, but loving and worth every bit of effort. Hmmmm.