Hi,
My WIP essentially describes a divide between two very separate social groups in a small society. One of these groups is very formal and (for example) refers to others in the group by nickname when engaged in social chit-chat, but by formal name when either giving orders (to express dominance) or receiving them (to express respect).

It all makes sense to me and allows me to work in a number of nuances throughout the dialogue, but some of my readers have complained about the number of layers... specifically the way that the use of both nickname and formal name for characters who only appear fleetingly makes it very hard to keep track of who is talking and to whom. (One reader even counted out the number of different names I had used in one paragraph, which made me blush a little.)

I'm reluctant to actually dump the naming system, but I will certainly have to tone it down and make it less self-conscious. But am I just being bloody minded? Has anybody tried to do something similar or seen something similar where it either worked or didn't work?

G

It is a problem I've encountered before. Where someone has a nickname it's ok to use it in dialogue, but put the full name in the prose'.
eg, 'Jinny, you look gorgeous' said Barry, turning to kiss his wife, Jennifer.
In synopses I advise not to use 3 names in a sentence, as it can make it difficult to follow, eg,
Carrie's husband, Tom, is in love with Jennifer.
Now if you've got a paragraph where you're using a combination of those, and throwing in 'darling', Mr Smith, Col. Mustard, etc, it can get very confusing.
This is why it's advised to stick to one person's pov, so as they move through the crowd they and the reader are meeting each character in turn. And try to confine a paragraph to two or three characters.

<Added>

sorry, that was a bit of a roundabout reply.
It they are just minor characters, then you might need something more than a name or nickname to make them memorable to the reader; a bit more of a character sketch - the old man who smells of cat pee, the old woman with the red slash of lipstick, etc.

It they are just minor characters, then you might need something more than a name or nickname to make them memorable to the reader; a bit more of a character sketch - the old man who smells of cat pee, the old woman with the red slash of lipstick, etc.

Think this is what's missing, but I hate that as they are such minor characters and I have a steadily growing cast... So my preference would be to edit them out entirely.
But they also illustrate important social dynamics and fuel later scenes.
Perhaps a combination... keep the naming and bit parts but only report a subsection of the dialogue and refer by description to dilute it a bit.
Hmmm.

Am I right in thinking that this is something Chekhov has done with the characters in his plays? Maybe worth taking a look at.

Joolz

Am I right in thinking that this is something Chekhov has done with the characters in his plays?

EEK!
He wrote quite a lot it would appear... Can you be more specific?
But, yes, I am thinking that there are quite a few bits of obfuscation and symbolism within my (inadequate and generalising) understanding of Russian / East European writing style that appeal here. As it is, there is a very strong symbolic theme to the naming system (regrettably, another thing my readers hated... ) which I can build on.

Ok, I'm home, I have a copy of The Seagull in front of me. For example:

TREPLYOV: Yes, you should live in the city. (Seeing Masha and Medevenko.) My friends, when it starts you'll be called but you shouldn't be here now. Go away please.

SORIN (To Masha): Marya Ilyinichna, be kind enough to ask your papa to let the dog off its chain, otherwise it'll bark. My sister again didn't sleep all night.

MASHA: Speak to my father yourself, I won't. Please don't ask me to. {To Medvedenko] Let's go.

MEDVEDENKO (to Treplyov): You'll send someone to tell us before it starts.

(They both go out.)

SORIN: That means the dog will howl all night again. It's a funny thing, I've never lived in the country as I wanted to. I used to take four weeks' leave and come here to relax and so on and so on, but they'd get at you here with all sorts of nonsense so that you wanted out on the very first day...(laughs.) I always left here with pleasure...Well, and now I'm retired, at the end of the day ther's nowhere to put myself. Whether you want to or not, you have to live...

YAKOV (to Treplyov): Konstantin Gavrilych, we're going for a swim.

TREPLYOV: All right, only be in your places in ten minutes. [Looks at his watch.] It'll start soon.

YAKOV: Yes, sir. (Goes out.)



It's a small extract, but I think it starts to show how the characters have several names. Masha, for example, is not only referred to as Marya Ilyinichna, but also Mashenka, depending on who she is being adressed by. The stage directions always explain to the actor who it is that they are speaking to, so that helps.

Joolz.

...would it help to upload a bit of your work for us to look at? Maybe it just needs fresh eyes. I don't think there is anything wrong with using multiple names for characters, especially as it sounds like you have a strong theme to back it up. Maybe the delivery needs some clarification?

Joolz

I have to say it's one of the reasons I've always found Russian novelists so bloody hard to read! Everyone has so many names, patronymics, diminutives etc etc. Georgette Heyer does it too - in common with many historical novelists - her hero is usually Lord Thingummy of Blankshire to society, Thingummy to his friends, Peter to his sister, Pippin to his mother, Earl Wotsit when his father dies, etc etc. She however usually confines the full panoply of names to the protagonist and perhaps one or two of his friends.

I suspect it's one of those things that you can get away with if it's done well and applied to very real and fleshed-out characters, but if done badly then would only add to the reader's confusion and annoyance.

Perhaps can you concentrate on the nickname/formal divide for the main characters and for the minor ones either abandon/skate over the nickname, or else choose one that's sufficiently similar to their established name for the reader to make the intuitive leap easily?

It sounds like a fun idea and worth saving if you can.

She however usually confines the full panoply of names to the protagonist and perhaps one or two of his friends.

Regrettably, I think I may have to follow suit.

It sounds like a fun idea and worth saving if you can.

It is, and I'm trying! REALLY trying.

would it help to upload a bit of your work for us to look at?

Thanks, but at the moment I know it's broken so I want to try out a few things first... Once I have some likely candidates, I'll maybe upload some to test out which work and which don't.

I _loved_ the play extract! (And am incredibly appreciative of the effort to type it out. ) It reminds me a bit of the Master and Marguerita with (what seems to a non-Russian) the very stylised speech patterns and strong "rules of engagement". To an extent, I can improvise some stage directions to make it make sense, but I think the strongest aspect is that it is done so confidently... the reader / viewer / audience member is expected to pick it up...

Whereas, some of my attempts have been a bit contrived to position nickname beside formal name to make the point.

Anyway, I'll keep bashing away at it.

I absolutely agree with the confidence thing - to use a non name related example, Patrick O'Brian plunges his readers into an immensely complicated world of naval terminology, cant, slang and technical language - and never makes any allowances whatsoever. He barely ever explains a term, and even when he does the explanation is usually couched in such (deliberately) technical language that the layman is none the wiser.

However it's done so confidently and so superbly that you don't really care and the sense comes through anyway. The important thing is that it doesn't detract one whit from the story - he uses the language when its necessary and realistic in context, and strips it back to the essentials when it would distract.

Not sure if this is helpful to your dilemma or not...! I'm just thinking aloud really.

Not sure if this is helpful to your dilemma or not...!

Yes, it is. Very much so.

It's all part of the RUE (resist urge to explain) stuff I guess. Just another dimension of learning the difference between stuff I write for my benefit (and should discard in the final draft) and stuff I need to keep for my readers' benefit.

I read The Duchess (Amanda Foreman) recently, she shows the whole multiple names thing of the time, but not to a huge extent, so it didn't feel confusing. Maybe worth a read?

Joolz

Thanks Jools, I'll look out for it.
G

<Added>

For Jools, please read Joolz...
Sorry...
I should no better with a name like mine...
Guais

<Added>

EEK! I know no is not know.

Jools, Jules, Joolz, or Julie for that matter. In fact, one of my office buddies keeps calling me Rachael (I've yet to figure out why) so I'll respond all the same

Thanks for your consideration though Guais

Joozl

For one particularly odd week, I worked in a factory with somebody who insisted on calling me Gavin.