Brent Corign Brent Evien

DESIGNATION OF CHARACTERS

In naming the characters, there are their names, of course.

The soft and hard consonants have not the same effect, there are names that are "young" and others who are "old." Others are like keys because they call the memory of a character bearing the same name.

And when you create a name, it better resembles an existing name, because then the reader can more easily remember (I remember reading how much Dostoevsky had been difficult at first for me, because not only the characters had names with sounds unusual but in addition, depending on their partner was one or another of their first names or nicknames, which was used).

Beta-Cocyclics readings have also taught me this ...

The character can be designated in several ways. The choice between these different possibilities, in fact, depends not only descriptive information you want to give. This choice is crucial in building narrative tension.

A small example to clarify this:

"Albert ran."

"The man ran."

"The forty-ran."

" ; The bald ran. "

¯ If it is" Albert "running, well, the reader tends to have sympathy for him, because the wording makes us close, identification is easy. One imagines "Albert" in a rather banal.

¯ If this "man", the voltage is more noticeable. "Man" is opposed to the non-human. Perhaps Albert being threatened. In any case, the singular here refers to a form of solitude. The identification, if appropriate, touch something deeper in the reader.

¯ If it is "the forties" running, well, what is highlighted is the fact that he will be out of breath quickly. Even if the character was built as sportsmanship, designated by age, here, is to oppose his physique than someone younger. The designation gives a clue to the result. If the character is continued, it eventually caught up with ... probably

¯ If it is "the bald" running, there is a lot less tension, if at all, because what matters here is visualization. The reader might well imagine a skull that moves like a ball Billiards. For me it is at the limit of the comic effect. The reader will care about probably not what will happen to Albert.

For my part, I like the appointment with the definite article.

It makes me feel to strip the character to leave him that much, returning to his "kind" of man.

Still, I avoid using too much this designation. I keep it for the "moments", those where the character is going through a break, those that will radically change.

For 'moments, "so those where, with the common name, I will create pathos. Because it seems to me, personally, that the exemplary character induced by the definite article refers to the tragic, and I prefer the tragic.

All this is obviously a matter of taste.

And, as usual, there is a chasm between theory and practice. In the news I'm writing, my character is often referred to as "adolescent" without him live, provided a moment strong. Because in practice, I can not call him by his first name each time.