Been pondering this lately. Like I haven't introduced my character by name yet throughout the story, and I was thinking, do you ever really need to if you write in 1st Person?
You can do whatever you want. What's the purpose of not introducing your character? What's the purpose of introducing your character?
I wrote a play once, which I'm really proud of to this day, where during the writing process I didn't name any of the characters; I just numbered them. They still had really distinctive characterizations, though. After the first draft, I named them all, but the original writing process is still visible if you know what you're looking for - the characters practically never address each other by name; if you were watching a performance of the show, you would distinguish them by face, not name. It hasn't been performed, unfortunately, but getting a performance of it done is one of my aspirations (though lesser than my novelist aspirations).
Len Deighton's early spy thrillers (The Ipcress File, Billion-Dollar Brain, Horse Under Water) all feature the same nameless hero, like Clint Eastwood's character in "Fistful of Dollars", etc (I'd actually forgotten the film's name and Googled "man with no name"!). In both cases the anonymity was a fundamental part of his character, so my feeling is; do it if it adds something (e.g. man of mystery) to your characterisation. Deighton was writing 1st person POV, so didn't need to refer to his character as "The man with no name put on his raincoat" There's one scene where Deighton's hero (a spy) is addressed as, let's say, Herr Wilson. "Now, my name's not Wilson but I was trying to remember if it ever had been."
You don't have to, no. However, the only books where I think I have seen it done is in some of Roald Dahl's shorter stories, so that might be something to consider. I have seen it in other pieces of media - when I played through the 'Saints Row' videogames I found that, because you named your character and the entire thing used voice acting as opposed to subtitles, the name of the character was never shown. However, in this case the character was the leader of a gang so most people referred to him as "boss". I suppose it can work but you have to handle such a method with care so that it doesn't feel as if you are deliberately trying to avoid the name and more that it just never comes up.
I read a story online (Protect & Survive: A Timeline, on Alternatehistory.com) where the fictional characters were just referred to by their profession, eg: "The Librarian".
I'm reading Jeff Vandermeer's Southern Reach trilogy wherein a similar feature is deployed by the writer. Everyone is referred to only by their job on the mission. It makes sense in the first book, but as the second book unfolds in a different environment away from the one that necessitated everyone being called only by their job, it begins to feel gimmicky.
If I were considering it, I would ask myself: What is the purpose behind not naming the protagonist? What does it add to the story? How might it detract from the story? Will it flow without it or, in the end, feel stilted or gimmicky? Just about anything 'can' work. In the end look at it from the reader's point of view. Remember, you have that image of the protagonist in your head (as a writer). You have information and details the reader will never have. A name can be an anchor for a reader, a piece of the character 'puzzle'.
I am Jack's sarcastic pop-culture quip. … The point being that it has definitely worked at least once.
My favourite book never, ever names the main character which is kind of the point because he doesn't know who he is anymore. I suppose it depends whether there is a reason they're never named other than 'it never comes up' and if it feels right.
The protagonist is not named in the novel Rebecca, by Daphne du Maurier. In this story, the MC is overshadowed by her predecessor who still seems to dominate, despite her absence. Not naming the protagonist adds to the feeling that she is struggling to find her own place in the world.
I imagine it could work in 1st person but 3rd person would be a different beast entirely. I think in 3rd person it would depend on how you refer to the character, by title? Nickname? Or just descriptors?
In The Road, in some parts, the two characters are referred to as "the father" and "the son"; in others, they are referred to as "the man" and "the boy". Granted, for most of the story, they are the only two human beings in sight.
No, not yet, I'm only four chapters in at the moment though so that could well be subject to change, but as of now I haven't had to mention his name and a sudden drop of it would just feel odd.
Its up to you like in Jane Eyre the protagonist has a name, we all know the speaker is Jane. It would be better if you give your protagonist a name.
i have only named my characters, because there are so bloody many of them that it would be impossible otherwise, although *the master swordsman* could work for my MC, as thats his trade, and he is the reason that the series exists... it really is up to you, if you think it needs it then go ahead, drop the name in, if it doesnt seem right, dont.
This is what I was thinking too. I just read an oldie, The Good Soldier by Ford Madox Ford and unless I missed it, he only once, casualy mentioned the narrators name towards the end of the novel and he didn't have to. Good book by the way.
I don’t think you have to name your protagonist. If you don’t draw any attention to the fact, then most readers probably wouldn’t notice. If you’re intentionally choosing to do this, I think it would be best to avoid any situations where the name should/would be spoken. For example, if another character were to ask the protagonist their name, as you’re in first person you could say something like ‘She asked me my name, so I told her what it was’. It still works, but it draws attention to your protagonists’ lack of a name. I’d try to skip anything like this.