I'm editing a short story. The writer has the narrator switch between using the main character's legal name and nickname at random. Thinking this can possibly be distracting or confusing to the reader, I am tempted to have the narrator use only the legal name or nickname, not both. But the writer thinks that switching between the two names is needed to prevent redundancy. What do you think?
Non editor here. By legal name do you mean their first name or their last name, or both? How similar is the nickname to the real name? Seems to me switching randomly isn't a good idea. But I could see the effectiveness of some approach where certain characters use it when addressing the character (which would still be minimal, people don't actually say a person's name much in conversation). But maybe use the nickname in the narration within another character's POV. For example, when it's from the mom's POV, it would be 'Junior' (even by the omniscient narrator) but other POV would be the legal name. Just an idea.
By legal name, I mean first name. The first name and nickname are very similar. Everything is under an NDA, so I will say that the first name is "Dick Johnson" and that the nickname is "DJ." I like your advice about how switching can be effective, but that doesn't appear to be happening in my case, as the story only has one POV character. The narration reads kind of like this at times: "DJ went to the store [...] At the store, Dick Johnson found apples."
I would go with one and just use pronouns when appropriate. Some writers are concerned about overuse of pronouns which may be the reason they are using both the legal and nickname. I don't have any answers, but if you search the forum there is a thread titled 'Overuse of Pronouns' that may be relevant if you make these edits.
Nickname and epithets are super annoying from the narrator's POV. It's another thing if his mother calls him Robert, his brother calls him Bobby, his students call him Mr. Williams, and his war buddies call him Stiletto, with all those names tied to different POVs and done in a clever, ironic fashion. But when the author randomly switches them it sounds amateurish. Just my opinion.
Thanks everyone. While I have some training as a creative editor, most of my training is in technical editing, so I tend to doubt myself in the creative field occasionally.
Very few creative writing things are black and white. If it's annoying, take it out. If it works, keep it. You can do anything you want so long as it's well-executed. The epithet thing falls under the common mistakes category of amateur authors. Same as show vs tell, POV, starting with the weather, starting with waking up, looking into a mirror to sneak an appearance description past the goalie.... Nothing wrong with any of those things, but they're sooooooo common in crappy writing that they get blown up into bogeymen and lead to tar and feathers.
I agree with Homer on sticking to one name unless it's in dialogue. That's not JKR, just an example of where two names might be used for the same person, but one of the things that throws me (in particular in BrE) is when titles, family names, and offices get mixed and matched. For example: 1) Harry 2) Prince Harry 3) The Duke of Sussex 4) The Sussexes (apparently he and Meghan's family name now) In the British press these get thrown around all the time, mixed and matched. As an American, I'm lost trying to figure out how many people are in the room. My 2yen.
Oh, so mixing and matching titles, family names, and offices is a British thing. I edit for an American publishing company, but we have some British writers. This explains a lot. Thanks.
I think it's sort of a reflex for writers to say don't do it; stick to one name and carry that through the piece. However, I'm reading a book now that does switch from using full name to just first name. And it actually works quite well. It's a book by Emmanuel Carrere. He's sort of brilliant in my opinion. And calling the character my his full name and then his first name and then full name again seems to blend in and feels quite fitting. I can't quite put my finger on what he was thinking with this, but it does seem fitting every time he changes it up.
As long as the reader is told that the character names are of the same person, I doubt there will be confusion. That could be done by inserting some sort of phrase like "Only his friends called him D.J." But I agree that the two names are necessary only if they illustrate the way different people regard the MC. In The Godfather, for example, Santino Corleone is "Santino" to his father, but "Sonny" to everybody else, including the narrator. The fact that his father uses the formal name conveys both the relationship as father-and-son and the Don's roots in a more old-fashioned upbringing where such formality was expected.
IMO it’s fine in dialogue but the narrator should refer to them in a standard way unless there’s a good reason if you look at Stephen leather s book Live fire for example the pro tag Dan spider shepherd is under cover as a bank robber Ricky knight, but Ricky knight is pretending to be called Pete westlake so various characters refer to him as Pete, as Ricky, as spider , or as Dan at various points depending on how they know him and what they know about him however the narrator ( writing in third limited) refers to him as” shepherd “ throughout so the reader is never unclear who he is
Take a look at the context of each usage. Once the character is introduced there is no need to use the last name. See the above post about friends calling him DJ. What is the narrative POV? Using pronouns is a better option, he or I, based on POV. Feedback from beta readers is likely the best way to dissuade the author from his bad idea.
Non-editor here- This is something I have actually been struggling with. My only excuse for this is I feel I have to almost overshare in order to fully explain the situation. Maybe so that others will understand the frame of mind behind the context. This thread has been more than helpful! Thank you!
