So I read somewhere (no names, no judgements) that it's best not to switch back to a character's name, once you've used a pronoun. EG: "Nathan walked into the bar. The first thing he noticed..." What are your thoughts on this? Is it an absolute no-no? Why? I come from a copywriting background and I like having the flexibility of being able to switch up pronouns and names from time to time, so the text becomes less repetitive. It's just an opinion, but I feel that using he, him, his (and/or their counterparts) over and over - without ever switching back to the name - is a little too rigid and restrictive. But I also don't want to turn off my reader.
Sounds like a weird thing to have any kind of rule about. You can interchange names and pronouns at will to create different nuance and voice. Nathan walked into the bar. The first thing he noticed was that they had Old Rotting Dog on draft so he ordered a pint. He liked beer. He drank beer regularly. Nathan walked into the bar. The first thing Nathan noticed was that they had Old Rotting Dog on draft so he ordered a pint. Nathan liked beer. Nathan drank beer regularly. The second version, IMHO, brings us closer to Nathan, it's more personal whilst the first is more stand-offish, simply by using a name, but there is nothing grammatically wrong with either.
Personally, I never heard about this rule and it sounds weird to me. I always switch between pronouns and names, to keep the text from being boring - then again, English is not my first language. But, when writing in Polish there is a pretty hard rule about repetition - it says that you can only repeat a word (be it a pronoun, character name, verb, etc.) after at least 2 or 3 sentences, preferably after an entire paragraph. Now, this rule is almost impossible to use in English, but I always have it in the back of my mind when writing prose, and I think it makes the text less monotonous. And since English has way fewer pronouns than Polish, one of the most sensible ways I found to write without constantly saying he/she is using the names of my characters. So, yeah, even if there is a rule about not using names, I think it's less important than making your text simply pleasant to read.
If it feels rigid when you read it out to another person, it's too rigid. If there are too many pronouns, it's possible the narrative focus is lurking over the character too long when there are other things to talk about around them. Or it may be that the text is too 'bitty' and the paragraph would be better served by longer sentences expressing more complex ideas. Sometimes it's good to reinforce a name. As well as avoiding ambiguity (which I remember one of the people in that other thread rightly mentioned), it's possible for ambiguity to come about on the reader's part - they constantly misread. I'm sure there is a statistic somewhere in the world of advertising about what percentage of the words in a passage people consciously take in - sometimes it's better to get a new character's name in an extra time if it helps the reader notice they're there. Also, unless someone is totally ignoring it and writing disjointed sentences, I'd leave this rule for an editing stage. When a name is put in that should be a pronoun, it's quite noticeable on later reading. For many writers my opening remark will play out in reverse - it's that reading aloud will show pace/flow/etc problems caused by over-naming. There is a school of thought who I'm sure would say attention to this helps with overall composition and avoids other problems. I generally oppose any rules-based approaches to language, grammar, and style (as being prone to elitism, forgetful that any one of us really only knows a few dialects within English, and as assuming speakers can ever tell what our language is up to) - but with this problem I can see that the character name popping up again and again might be a warning sign that the underlying logic of composition is bitty. I guess our 'axis of syntax' reaches for a name at the start of a new idea, so if it's lurching into and out of activity, and not taking time to look at what it's just written, that could cause more clauses to start with a name unnecessarily. That type of composition problem might not be as simple as swapping the names out for pronouns - it's a sign that the passage should be redrafted.
I do what ever feels or sounds right. To me it sounds ridiculous to keep using someone's name and equally so to keep saying he. There's a way to state something without constantly referring to the character which is what I try to do. In my WIP the main character is Tholos - he becomes the he until other male characters come into the scene and then I have to start using his name again to differentiate between the males. If I mention his name before another male appears it's usually a style choice to get the readers attention.
I've heard that 'rule' and was all like "waaaat?" There are certain situations that would fairly necessitate it, for instance a scene with multiple people talking. Yes, until you switch to another speaker, you can keep saying he or she, but once you've switched and go back to the first speaker, it's time to name-tag them again. Or you'd have ultra-confusing dialogue filled with confusing pronouns.
I think the thing to avoid is using the name too many times too close together. Pronouns are a type of word that we tend to glaze over when we're reading -- they're unobtrusive. Proper nouns will stick out more. Personally, I prefer using names either A) when a pronoun wouldn't be clear on who it was referencing, or B) to add a li'l extra punch to a sentence, make it pop, draw the eye to it. I wouldn't follow a rule that just arbitrarily says "stop using the name once you've used a pronoun." Sounds like a shortcut that's missing the actual point.
Is this from my post in the other thread? I'm guessing it is. Spoiler: disclaimer There are no writing rules, so don't search for those. You'll find them anyway, but don't give them too much credit. A "rule" implies an arbiter and a penalty. In writing we don't have those. All we have is people telling their approaches. Some approaches are of very general use and we can treat them as norms. "Try to spell words correctly" would be a typical norm. It's almost a rule, but not quite, because there are exceptions to it. The grammar of writing counts as rules (that's literally what that term means), but the grammar gets broken by voice and style. I was trying to be very brief before in that last post. Well, for a bullet list. I don't want to do too many mega-posts. I'm (in)famous for them as it is. Here are the basics I've learned. You can refer to a character three ways: by title, proper name, pronoun. The most visible is by title (e.g., the one-armed man), and the least is by pronoun (e.g., him). You use a higher level when you need to disambiguate, when the character hasn't been established or for some reason has been lost in the narration. Always strive for clarity. You can almost call that a rule. It's one of the S-tier ones (do the kids still . . . never mind, cross-thread joke). Even clarity gets broken sometimes. Every rule does, because there are no rules. So my advice is: stick to the lower levels when you don't want emphasis on the character. Pronouns are fairly invisible, less noticeable than names, and much less than titles. That allows the action to have greater prominence. If you have to come back and remind the reader who you're talking about, then you should do that, but you don't just fire off a character's name arbitrarily as some terrible, not-to-be-mentioned books do. It's always done for a reason. As others said, play it by ear. You're listening to a need to shift the narrative distance. Using the character's name moves away from the scene. Using a pronoun falls deeper into it. That rise and fall, when done in a broken rhythm, strengthens your paragraph. This kind of reminds me of Palahniuk's advice on the "big and little voices" which you use in rhythms. One is at a high narrative distance and one is at a close distance. Proper names vs. pronouns also are at different heights in the narration. There is an ebb and flow, but IMO (have to qualify that) the most important thing is the deep flow when you sink down into the character and you're moving through them, not reminding the reader where they are, but just showing the story around that character. That's why I say to not jump out of the pronouns unless you have to. The not-to-be-mentioned book I was referring to was using names and pronouns as an error in synonymy. It's like saying "the yellow elongated fruit" instead of "banana" and being impressed at the shift in words. That writer would also rise up and use titles for no discernable reason. Dreadful, trust me. It was completely random. If you use a character's name too much, the writing will feel very distant, like a fairy tale or a courtroom catalogue of events. Maybe that's your goal though? Sometimes you want to be at that higher level. That depends on voice. Pronouns have a few other strengths. The biggest, IMO, is paragraph cohesion. (I'm typing too much, sorry. I'm going to omit this section.) What you should do to truly answer this question (because there is an answer!) is look up your favorite author, the one you wish you were. Go through a scene and really notice the name/pronoun placement. That's your answer key. Your neighbor will have a different result. I think you'll find names being reused but only when there's a purpose. The repetition will be satisfying a need for emphasis or clarity. It will be there to shift the narration up/down. I think I have an unbreakable writing rule! (I'm going to have to consider this.) Here it is: Everything written is done for a reason.
Unnecessary reiteration of a name always interrupts my personal connection with a character and a moment, which makes it one of the most annoying habits I know. Even necessary repetition has a distancing effect. I have set books aside for little or nothing more than pronounced overrepetition -- though it tends to be accompanied by other annoying practices. That doesn't make me right and others wrong, but having that kind of effect on a reader is surely a prospect to bear in mind. While there are a few (annoying) exceptions in published fiction, especially in the last 20 years, high name repetition is also one of the things that in my perception most separates critique group submissions from published fiction. It's my impression that authorial and editorial practice through at least the 2nd half of the 1900s was mostly consistent. The conventions were at least generally understood if not recorded. The baseline was that in the absence of other characters and certain other factors, about once a page(?) was par for naming a character -- sometimes even less in tight narration. In fact, in tight narration, repetition of a name was a kind of deliberate narrative "punctuation" analogous to but less frequent than a paragraph break. Then of course there were a whole bunch of "qualifying events" or contexts that necessitated or motivated a repetition. Offhand only 3-4 come to mind, but they include: mention of a different name; action by another human (or creature?) either named or unnamed; a shift in scene or focus; a transcending statement about a character's preference or wont. Certain authors probably diverged (Elmore Leonard?) and if an author wants to write like a particular person, they should study that writer's practice. But in every case of professionally edited, published fiction, there's a considered practice. Probably the best approach is to study and analyze whatever writers one most respects. We all develop our own style in time, even if we start out emulating others in some respects.
(I actually like Seven Crowns's answer better. I didn't see it while mine was lying half-written before I completed and posted it.)
I liked your answer! We had the same advice, I think. I agree about emphasis. All repetition is emphasis, and we only emphasize what's important. I think you could almost say that every error in writing is really about misplaced emphasis. If you think about it, all writing is is emphasis. (Hmm. . . double-is, somewhat clumsy since it could be edited down. Whatever.) You start with: Once upon a time they lived happily ever after. And then you slip additions into that, emphasizing what's important, adding a reversal maybe, which is a negative emphasis. That's the same thing, like how subtraction is really addition.
When I use a pronoun I continue to use it within that paragraph, unless there's a risk of confusing the reader. You're trying to help the reader track your writing, and you want to make sure they won't get sidetracked. If there are other characters or issues pronouns can confuse things.
