His name is, "Tharion the Wolf Assassion," or should it be "Tharion the Wolf-assassin?" He doesn't kill wolves, but is an assassin who is deemed a hunter like a wolf. Thanks for the clarification.
I think you could write it either way. Think of it this way--if you were writing about a Japanese guy who was an assassin, you'd call him Tharion, the Japanese Assassin. There wouldn't be a hyphen there. Google words with assassin in front, and I don't think you'll see any with them (or hardly ever). Or google: hyphenating compound nouns and then read up on when/when not to use hyphens.
I don't know if this helps, but this is what my 2008 AP Stylebook says about hyphens (it may not be exactly how you would use them since it's an attempt to unify writing across the globe, but I found that read this helped me with hyphens, so it might help you as well.) In your situation, I would advise not to use the hyphen, because the modifier "Wolf Assassin" is coming after the noun it is modifying. Hyphens, from my understanding of them, generally imply that the modified word comes after the hyphenated clause in most cases. Because of this, in your case, I would use the unhyphenated version.
either way invites confusion as to whether he assassinates wolves [which is the most obvious assumption], or is a wolf who assassinates other critters...
I assume you're suggesting that I rename him for clarity? I wanted to keep the "wolf" part in, and he is an assassin, but if it would be best to rename him for clarity, I could keep at it. :redface:
As SO frequently, the "confusion" about such matters is not a problem. Readers will not, presumably, be kept in the dark for long. He's either out slaying wolves or not. You like the name, use it. No hyphen.
good point... making the book-browser curious about the title's meaning can be a good thing... but only if you don't take too long to explain it, once they've dived into the story... and in that instance, i'd agree with the 'no hyphen' advice...
You miss the point. There is not necessarily any NEED to explain it, especially if its something intrinsic to the story like this name. Readers aren't as stupid as editors and teachers make them out to be. And they aren't looking for problems, just reading a story. it's worth keeping in mind.
A title is the product label that often determines whether the reader bothers to turn to the first page. Its accuracy is less important than its ability to intrigue the reader, although a title which is highly misleading is likely to either grab a reader who has no interest in the true content, or who hets pissed off for getting ripped off. However, you have the entire time you are writing and revising the book to come up with a better title, so it's not worth much early wringing of hands and midnight terrors. Just stick with a working title until you are stricken by one that blazes forth and dazzles you with its brilliance.
Absolutely. If we're talking titles, not just character names, that's all the more true. Titles don't have to be explained. What does "Naked Lunch" mean? Does "X Men" convey anything. This is just so not a problem. If anybody gets hung up on whether you're talking about assassin wolves or vice versa, maybe they'll take a look at the back cover blurb. One of the BIG problems on writing forums and writing "coaching" in general is that people tell writers to try to make everything crystal clear without any possible chance for misinterpration that might confuse and dismay the reader. Obviously real lit doesn't work like that. So anyway, yeah, cool Wolf Assassin. If you don't mind have "ass" in your title twice.
I tend to say assassin "ASS-ASS-in myself But than again, I do that with a lot of words. BTW: I've decided to stick with Wolf Assassin, I just feel it looks good and flows well. So thank you and I thank everyone for getting me thinking.
