Madame Manga
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Posts
- 482
To what extent does it confuse you, the reader, if the author changes the standard reference to a particular character within a story, or from an original story to the sequel?
OK, that was probably as clear as mud. ;-) Here's my problem:
Last year I wrote a long romance story (which is posted in several places, but not here.) The entire story was told from the POV of the female protagonist. In description and action, I called the male protagonist by his last name. Since I was in the female's head, she described herself by her first name. (Let's call them John Smith and Mary Brown.)
Smith's reserve irritated her; he didn’t seem precisely unfriendly, but Mary wished he would be more forthcoming.
When introduced at the beginning of the story, they called each other by last names for formality's sake: Mr. Smith, Ms. Brown. When they became more friendly, they began to call each other by first names in dialog, but I continued to use "Smith" in description.
"Thank you, John."
Smith smiled at her. "You're welcome."
I retained "Smith" to the end of the story for two reasons: I had started out calling him that, and I wanted to create a sense of distance and continuing partly-conscious formality on the female character's part. She believes that he is not interested in her, and he is more than ten years older, as well as much wealthier. This is the sort of thing that worries her.
At the end of this first story, they have come to an unspoken understanding, but they are not yet lovers. Ergo, a sequel. I am in the middle of writing that second story.
At the beginning of the sequel, they are still on the footing they achieved at the end of the first story: almost at the point of love, but not intimate. By the middle, they are lovers; by the end, they are engaged to be married.
So far, I have kept "Smith" in description. Now I am getting to actual love (sex) scenes, and although Mary is still a little apprehensive and prudish, she is obviously much more confident about his regard for her.
“Oh, John…” Mary sat up and moved into his arms. “I love you too.”
“Well, that’s good to hear.” Smith stroked her hair and lay back, cradling her head against his chest.
Does that feel a little strange? ;-) I'm reasonably used to it, having done it for 200K words now. In one sense, "Smith" is his authorial name, not just Mary's way of thinking of him. But as I say, the way she thinks of him is connected to her psychological state. She is still not wholly committed to the relationship--that doesn't happen until she accepts his proposal. Should she start thinking of him as "John" at some critical point?
If I decide to go that way, how the hell do I accomplish the switch? Simply changing his name in description sounds like a major jolt for the reader. To compound the difficulties, this sequel introduces other POVs: John Smith's and Mary's teenage son's. Again, I've kept "Smith" for consistency in every case, even when he is observing his own actions.
Sorry; that was a long question! If you read this far, your opinions and suggestions are very welcome!
MM
OK, that was probably as clear as mud. ;-) Here's my problem:
Last year I wrote a long romance story (which is posted in several places, but not here.) The entire story was told from the POV of the female protagonist. In description and action, I called the male protagonist by his last name. Since I was in the female's head, she described herself by her first name. (Let's call them John Smith and Mary Brown.)
Smith's reserve irritated her; he didn’t seem precisely unfriendly, but Mary wished he would be more forthcoming.
When introduced at the beginning of the story, they called each other by last names for formality's sake: Mr. Smith, Ms. Brown. When they became more friendly, they began to call each other by first names in dialog, but I continued to use "Smith" in description.
"Thank you, John."
Smith smiled at her. "You're welcome."
I retained "Smith" to the end of the story for two reasons: I had started out calling him that, and I wanted to create a sense of distance and continuing partly-conscious formality on the female character's part. She believes that he is not interested in her, and he is more than ten years older, as well as much wealthier. This is the sort of thing that worries her.
At the end of this first story, they have come to an unspoken understanding, but they are not yet lovers. Ergo, a sequel. I am in the middle of writing that second story.
At the beginning of the sequel, they are still on the footing they achieved at the end of the first story: almost at the point of love, but not intimate. By the middle, they are lovers; by the end, they are engaged to be married.
So far, I have kept "Smith" in description. Now I am getting to actual love (sex) scenes, and although Mary is still a little apprehensive and prudish, she is obviously much more confident about his regard for her.
“Oh, John…” Mary sat up and moved into his arms. “I love you too.”
“Well, that’s good to hear.” Smith stroked her hair and lay back, cradling her head against his chest.
Does that feel a little strange? ;-) I'm reasonably used to it, having done it for 200K words now. In one sense, "Smith" is his authorial name, not just Mary's way of thinking of him. But as I say, the way she thinks of him is connected to her psychological state. She is still not wholly committed to the relationship--that doesn't happen until she accepts his proposal. Should she start thinking of him as "John" at some critical point?
If I decide to go that way, how the hell do I accomplish the switch? Simply changing his name in description sounds like a major jolt for the reader. To compound the difficulties, this sequel introduces other POVs: John Smith's and Mary's teenage son's. Again, I've kept "Smith" for consistency in every case, even when he is observing his own actions.
Sorry; that was a long question! If you read this far, your opinions and suggestions are very welcome!
MM
Last edited:
