Mouse's thread on place names comes just in time for something I've been pondering. People names.
If one is writing about a future in this world (or after we've left it for other places), is it better to make an attempt to extrapolate the oddities that names have taken to, making up fanciful names for ordinary humans, or is it better to keep relatively normal-to-now names?
I don't find it jarring, myself, to read something that was written 80 years ago about the present time and see that everyone is named whatever was current back then; they didn't, for the most part, anticipate the Rainbow Moonbeams of the 70's or the Tiffanies of the 80's or the Apples and Blankets (or Beezow Doo-doo Zoppittybop-bop-bops) of today, and that doesn't really bother me. So I tend to keep relatively normal names when writing about something 100 years or more in the future.
Does either option bother anyone, when you run across it?
If one is writing about a future in this world (or after we've left it for other places), is it better to make an attempt to extrapolate the oddities that names have taken to, making up fanciful names for ordinary humans, or is it better to keep relatively normal-to-now names?
I don't find it jarring, myself, to read something that was written 80 years ago about the present time and see that everyone is named whatever was current back then; they didn't, for the most part, anticipate the Rainbow Moonbeams of the 70's or the Tiffanies of the 80's or the Apples and Blankets (or Beezow Doo-doo Zoppittybop-bop-bops) of today, and that doesn't really bother me. So I tend to keep relatively normal names when writing about something 100 years or more in the future.
Does either option bother anyone, when you run across it?