Nouns vs personal pronouns in fiction writing

[Brian G Turner]

Something I've noticed in a couple of critiques feedback, is people pointing out that they felt pulled out of the story when I've mentioned a character name.

I'm writing in third person limited, and I make a point of writing the character name (noun):

1. To avoid too much repetition with third person personal pronouns (he, she, etc)
2. Any time when it may not be clear which character is being attributed by a pronoun

The suggestion from the critiques is that I may be breaking a rule about noun vs pronoun use - however, I've not seen anything come up as yet in the writing books I read, and I've not noticed a distinct pattern in fiction, either.

Are there are any guidelines on balancing use of nouns vs pronouns correctly? Or is it the case of using subjective judgement in the context of a piece?

Am just wondering if there's something important I'm over-looking, because I really don't understand what people mean when they say reading a character name pulls them out of a limited POV. Hence asking if there are general rules I need to read up on.

 

[Glitch]

In earlier crits I had feedback that I was using character names too much. Now I try as you to mix it up with the he/she.

So I'm not aware of any rules, but would be equally interested to find out.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

If i am right, this was raised in your, brian's last crit when you were experimenting with being deep in point of view, so much so the voice was the character's direct thoughts exposed in their dialogue. When i am thinking to myself i don't refer to myself as springs. so, even though you are in third, imho when you go to direct exposition, as you were wanting to, then the charcter thoughts are direct, almost first, and thus the use of a name pulls us from the voice, reminds us we are reading, and thus jars. I think... And tj said something about that, that you have to go in and out of it smoothly, but you were using the name whilst deep in exposition, so it jarred against their direct thoughts.

I hope that made sense, i am working at it myself at the mo, and this is my understanding. I could be completely wrong, though.

 

[Ursa major]

I've had a comment (one I agree with) that I was using far too many personal pronouns. Part of this proliferation was created by following up my own previous observation that there were too many occurrences of the names. (It's too easy to become a zealot in these cases. )

For example, in the chapter in WiP1 where the MC is running on all fours, the example originally posted in the Writing Group had 3 occurrences of her name and 86 eek of 'she' (out of 1526 total words).

In the version of this chapter submitted to Harper Voyager, there were 16 occurrences of her name and 29 of 'she' (out of 1693 total words).

Obviously, I changed some of the instances of 'she' into her name, but I managed to remove more than half of the instances of 'she' entirely by rewriting the text.



The two most obvious areas - obvious at this particular moment o) - to change are:

• Where the narrator is describing how they're sensing (seeing, hearing, smelling, feeling, etc.) the world around them. This is not only unnecessary, it places the narrator between the reader and that being described, which risks pulling the reader out of the story.
• Not putting the pronoun/name into every part of a complex sentence; so

'As she rose from the ground, she adopted a four-legged stance. She shook her body, relaxing her back.'
​

becomes

'Rising from the ground, she adopted a four-legged stance and shook her body to relax her back.'
​

 

[The Judge]

There's no rule as such, Brian -- it's a question of the feel of a piece.

I would always start a scene with the person's name, but if she is the only person present, I'd use the name sparingly after that, and only as a way of breaking up all the necessary "she"s. When there are two people of different sex then again I'd use mostly "he" and "she" since there's no possibility of confusion. When there are two or more people of the same sex it can get tricky, but I'd still try and avoid too many names too quickly, re-structuring lines and dialogue if need be. "He" and "she" tend to be invisible words; proper names aren't so tend to be noticed. The more something is noticed, the more irritating it becomes.

In your piece, not only did you repeat the name in the same very short paragraph, which wasn't necessary as you'd mentioned no one else at that point, you were writing very close in to the character. In effect that was like him muttering to himself only without quotation marks or italics to show it, and using third instead of first person. So, he wouldn't mutter "Bloody fire. Spent hours gathering those twigs, Ulric did." but "I did" and to me the "I" is best translated as "he" save to avoid confusion if he's just spoken of someone else. So in those very close passages, I'd use the name even less than in normal narrative.


NB Ursa, you mean "Having risen from the ground, she..." (OK yes -- I can see it possibly all happening at the same time, but we don't want you to get into bad habits!!)

 

[Peter Graham]

Something I've noticed in a couple of critiques feedback, is people pointing out that they felt pulled out of the story when I've mentioned a character name.

It's not a massive issue, but there is an element of not being able to have it both ways. When you are in close to a character, it's good to express things as they would express it. That inevitably involves fewer flag-ups and signifiers of the sort that would help the people at the next table quickly understand who is who. If I'm down the Lamb and Flag with Dave or Rancid John, it's highly unlikely that I would use their names very often - if at all - over the course of our soiree.

"Stop being a tosser, mate,"

..would be far more likely both in speech or thought than

"Stop being a tosser, Dave Ten Pints"

It's these patterns which you are seeking to replicate if close p.o.v is to have the ring of truth to it. Pullman is a massive offender on this, not that it did him any harm. For example, every time anyone speaks to the chief witch, they feel the need to use her full name - Serafina Pekkala (or something like that). It sounds unconvincing.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Brian G Turner]

When i am thinking to myself i don't refer to myself as springs.

In your piece, not only did you repeat the name in the same very short paragraph, which wasn't necessary as you'd mentioned no one else at that point, you were writing very close in to the character. In effect that was like him muttering to himself only without quotation marks or italics to show it, and using third instead of first person.

The weird thing is that Abercrombie appears to me to do this in his writing - you have a character POV written in the character voice - but at various points the character is named.

So far I haven't really noted a pattern, unless you consider that there are two voices running: character thoughts (no name) and character narration (name allowed). I find it tricky to separate both voices, though.

However, I know I've been called up on this issue in more than one crit - I'm just struggling to figure out how it works best. Maybe I should just type up some Abercrombie chapters so I can get a better idea of how he's using character POV and see if anything stands out.

Just bugs me that I don't understand this as yet.

 

[HareBrain]

The weird thing is that Abercrombie appears to me to do this in his writing - you have a character POV written in the character voice - but at various points the character is named.

I've just had a look at the first couple of pages of Heroes. Mostly, Abercrombie sticks to the guidelines given by TJ above -- but you're right, there are a couple of instances where he uses Craw's name when he doesn't have to, mid-paragraph, and it still works. I'm not sure why it does and yours didn't. I'll type them out and see if anyone has any ideas.

1. Craw found himself wondering how much each of those great slabs of rock weighed. Only the dead knew how they'd dragged the ******* things up here. Or who had. Or why. The dead weren't telling, though, and Craw had no plans on joining 'em just to find out.

2. Craw counted eight men [... description of group, but not any individual ...]. Lots of weapons. Fair bit younger, in the main, but they didn't look much different to Craw's own crew of a night.

He/his would work in both instances, but the name seems to me to work better and yet doesn't distance the POV.

 

[Kylara]

I think it is because it is a possessive(?) use of the name...the name emphasises the point and gives in the first a smug little twist to the last sentence...the second it is used instead of 'my' in first person...again emphasising the meaning and the ownership of the crew...

 

[The Judge]

To me those two instances work because in both Craw has referred to someone else, even if not specific identifiable individuals. We're not just watching him do something, where his name isn't needed by way of reinforcement -- we've gone away from him to see others and then we need to come back to him, as it were. Although there wouldn't be confusion, the use of the name grounds the story in him again more concretely than a "he" would do. In that first example, I also wonder if it serves by way of a minor emphasis -- a kind of "And I've got no intention" without the need for an italic or underlining.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

That's the way I read the first line, like he is stating his intention, is stating who he is, as a thought of defiance.

 

[Ursa major]

I'm not sure I like what I see as an overuse of the name, Craw, though given that text is missing from the second example, it's harder to judge in that case. In the first example, the only individual mentioned is Craw, so I personally would prefer 'he' (assuming Craw is a he) to replace the second instance of Craw.

NB Ursa, you mean "Having risen from the ground, she..." (OK yes -- I can see it possibly all happening at the same time, but we don't want you to get into bad habits!!)

It is happening simultaneously. And while I don't think the grammar insists that the shaking is simultaneous (though I accept that's the implication), the shaking happens before she's finished rising.

It's a matter of posture. A biped (well, this biped), when rising from the ground, would usually raise its shoulders first and these would remain higher than the hips through most of the process.

What Carolyne is doing is different: she doesn't so much change from a bipedal position to a quadrupedal one as do what a quadruped would do naturally. However, while the (unconscious) intention to stand on all fours is present throughout, the shaking aids the necessary physical changes (in terms of posture, not anything fantastical) to her frame to allow reality to match that intention.

 

[Toby Frost]

For example, every time anyone speaks to the chief witch, they feel the need to use her full name - Serafina Pekkala (or something like that). It sounds unconvincing.

And for some reason, very Russian. "Stop being a tosser, Dimitri Tenovitch Pintovsky!"

 

[alchemist]

Am just wondering if there's something important I'm over-looking, because I really don't understand what people mean when they say reading a character name pulls them out of a limited POV. Hence asking if there are general rules I need to read up on.

It wouldn't pull me out, but this may all be about the personal taste of the reader. I vaguely remember a critique of a piece in 3rd person limited where somebody said you shouldn't name the POV character until somebody else does, which appeared OTT to me. The same goes for how someone refers to themselves in their own thoughts -- most thought isn't done in words.

Frankly, a lot of discussion on this issue sounds more like a philosophical discussion on neurocognitive functioning than it does the qualities of good writing.

*grump*

 

[Jo Zebedee]

You could see it as a busman's holiday.

 

[Mouse]

I fancy, if the narration's quite close to character thoughts, then if their name is used a lot, it makes the character come over as quite dim. Which is fine if your character is dim.

 

[Glitch]

If I'm down the Lamb and Flag with Dave or Rancid John, it's highly unlikely that I would use their names very often - if at all - over the course of our soiree.

The difference I think is that you would turn and face Dave or John and thus they would know who you're speaking to. Also if you were looking the other way and one of them spoke, you would know which one by the sound of their voice. Two things which are harder to infer without the name when writing.

Peter turned to Dave. "Stop being a tosser, mate,"
or
"Stop being a tosser, mate," Peter said turning to Dave.

However judging from the replies to this thread I think Brian's particular issue was using the name in close thoughts, rather than general speech.

 

[Cayal]

In earlier crits I had feedback that I was using character names too much. Now I try as you to mix it up with the he/she.

So I'm not aware of any rules, but would be equally interested to find out.

Me too.

I feel as if I am constantly repeating the characters name and it seems too repetitive.

 

[Lucky_Lola]

And for some reason, very Russian. "Stop being a tosser, Dimitri Tenovitch Pintovsky!"

Ugh, yes. I understand it was a point of difference between Lyra's world and ours, but yeesh, how it jarred!

 

[Peter Graham]

The difference I think is that you would turn and face Dave or John and thus they would know who you're speaking to.

Very fair point.

Two things which are harder to infer without the name when writing.

Also true. But if one decides to use that narative voice, these are the problems that have to be overcome.

However judging from the replies to this thread I think Brian's particular issue was using the name in close thoughts, rather than general speech.

Agreed. I stated that my original example was as good for thought as it was for speech. Articulated thought is an odd thing - because, of course, our actual thoughts are unlikely to be as coherent as they are when recorded. But nonetheless, if I'm thinking about someone, I don't find myself using their name.

Regards,

Peter