Names, or no names. . . by Jonathan Allen

The impact of names in children's books is something that I hadn't thought about particularly until I read an article about the stage version of Maurice Sendak's 'Where The Wild Things Are'.
In the article, Sendak talked about how he felt he couldn't stage direct his creatures until they had defined personalities. To this end he felt they needed to have names. Not overtly in the script, but just as a personal device to help their coming alive as animated beings feel more convincing. Hooks to hang their behavioral characteristics on if you like.

It was interesting that there was felt to be no need for this naming in the actual book, ( or come to think of it, in Sendak's head at the time of writing and drawing it ). Maybe because the creatures weren't differentiated in the book, they were the Wild Things, and didn't need the distraction of having different personalities.

Anyway, that is by the by. What was really fascinating to me, and revealing about my own mental blind spots etc, were the names he chose. I may not have the first one exactly right but you will get the idea. He chose the names Aaron, Moysha and Tzippy.

Because of my lack of examination of my own cultural bias, or awareness that I even had much of one, I was surprised. The surprise was only momentary, But my inner self monitoring process clocked it! I gave myself a clip round the ear. Why on earth should it be even remotely surprising that a Jewish author would give his creations Jewish names?

On further consideration, I came to the conclusion that it was the baggage that comes with names that had struck me. Suddenly, Sendak's creatures had ethnicity! They were no longer universal creatures from the imagination in quite the same way.

This made me think up all sorts of names for the creatures and see what difference that made to my view of them. What if they were Alf, Bert and Norman, or Rory, Torquil and Hector? What if they were Gudeep, Arshad and Divinda, or Lloyd, Winston and Curtley? etc etc. Or what, heaven forfend, if they were girls? ;-)
It does seem that a seething morass of entirely subjective cultural bias, class bias, and unsubstantiated preconceptions is invoked every time a name is used! (If you can evoke a morass. . . Look, I like mixed metaphors!)

I have been steering clear of names in my own work for a long time without really examining why. It just felt right. It's nice to know that my unconscious was on the ball. . .
I think it is similar to choosing animals as protagonists in your books, as I tend to do. By using animals, you avoid the class, culture, and gender issues that depicting children can stir up. These issues can distract from the story or the point of a book and threaten to spoil it. I find that by using non-names like Baby Owl and Little Puffin as well, I can neatly sidestep these distractions for a second time.

ps - Not that there is anything wrong with names used in the full awareness of their 'baggage'. 'Peter Rabbit' is set in a particular time and place, as is Shirley Hughes 'Alfie' and many others. And they are great. I just can't imagine 'Denis the Gruffalo' working all that well. . .

It's tricky, finding the right name, by Paeony Lewis

Writers flounder if they can’t find the right names for their characters. Even with picture books, the story doesn’t come alive in our imagination. Mary Hoffman says, “I simply can't write a character till I know their name. And if I get the name wrong, the character won't come right till I change it. Right from the start I instinctively know the names of some characters. This happened with Grace of Amazing Grace."

Unfortunately not all names and characters burst into life, fully formed. So how does a writer decide on a name? Of course, all writers work differently. However, sometimes writers use the names of young family and friends. Diana Kimpton remembers that, “In The Bear Father Christmas Forgot, the child, Madeleine, was named after my niece who had just been born.”

Whilst author, Ragnhild Scamell, says, “Although I live in Britain, I’m Danish by birth. Danish names often suggest themselves to me, and that makes life a little difficult, so I frequently end up using the names of children I know and love.” In fact, there is one Danish name, Vigo, that Ragnhild does intend to use in a future picture book. Vigo is her grandson and Ragnhild wants to celebrate her ‘Little Viking’ who is battling to walk.*

With my stories, I rarely use the names of somebody I know. Instead, names leap out at me from the pages of a book of baby names that sits on a shelf above my desk. In No More Biscuits (followed by No More Yawning), my characters Florence and Arnold began life with the names Becky and Squiffy Duck. Then they became Becky and Floppy Rabbit. Then Florence and Rabbity. And finally Florence and Arnold.

Why did I keep changing the names? As the story developed over many months, the characters altered. Cute, eager-to-please Becky became strong-willed, independent, imaginative Florence. The old Becky liked to drag Rabbity around by his ear. The new Florence understood that a stuffed rabbit hated having his ear pulled. Then the toy became a monkey and as Arnold is totally real to Florence, he had to have a real name, not a silly toy name.

Not every character’s name is borrowed from a child or found in a book of baby names. Jane Clarke has an intriguing method: “I begin with a thesaurus, listing words that fit the animal I want to write about, and then I try morphing each word until I find one or more that makes a familiar-sounding name. For example, Gilbert is a shark and his name incorporates thefishy word gill. I like a name that sounds sturdy, friendly, slightly unusual and timeless - and it makes me very happy when I can find it.”

Sometimes publishers want to change the names we’ve given our characters. In Best Friends or Not?, the two little polar bears were originally named Lucy and Eva. I can understand why the publisher wanted to use more general, Arctic names, but it took a bit of getting used to! They suggested Nanook, and I came up with Suka (a popular name for Arctic husky dogs), and Nanook and Suka were born.

The same publisher helped Moira Munro with one of her characters in the Hamish series. “In a surge of writing confidence, I was inspired to name the big bear ‘Whizziguff’ in my story. Now that is original! The publishers kindly suggested we call him ‘Big Bear'."

Big Bear? Are you thinking that’s a bit generic? I’ve been thinking about this and I feel that in some instances general names like Big Bear, Little Duck, Elephant and Mouse are the best choice. I’m not sure I can say precisely why – it just feels right. Can others cast light on this? Maybe it’s linked to traditional oral storytelling where a character is more easily introduced,visualised and remembered if they’re just called the princess, stepmother, witch, little pig, etc. But that doesn’t explain why we often use names like Big Bear and Little Duck in printed books. Perhaps we want a more general emotional response to the character, rather than individualism?

Of course, it doesn’t really matter how a character is named, as long as it’s the right name. Having said that, sometimes a name is changed in an overseas edition of a British book. In a South Korean edition of my I’ll Always Love You, the bear Alex becomes Bobo. That’s fine by me as I think Bobo is a cute name and less ‘Western’ than Alex. Anyway, we seldom have a clue what has been done to the text because few British children’s authors can read languages such as Korean, Chinese or Arabic!

I wonder if anyone knows the most popular names in picture books published outside the UK? It would be interesting to discover more about this. Plus I’m always intrigued to hear how other writers decide on the names of their fictional characters. Do tell!

Paeony Lewis is a children’s book author http://www.paeonylewis.com/

*Find out more about Ragnhild's grandson, Vigo, who wants to walk. http://www.vigoswishtowalk.co.uk/