Who should be named?

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who should be named?

    Is it okay to give names to characters who have no dialogue, and who, in this case, only appear in one scene?

    One of the characters is important for the consequences of her actions, but the other is little more than a temporary obstruction. However, I think giving both of them names will help readers to visualise them better than if there is just character description. I think it also makes for smoother reading. Or is naming non-speaking characters not proper practice?

    Any advice or opinions will be very much appreciated.

    For some context, below, I've posted two versions of part of the scene in which the two characters appear -- the first version without naming them, and the second version with them named.


    WITHOUT NAMES:

    SHLOOSK! -- a bloody needle-blade jolts out from the drudge's gawping mouth.

    At his back stands a middle-aged wyrd woman cloaked beneath a hooded coat of beaver pelts. Her left hand pulls the long needle-blade back out the nape of his neck as her right hand shoves him forward.

    The dead drudge hits the ground headlong and hard.

    The wyrd woman moves fast to the fire -- her white face, painted woad-blue, only glimpsed between wild braids of auburn hair.


    WITH NAMES:

    SHLOOSK! -- a bloody needle-blade jolts out from Ordo's gawping mouth.

    At his back stands a wyrd woman -- FREY (52) -- cloaked beneath a hooded coat of beaver pelts. Her left hand pulls the long needle-blade back out the nape of his neck as her right hand shoves him forward.

    The dead Ordo hits the ground headlong and hard.

    Frey moves fast to the fire -- her white face, painted woad-blue, only glimpsed between wild braids of auburn hair.
    Last edited by Crayon; 04-27-2018, 07:09 PM. Reason: typo
    Know this: I'm a lazy amateur, so trust not a word what I write.
    "The ugly can be beautiful. The pretty, never." ~ Oscar Wilde

  • #2
    Re: Who should be named?

    My recommendation is that you should not use the names.

    WYRD WOMAN certainly works fine.

    As for 'drudge' ... I know the meaning of 'drudge', but I am not sure what you mean here. The person has a boring job? You really need to give a better identifier.

    This is not a matter of rules, just good practice. In general, do not use names for people that have no lines.

    "The fact that you have seen professionals write poorly is no reason for you to imitate them." - ComicBent.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Who should be named?

      Many thanks, CB. I've been away for quite a while and it's great to see that you're still here giving sound guidance.

      Yes, I think I'd read long ago that non-speakers don't get given names, but I wasn't sure if I'd recalled that correctly.

      Also, thanks to you, I now see that the 'WITHOUT NAMES' version I posted above is formatted incorrectly -- a character's identifier should be treated the same as a proper noun, ie: written in capitals when it first appears, and thereafter written with initial capitals.

      I'm surprised that you think 'DRUDGE' is not a good identifier. Its definition is:
      drudge - noun - a person made to do menial, distasteful, dull, or hard work
      I've not found a better noun to fit his role and oafish character. (Some other options: factotum, dogsbody, lackey, grunt, servant, slave, peon.)
      It seems a shame not to name him 'Ordo', which I think says so much about him with just one word.

      Here is how I was going to introduce him (if not naming him):
      The only light flickers from a burning torch held by a dull-eyed DRUDGE (30) -- a dumb hulk in servitude to the monks.

      You say 'in general' to not name people who have no lines, but then in what case(s) would you name them? What about if Wyrd Woman is later revealed to be a protagonist's adoption-mother and is referred to by her name, Frey, but not by her identifier?
      Last edited by Crayon; 04-29-2018, 05:36 AM. Reason: syntax
      Know this: I'm a lazy amateur, so trust not a word what I write.
      "The ugly can be beautiful. The pretty, never." ~ Oscar Wilde

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Who should be named?

        Originally posted by Crayon View Post
        (to CB)...You say 'in general' to not name people who have no lines, but then in what case(s) would you name them? What about if Wyrd Woman is later revealed to be a protagonist's adoption-mother and is referred to by her name, Frey, but not by her identifier?
        Well, I know this is not only a conversation for two!

        Sometimes the question is: What's in a name?

        I just finished a 20-page short that has a very special character who's ambiguity is just another key example of the theme. The character never says anything in the lengthy scene, but I named it in the script as the CONFESSOR.

        That's actually just a bit of a cheat for the reader. The viewing audience won't hear the character referenced by name, so that's one reason I named the character for its purpose rather than with a name; the audience is only receiving visual, metaphorical clues that the location is a confessional (it's in a partially-private restaurant booth) and the scene represents the protagonist's confession. (Much of the script is like this; it's a Magic Realism Drama)

        Well, I don't have a problem with that cheat, since I need to clue in the reader in that first pass, lest they toss the script, whereas the audience can always rewind or watch it again.

        And they will want to, since the scene is (IMHO) electrifying.

        Thus, CB wrote "general", because there may come a time when... etc.

        PS. I'm thinking that some of the unusual one-off characters in David Lynch movies might be referenced for "how to do" these characters.
        Last edited by catcon; 04-29-2018, 06:39 AM. Reason: Just expanded a bit

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Who should be named?

          Starting with WYRD WOMAN ...

          If you, in fact, intend to give her a role later in which she speaks, then you can call her FREY at any time, even though people in the story will not know her name for a while. However, if her identity as Frey is supposed to come as a surprise, then most screenwriters like to save the surprise by not using the name at first. In that case, you could call her WYRD WOMAN at first and then use FREY later. Personally, I am not in favor of hiding an identity from the reader (of course, I would hide it from the audience), but my view is definitely a minority opinion. Most people want the surprise.

          I used the phrase "in general" just to leave open a loophole for some kind of bizarre situation where using the name might be useful. I do not like to say never in regard to anything in screenwriting.

          As for DRUDGE ...

          You can use it, just as you could use LAZY MAN or FAST TALKER or DAYDREAMER or whatever. But these are descriptors; they are not categories that relate to the role (job, function) of the character in the script. Is the "drudge" a janitor, a receptionist, or what?

          Good to see you back, Crayon.

          "The fact that you have seen professionals write poorly is no reason for you to imitate them." - ComicBent.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Who should be named?

            catcon - Thanks for your input; it's very much welcome. The more examples of how names and identifiers are handled, the better.

            In your example, I might worry that "the Confessor" (with the definite article) could be read not just as a figurative identifier, but could mean that it's their actual name or job title, like with 'The Hulk' or 'the Priest' -- and more so if that character is not also introduced in some other way, like say a close friend or casual acquaintance or work colleague of the protagonist.
            Know this: I'm a lazy amateur, so trust not a word what I write.
            "The ugly can be beautiful. The pretty, never." ~ Oscar Wilde

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Who should be named?

              ComicBent - Thanks for continuing with this.

              In this case, Wyrd Woman only appears once and she doesn't speak (except maybe mouths an incantation) and her identity is revealed later (only to the audience) by her distinctive attire and face-paint then being worn by one of the protagonists, which also reveals that the two protagonists are siblings.

              I'm wondering if this is one of those bizarre situations were using a name for Wyrd Woman might be useful.

              My Drudge character's role is exactly as the dictionary defines the noun 'drudge', and his actions in his only scene also fit the definition. The 'menial and distasteful work' that he is made to do is tend the fire of someone being burned and clear up the mess afterwards. He lives in a kind of indentured servitude, and does all the crappy jobs that the medieval monks demand of him. I've still not found a noun more suitable for him than 'drudge'.

              It's good to be back, CB. Thank you.
              (It's not good when life gets in the way of craft.)
              Know this: I'm a lazy amateur, so trust not a word what I write.
              "The ugly can be beautiful. The pretty, never." ~ Oscar Wilde

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Who should be named?

                If I understand what you are describing, I think I would still go with WYRD WOMAN. I really do not know what you mean when you say that her identity is revealed only to the audience by her attire. Maybe you mean that this is when the audience finds out who she is and that no other characters in the story ever find out who she is. I still do not see why you would want to give her a name instead of a category like WYRD WOMAN.

                As for DRUDGE, I think I would just use SERVANT. His work may be drudgery, but calling him DRUDGE, when he does not even speak, is going to create a trivial problem. Readers are going to think that this is a name, because the name Drudge is a real name, and we do not normally use the word DRUDGE as a role in life except as a secondary descriptor of a primary job category, like SERVANT or ASSISTANT or HELPER or EMPLOYEE.

                Of course, you know that none of this really matters. So if you really like the idea of using a name instead of WYRD WOMAN, and DRUDGE for a nonspeaking role, go for it!

                "The fact that you have seen professionals write poorly is no reason for you to imitate them." - ComicBent.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Who should be named?

                  ComicBent - Yes, you're correct that no other characters will realise who WYRD WOMAN is, or was, or, more precisely, what she had done. Sorry, I should have been clearer.

                  (We, the audience, see WYRD WOMAN steal the protagonist's baby sister and 30 years later, when the protagonist first meets his sister, only we can suppose they are siblings because only we have seen the sister wear the same unique coat and distinct face paint that we originally saw WYRD WOMAN wear. However, the siblings may suspect that they have a connection.)

                  You're most likely right about DRUDGE, even though I would not think that DRUDGE could be a character's actual proper name -- but that may be down to a difference in UK/US viewpoint.

                  Anyhow, after developing the scene further, I think I may have wasted everyone's time because I cannot reasonably give WYRD WOMAN or DRUDGE proper names without also naming two other prominent characters in the scene who also don't speak and appear only once. And naming all four would be wasting the reader's memory -- so now I properly see the practical reason to only name characters who speak and/or are in more than one scene.

                  Thanks again, CB.
                  Know this: I'm a lazy amateur, so trust not a word what I write.
                  "The ugly can be beautiful. The pretty, never." ~ Oscar Wilde

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Who should be named?

                    Personally I don't give names to very minor characters who may have a line or two of dialogue but I like to name them based on their appearance, just to make it more interesting than THUG # 1 or whatever. So something like CHUBBY THUG, or WIRY THUG for example.
                    Professional Screenwriting Services

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X