Blogflog - Choosing Character Names, part 1

[blogfloggery.livejournal.com]

Link: Choosing Character Names, part 1
Disclaimer: This blog entry is verbatim, as originally posted on LKH's blog. Copyright belongs to Ma Petite Enterprises.

One of the most common questions I’ve been asked is, “Where did I get the Celtic/Gaelic names for the Meredith (Merry) Gentry series? Especially the baby names for, A Shiver of Light?” Below find pictures of the primary books I used.

Another name question I’m getting is, “Why did I use Alastair for the baby boy, since that’s the name of the man who attacks Merry in the first book, A Kiss of Shadows?” Honestly, at first I forgot that I’d used the name before. I tend to have names that I like and I will reuse them, or variations of them multiple times if I’m not careful. Apparently, Bruce was a favorite for a bit male character in the Anita Blake novels for a few years. It seemed my answer to John Smith. I also seem inordinately fond of variations of the name Nicholas. When I realized Alastair was actually a villain name from earlier in the Merry Gentry series I changed the name for her baby boy, but she, and he, wouldn’t let me. Merry wasn’t traumatized by that long ago Alastair, or if she was she wanted to reclaim the name in a positive way. As for baby Alastair, he totally refused to be anything else. I originally spelled it, Alastar, as a double entendre for the star-shaped spot/birthmark on his back, but even that didn’t please this very opinionated new character. It had to be Alastair, and he wouldn’t let everyone call him, Star. That was my original idea that he’d actually go by his nickname to the point where you forgot Alastair/Alastar was his legal name, but Alastair doesn’t like nicknames. I’m a little worried about this brand new character as he seems determined to have his way. I think he’s going to eventually give me a run for my plot-money and totally take over a book, or series, someday. I can’t quite imagine writing books about Merry’s children all grown up, but there are hints that the babies already have ideas that I wasn’t aware of. *laughs*

Comments

[apep727.livejournal.com]

I'll just add that to my list of reasons I wouldn't want anything I publish associated with John Green.

Seriously? "That question doesn't interest me"? You couldn't just say "I don't know" or "I never thought about it"? Methinks that whole "savior of YA" thing has gone a bit to his head.

[subtle-shades.livejournal.com]

I have follow up questions! (If you don't mind apep...) I also haven't paid much attention to John Green... other than that he exists, apparently, since that Fault in our Stars movie came out. (I didn't see it, but I heard a great deal about it.)

How did he "save YA"? And did it need saving? I thought that the genre was doing pretty well, what with apparently being the biggest seller and whatnot.

[apep727.livejournal.com]

No problem.

At a guess, I'd say people (i.e. book critics) claim he "saved YA" because a lot of the more popular YA books before he got big were also genre fiction - which doesn't count as "real" literature. Because it's not like genre works can explore important themes or convey a message.

[subtle-shades.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the info!

Geez. I really hate that "valuing" of fiction. It's ridiculous. And seems to have quite a bit of personal preference involved in it. Honestly, I would've characterized his Stars book as a super depressing, super melodramatic (and trope-tastic!) romance, not literature.

[apep727.livejournal.com]

Admittedly, this is all just a guess on my part.

[subtle-shades.livejournal.com]

But it seems likely!

[apep727.livejournal.com]

I've got two big reasons.

First, there's his attitude toward research. In his acknowledgements in Fault in Our Stars, he lists several sources he consulted re: cancer, and then admitted he "gleefully ignored" them "when it suited [his] whims". Which offends me both as an aspiring writer and someone with several relatives who are trained medical professionals.

Second was his response to criticism. The Daily Mail mentioned his book in an article about books that supposedly glamorize things that shouldn't be glamorized (having cancer, cutting, etc.). And instead of actually addressing the claim, he posted a music video making fun of the Daily Mail (which I won't argue about).

I admit, he's not as bad as say Hamilton or Cassandra Clare, but stuff like that just rubs me the wrong way.

[subtle-shades.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... That's the second time I've heard that excuse in a very short time period. The other, who was also a NY Times bestselling author, immediately backtracked when he saw how unimpressed his audience was.

I understand that mistakes will be made. And yes, certain details aren't sexy - especially so in a romance with artistically ill characters - but there's more graceful ways to get around them (such as tweaking the premise.)

What could he possibly say? As I understand it, The Daily Mail (might be?) is a rag, but their charge seems basically true. In fact, he cheerfully admits to "gleefully ignor[ing]" facts where they contradicted his story. They're not wrong about him at any rate, any more than he seems to have been wrong about him. (Although that shouldn't have stopped him from trying to spin things to suit himself.)

He seems well-liked in writing circles (from the handful of things that I've glanced over involving him since the other day) but in the "he's funny/charming" and doesn't denigrate female authors way rather than BFF-ery. But (IMO) being funny/charming, moderately polite to women, and patient with wank-making teenagers on tumblr (and spoken well of by CC, I think?) doesn't necessarily preclude him being difficult to handle in larger doses or work with.

[apep727.livejournal.com]

He does seem like a nice guy from what I've seen.

And I get that the Daily Mail isn't exactly what you'd call a "reputable source", but his response still struck me as very unprofessional. If he had addressed their claims, or ignored them, or even gone, "hey, free publicity!" I wouldn't be bothered. But instead he made an ad hominem attack.