How long to wait before telling the characters names

If you're writing in omniscient third, you need to use their names right off the bat. If you're writing in first, it may be a while before names come out, especially your narrator's. Or in some cases, the narrator's name never comes out. For instance, in Fight Club, we never learn what the protagonist's name is. In limited third there are a lot of variations.

The most important thing is clarity. If you think you can achieve that without telling the character's name, then do it. If all you're trying to do is create some type of artificial mystery, then don't. And most important, do not throw the readers off when you finally reveal the name or gender or whatever (such as the character is actually an albino female named Aki when the readers have already decided it is a black male named Joe).

EndlessDestiny said:

Is it okay to wait a little before telling the characters' names? Like to wait and have them introduce themselves to one another (and therefore the reader).

Click to expand...

Sure. It's only natural. But denying this information for no good reason can be confusing. Take a peek at Roger MacBride Allen's The Standard Deviations of Writing article on the SFWA.org site. Scroll down to article # 6. Unnamed characters.

-Derek

If it's in third person viewpoint, when I start seeing "she" everywhere and no name, my first reaction is why is the writer trying to keep this a secret? In third person, since the viewpoint character knows who he is, it can feel a little unfair to the reader.

If you're writing in omniscient third, you need to use their names right off the bat.

Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true. In omniscient it can be done, and quite effectively. Because it's an outside narrator telling the story, that narrator can reveal details when appropriate. I always liked the way Clive Cussler introduced Dirk Pitt. The character was never introduced by name when he walked on stage. Rather, there was an impish quality in how the narrator approached it that made me smile and ask "Who is this character?"

When I wrote the opening for mine, I considered what I needed in the opening sentence to hook the reader. His occupation told the reader everything they needed to know in two words, and the location provided an unusual element. The next couple of paragraphs built on that without needing the name (in fact, it might have been confusing), and then I introduced the name. For omniscient, it depends a lot on the story and the context.

Granted, I've also seen omniscient stories where they have multiple scene with the bad guy and only refer to him as "the assassin" and "he," studiously avoiding revealing the name. That I tend to find annoying because it does start to feel like the writer is keeping secrets, particularly if it's all through the book.

Well, that's a reveal about how much I despise omniscient third narrators who make me wait for a character's name. It's a personal taste, as I've never met a delayed identification I liked in omni third. It wastes my energy. So, like all things, mileage may vary.

My philosophy is to present information only when it becomes relevant. I once read a great book in which the main character's name is never revealed at all (Surfacing, by Margaret Atwood).

Like all things it's situation. It's a while until my protag is named (it's first person). If you have a story with a tight viewport (first or third) where it's clear who the narrator is even if you don't know the name, I see no reason why delaying the info until a natural place to say it wouldn't work. If it's a more distant narrator, then it could cause some confusion, but could also be done with no troubles.

I think what you want to avoid is the sense that the identity is being kept from the reader on purpose. If the reader breaks out of the story with a "who the heck is this person anyway?" feel, then you've lost them and that's bad. Same with making them wonder if the "s/he" in question is the person they're supposed to care about, or some random person that is there for plot and will be gone as soon as the real protag shows up.

tomothecat said:

My philosophy is to present information only when it becomes relevant. I once read a great book in which the main character's name is never revealed at all (Surfacing, by Margaret Atwood).

Click to expand...

Never revealed at all is a different issue. Like anything else, that should only be used when it enhances the story, never as a cheap gimmick, but when it's used well, it works.

One problem with delaying is that it invests the name with a great deal of weight. The longer I have to wait to find out a name, the more punch that revelation needs to have when it finally occurs. It it isn't worth the build-up, I'm likely to introduce the book to the wall at that point.

I agree with the principle of presenting information only when it becomes relevant, but I think names are (almost always) an exception. The need to name things is pretty basic wiring in the human brain. Withholding a character's name messes with the reader's ability to become immersed in the story, by acting as an irritant at a very fundamental level. Sure, it's possible to invoke that irritation deliberately, say when anonymity is part of the theme of the story, but it's a dangerous technique, too powerful for casual use.

Of course, POV matters, too. Using char X's name in narration when the POV char doesn't know it yet is a POV violation. It's also reasonable for the POV char to think of a very minor character by a tag, even if s/he does know their actual name. (Whether your char thinks of Jerry the doorman as "Jerry" or "the doorman" shows something about what kind of person your char is.) Beyond that, though, if the character is of any importance whatsoever and the POV char knows hir name, withholding the name is just annoying.

I can't stand watching any episode of C.S.I. because 99% of the exposition comes through dialog:

Horatio Caine: "So, you found traces of bird feathers on his shoes?"

Ryan Wolfe: "Yeah, a rare bird; an Algonkawin Parrot."

Horatio Caine: "An Algonkawin Parrot. Aren't those parrots found only in the jungles of Algonkawy?"

Erik Delco walks in the door: "And in a pet shop on 1st and Century, downtown."

Horatio Caine: A pet shop on 1st and Century, downtown. Isn't that the same pet shop where they have Algonkowin parrots."

And so on...

I would usually opt to just lay out names and other "necessary" stuff through good 'ol normal exposition, and save only the good stuff to reveal through dialog. Just tell us that stuff and let the characters have the glory for revealing the good stuff.

I would put the name out there unless there's a good reason to hold it back.

I'd say as soon as you meet them you should give a name, & general description.

Use the name at the earliest moment that is appropriate. Don't break POV to do it, and don't make the reader feel cheated because you're artificially keeping it back.

tomothecat said:

I once read a great book in which the main character's name is never revealed at all (Surfacing, by Margaret Atwood).

Click to expand...

Same with The Time Machine, HG Wells.

And Rebecca.