Incidental Characters - to name or not name?

[Cosmic Geoff]

Somebody who beta-read one of my novels made the criticism that I gave names to incidental characters and then left them dangling without mentioning them again in the novel. He said that there was a rule or understanding that naming a character meant that the character was going to have some significance to the story, and that if they were not significant I should not name them. One character appears in Chapter #1 only, another gets a single one-line mention.

I guess he has some sort of a point, but how widespread is this idea? And do successful authors stick to this rule or not?
I am a little concerned because in an effort to sort out the plot of another novel, I have just introduced another three named characters, with descriptions, and dialogue to speak, and so far they are only going to appear in two or three early scenes.

 

[thaddeus6th]

I think it's ok. Does it fit naturally in the book? People do mention names, whether their own, or others, and having only significant characters get named can feel unnatural and forced.

 

[LittleStar]

I think ere is an element of balance needed here. You can't just go around naming every person that your character sees while walking to the shops, that old get overwhelming pretty quickly.

But I think its acceptable (and I quite like it) to have named characters dotted around that aren't integral to the plot. It might be the new boyfriend of a sister, or the dog groomer, or anyone with some form of (meaningful??) contact with the narrator or protagonist. If they have a few lines of speech, then I see it as perfectly reasonable to name them, maybe not go into their full history if it isnt relevent, but a name, sure. But again, there is balance needed. Too many of these incidentals popping up all over the place, and it might become a bit crowded.

I can't help with actual examples, (I'm not terribly well read) but GRRM I'm sure does this plenty, and it doesn't seem out of place, but then again he breaks quite a few rules in the name of realism vs saleable fiction.

 

[The Judge]

I'm generally on the do-not-name-unless-necessary side, but I don't think "necessary" always equates to significant ie a named person is thereby automatically going to be vital to the plot. It may be necessary in order to distinguish who is speaking, and if the names are known by the POv character then it's better to use those names than descriptors such as the bearded man or the blonde.

If the hero goes shopping, I'm quite happy for him to think he's got to go to Mr Mauger's to pick up his potatoes and then to have him pass a few lines of dialogue with Miss Mauger who is also there, though if they're not important to the plot I certainly don't want any backstory about them nor much description of what they look like. But if the hero is just waving to a neighbour across the road, who never crops up again I don't want or need to know who that person is. If he's taken to hospital, I don't want to be told the names of the doctors and nurses who look after him other than is needed for identification purposes eg it's Dr Johns who wants to give him the enema, not Dr Hopkins who wants to whip him into surgery at once.

So for a single line mention of someone unimportant, no, I'd probably not name the character.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Someone serving table in a Restaurant, no. But I would if the person being served is very regular as way of suggesting they are a well known regular customer and it's a friendly sort of Restaurant.

So it depends. Mostly incidental characters are not named. Read lots of well regarded books of different genres to see what works well. Read outside what you normally read.

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

I would name if naming helps, for example if the name suggests a type, like Murphy the barman, even if I'm not planning to give you Murphy's back story.

I might say 'Murphy the barman slid the pint of Guinness across the bar, his massive hands seeming too powerful for the fragile glass. His broken nose and scarred face put paid to my intention of starting a fight as a distraction...'

With no intention of ever mentioning poor old battered Murphy again, but I've used him to set a scene and an atmosphere. Made that up on the spot btw. I haven't used Murphy - yet....

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I get confused with too many names. Unless they're important-ish, I'm happy with the bartender etc.

 

[The Judge]

But if you're giving all that description, why bother naming him, Kerry? The name Murphy doesn't actually signify a type of person at all, much less any atmosphere -- from the name alone I don't know if he's tall, short, thin, stocky, an ex-thug or a divinity student working his holidays. All it does is suggest that the holder of the name is possibly Irish or of Irish extraction, and unless that possible Irishness is important to his character -- in a non-stereotypical way I would hope -- why add it to the mix?

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

You are probably right. In six months' time I might be confidently saying the opposite to what I said above.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I think it would be alright Kerry if the significant characters in the scene were in a pub that was very familiar to them. So that you'd expect them to know the staff names. But otherwise I'd be with TJ and drop the name.

I have a haunt like that myself, in real life, deep in the city of London, which just so happens to be run by a brilliant Irish couple: Patrick and Philomena. (It's my version of Cheers).

 

[Cosmic Geoff]

Thanks, this helps a lot. So it's okay to name trivial characters if not naming them would look awkward or odd.

On the allied point, how much of a showing can a trivial character make before the reader stars wanting to know what became of them later?

 

[ratsy]

I try to only add a name if A. the POV knows that person B. They are introduced for a plot reason

At least that's what I say today

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Patrick and Philomena

It could only be more stereotypical if they in late 50s to 60s and called Tony and Mary.

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

It could only be more stereotypical if they in late 50s to 60s and called Tony and Mary.

How did you know? My favourite pub EVER, in a tiny village in Oxfordshire, the owners were Tony and Mary!

 

[HareBrain]

On the allied point, how much of a showing can a trivial character make before the reader stars wanting to know what became of them later?

With second-rank characters, I think you should at least suggest what might have become of them. So Great-Uncle Fernando might leave the house saying "I'm off to find the fabled ruins of the 5:32 to Upminster", but you don't have to say whether he succeeds or not. Below that, I don't think you have to say anything at all, even if you think readers might be wanting to know. Just because a reader might want something, it doesn't mean you have to give it to them. They are not your masters. They are scum.

 

[ratsy]

Or just say they had a red shirt on, then we know what happened to them

 

[HareBrain]

Or just say they had a red shirt on, then we know what happened to them

I've recently discovered that this dates back to Napoleonic times. I've been watching repeats of the TV series Sharpe, and in each adventure, Sharpe's green-jackets have along with them a red-coated "lieutenant of the week", who they always end up having to bury somewhere.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

They are not your masters. They are scum.

Hey! They might pay the bills. But I agree. Don't pander to fans or next book will be rubbish.

 

[Venusian Broon]

It could only be more stereotypical if they in late 50s to 60s and called Tony and Mary.

Honestly I wouldn't know if that was stereotypical or not. All I can relay to you that I speak solid gold truth. And if nothing has happened to them i.e. retirement, you will still find them running The Hatchet on Garlick hill next to Mansion House tube

 

[Ursa major]

I can't help thinking that it depends to some extent on the PoV character(s).

If there is more than one PoV character, wouldn't those characters' own attitudes to naming (knowing, using, mentioning names) vary? And if so, the associated narratives would probably vary in terms of incidental characters' names being included, wouldn't they?