Me being pedantic again, but... "it ain't necessarily so". While the reader won't be aware of any other name, names do make a difference, and should fit the character in one way or another; otherwise they can jar a reader out of the text. Also, any number of writers have very carefully chosen names to reflect aspects of the character's milieu, depending on what sort of period/setting (the latter if it is entirely a created fantasy world) in which the story takes place. Hence, dealing with a character from New England, say, from the early years of the twentieth century or before, would choose names which were common family names of the region, as these would subtly convey the feeling of the character belonging to the place, as well as a feeling of historical connection to it. And even with the much more mixed population of today, names say a great deal about the characters and their backgrounds. This is even more true in the case of nicknames. (To use an example from On Borrowed Time... one would scarcely expect to find a nickname such as "Pud" in a well-to-do family of the nineteenth century, let alone a genuinely wealthy one. It simply would not fit their social image. But among the lower strata, especially those with a fair dash of "country" in their makeup, such a name would not be uncommon at all.)
I do take your point about names that tell of a character's origins (or is a name chosen by the character to hide their origins): this is clearly part of the world-building and should enhance the reader's experience. This does, though, rarely limit the author's choice of name to one or two (unless they're using a real person from the past).
However, while I'm against names that jar (I'm against anything that jars inadvertently), I'm not that keen, as a reader, on names that seem to be used principally as a wink from the author suggesting that the character's nature is this or that. So while I would require a pretty powerful reason for a Second Century Roman to be called Montezuma (a reason beyond having him at the centre of a revenge-based plot strand
), or Ford Prefect, any plausible Roman name would do for me,provided it met your test of being generally appropriate to the character's origins.
The worst aspect of the "my name is my nature" characters -- the Prince Darkenevil, the Count Ralley-Goode, and the Everyman character, Euan Mee-Booth -- is not that this is more than a bit lazy; it's that it can often either be:
- counterproductive, because we all know how wayward our characters can be, not doing or thinking what we want them to be;
- or debilitating: where's the scope for personal growth, for redemption, for falling prey to poor judgement, for tragedy overcoming good intentions?
When the author notices this, they may be forced to rethink the name when the character's nature turns out to be different from originally envisaged.
(Even if, as an author, one wanted to signpost the character's nature in their name, surely this should be applied after that nature has become fully apparent, (which might be a problem where only the first book of a series has so far been written.)
That reminds me. I had a minor character called Richter. I changed this, as it was too close, in my mind, with the name of a major character, Ritter. I had chosen the name, Richter, at random (well random in the sense that the individual name didn't matter, only that it had to meet certain generic requirements), but quite by chance it almost matched his profession: he's a lawyer, and the son of a lawyer; Richter means Judge in German. I really don't know whether I would have changed the name, on discovering its meaning, if there hadn't been a Ritter in the books.
