
More important thing first: as a relative newcomer to the organized fandom--and I'm going to keep using that excuse as long as I can get away with it--I agree with Phoenician and Greg B. that the wiki is quite good. It has to be, after all: this story's universe is so wide, and its roots so deep, that it just about demands that depth of background to do it justice, and it does.
The same can be said of the Comment Room, which reminds me pleasantly of some of the old Usenet groups I was on years ago. The depth of knowledge here is just delightful, and my thanks to everyone (maybe even the bots, slightly) for making it what it is.
CarumboZabumbo: The read I've gotten more recently on that tenet is not so much that names are "silly human things," but more that the practice of using abstract names is the silly thing. I can kind of imagine, in the abstract, a novel that uses no names by referring to the characters more descriptively. On one hand, I wouldn't see this making a whole lot of sense to a human reader who's been brought up with the idea of people (and animals and lots of other things) having proper names. On the other hand, as one of many people who has intense difficulty remembering names, it makes total sense to tell a story with characters like "The Balding Swordsman with the Scarred Fingers" and "The Taxi Driver with the Ragged Voice." Culturally, it could be just as confounding for the gargoyles to have a story with a Harry and a Lois when those names mean nothing on their own: how am I supposed to know what a Harry looks like, or acts like, or is?
On the other hand, in how many stories does the Wicked Stepmother get a proper name?
morrand - [morrand276 at gmail dot com]
posted @ Sun, Jun 23, 2024 7:50:54 pm EDT from 99.74.15.252