: Re: What are the advantages and disadvantages to leaving the narrator unnamed? As I begin to write a narrative (I haven't decided yet how long it should be), and as I develop the plot, I was

@Dunderdale623

Vote Up Vote Down

Are you working with first person narration? Is the narrator's identity important? Is he the MC, or someone on the sidelines? Does anyone ever address the narrator in dialogue in a situation where it would make sense to use his name?

Here's some examples I can think of:

Roger Zelazny's "Amber Chronicles": the narrator is the MC. His identity is crucial to the plot, is in fact a plot-driving element. His name is significant.
Conan Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes": the narrator is Dr. Watson, a side character. Nonetheless, Holmes's interaction with Watson is important. It wouldn't really work with Watson remaining unnamed.
H.G. Wells's "War of the Worlds": the narrator is nameless. His identity is not really important to the story, or to interactions he is having. Indeed, his lack of name serves to make him even more of the everyman.

So really, it depends on the story you want to tell, and how you want to tell it.

One thing I will say: a name grounds a character. It makes him an individual, with a past, connection to other people, etc. Without a name, the character is an amorphous someone from a crowd, who will disappear back into the crowd once the story is over. At least, that's how I usually feel about it as a reader. So it's up to you: what do you want your narrator to be?

(0)

Login to post a comment!