A random question

[Mikeavelli]

I, like many people out there, like to refer to people in narrative to make things easier.

I.E. if 'Hopper is fighting someone named Steve, I'll write something like:

'Hopper slashes at Steve's head

This isn't dialogue, 'Hopper is not saying "Hello there Steve! I would like to hit you in the head today."

'Hopper isn't doing an inner monologue like,
Damn! This steve guy is really tough to beat! thought 'Hopper.

I'm referring to Steve in a description of events. Unfortunately, I'll get dinged for "hopper doesn't know Steve's name, why is he using it?"

I've read through a few posts and judgings, and it appears that everyone who does this gets dinged for it, so I'm not crying about being singled out or anything, this seems to be the standard for all Althanas judging

I'm also wondering, Why is this considered bad form? It's much more clear than saying "'Hopper slashes at the human in front of him" - it doesn't really matter that 'Hopper himself doesn't know Steve's name, because I, Mike, the third-person narrator, know Steve's name, and I'm the one talking about it.

This habit might, concievably, make it hard to remember whether 'Hopper ICly knows someone's name or not, and make it easy to slip-up, but it shouldn't be penalized on it's own.

[NightCast]

It's a matter of form really.

Think of it this way, when you're writing in a roleplaying enviornment, you are either playing in first person or what I like to call third person LIMITED omniscient (it may just be called third person, I don't remember). This is to say that you, as the narrator are aware of what is occurring in your character's and, if approved by your teammate or roleplaying partner, maybe your friend's thoughts. So, while it may be easier and more efficient, knowing your opponent's name could be construed as a form of bunnying, because if you or your character is aware of the opponent's name, without a good IC explanation, it suggests that your character or narrator knows more than he should.

I may not have explained that as well as I may have liked, but the point is that it's matter of form. Unless you're doing a third person omniscient solo thread, the narrator or character should not know more than what he is told. Regardless of writing efficiency.

[Tainted Bushido]

I've read through a few posts and judgings, and it appears that everyone who does this gets dinged for it, so I'm not crying about being singled out or anything, this seems to be the standard for all Althanas judging

I'm also wondering, Why is this considered bad form? It's much more clear than saying "'Hopper slashes at the human in front of him" - it doesn't really matter that 'Hopper himself doesn't know Steve's name, because I, Mike, the third-person narrator, know Steve's name, and I'm the one talking about it.

Its considered bad form, because its a sort of abuse of meta knowledge. Even if the opponent has referred to their character as Steve, Hopper himself doesn't know Steve's name. This creates a problem in suspension of disbelief in a few cases. In other cases it might slip into dialogue. I find, that the best way to refer to opponent's is to give them a nickname, one made up on the fly.

This allows for you to be specific when referring to things, and still be able to stay clean of the metagame trap.

This habit might, concievably, make it hard to remember whether 'Hopper ICly knows someone's name or not, and make it easy to slip-up, but it shouldn't be penalized on it's own.

Its more of a courtesy than anything. Perhaps its a stylistic approach, but when you look at the metagame, its ultimately what it comes down to. Like I said, create witty or clever nicknames instead of Steve, and you clear the hurdle.

[Shadowed]

NC got it more or less right. When writing third person narrative, you generally stick to things that are either self-evident or that the character already knows. An example of self-evident would be a bird in the tree. The character might not know that there's a bird in the tree, but all he has to do is look up to find out.

When you read fiction, no good writers will refer to the name of someone the character meets or otherwise interacts with unless it has been explained at some point beforehand. An example of this would be when Aragorn and the captains met with the Mouth of Sauron at the black gate. The narrator describes who and what the Mouth of Sauron is, and can then refer to him as such in the narrative. But earlier in the book, when Merry sees the Wild Man meeting with Theoden, the narrator describes it from Merry's perspective, as the reader is also just discovering this new person. You can either describe the second person through the narrative, or leave it vague. That's really up to you, but you should never refer to secondary characters by name until they've been introduced in either the dialogue or the narrative.

Generally speaking, when you roleplay your narrative takes on the perspective of the character. You don't write in classical old English when your character is a heavily urbanized member of a biker gang. Similarly, if your character doesn't know the name of someone else, you shouldn't use that name, as it lends too much to narrative voicing. Invent names and references that your character would think up; for example, in round one my narrative referred to one of my opponents as the Glowing One, because Honuse noticed how ridiculously luminescent the other character was.

[Cyrus the virus]

To be honest, it's the judge's mistake.

[Shadowed]

It wasn't a mistake. It really is considered poor form to do it, hence why you never see good, established professional writers doing it. But even aside from that, your team got 4 out of 5 points in that category, and there were other things mentioned besides that. So I'd say you weren't penalized much, if at all, for it.

[Yari Rafanas]

NC got it more or less right. When writing third person narrative, you generally stick to things that are either self-evident or that the character already knows. An example of self-evident would be a bird in the tree. The character might not know that there's a bird in the tree, but all he has to do is look up to find out.

When you read fiction, no good writers will refer to the name of someone the character meets or otherwise interacts with unless it has been explained at some point beforehand. An example of this would be when Aragorn and the captains met with the Mouth of Sauron at the black gate. The narrator describes who and what the Mouth of Sauron is, and can then refer to him as such in the narrative. But earlier in the book, when Merry sees the Wild Man meeting with Theoden, the narrator describes it from Merry's perspective, as the reader is also just discovering this new person. You can either describe the second person through the narrative, or leave it vague. That's really up to you, but you should never refer to secondary characters by name until they've been introduced in either the dialogue or the narrative.

Generally speaking, when you roleplay your narrative takes on the perspective of the character. You don't write in classical old English when your character is a heavily urbanized member of a biker gang. Similarly, if your character doesn't know the name of someone else, you shouldn't use that name, as it lends too much to narrative voicing. Invent names and references that your character would think up; for example, in round one my narrative referred to one of my opponents as the Glowing One, because Honuse noticed how ridiculously luminescent the other character was.

You've said it.

I'd also like to elaborate a bit further on the roleplaying bit. Remember that for the most part people are playing their characters. It's important that we only apply the information our characters have to their posts when considering other players. While I may know that my opponent has the ability to withstand a steel blade to the chest from reading their profile, that doesn't mean my character does. So just because I know their name, my character does not.

Again, this is a roleplaying forum. Creative writing or not, how often do you see somebody in a book say their character attempts and hopes to do something, then goes on to wait for people to see if it actually happens on the next page? There are so many things people do differently here than actual writers do because this is a game.

It's all about the EXPs and GPs. ;]

[Petoux]

Why didn't you just ask the judges in pm? They are the reins behind the horses ... or something like that ...

In other words, it doesn't matter if we personally think it's right or wrong ... we don't have a say in the matter anyway ... only the judges do.

Therefore, it makes more sense to ask them and not us.

[Max Dirks]

I've read through a few posts and judgings, and it appears that everyone who does this gets dinged for it, so I'm not crying about being singled out or anything, this seems to be the standard for all Althanas judging.

Erm, check here, your own trial thread!

As a side note, Vegna, using names in prose is acceptable. You can only say "the strange man" in so many ways until it becomes a hassle.

It really is considered poor form to do it, hence why you never see good, established professional writers doing it.

Professional writers are also taught to develop their characters. Like Yari said, they don't have to collaborate with multiple writers to establish that character, either. I'm no professional writer, but in a solo quest I'd likely just write a situation where the character is introduced, is amongst other familiar characters, or write in his perspective to allow proper noun use rather than write "the strange man" and every possible euphemism of the term 100 times.

[NightCast]

However, I believe Tainted Bushido's way around this is the best, most professional, and the most well written form. He said have the character give them a nickname. The name doesn't have to be creative or anything, for example if one of my characters had to give a nickname they would probably say something like Bob and Bill, but then again, that would be mainly Morgoth and his dry sense of humor.

However, if your character is witnessing them doing something that is noticeable, like maybe he is particularly fast, your character might mentally, and even more feasibly, subconsciously name this fast character Quickie (despite the sexual connotation). The possibilities are really quite endless.

There should be no reason that you would have to resort to using the real name in a metagame fashion.

Professional writers are also taught to develop their characters. Like Yari said, they don't have to collaborate with multiple writers to establish that character, either. I'm no professional writer, but in a solo quest I'd likely just write a situation where the character is introduced, is amongst other familiar characters, or write in his perspective to allow proper noun use rather than write "the strange man" and every possible euphemism of the term 100 times.

Interesting point you bring up here. However I disagree on several levels because of the definition of the nature of this tournament.

This is a writing tournament, the grading of the rubric focuses on how well one can write. Thus, one can draw the conclusion that this tournament is based on how well you write in EVERY ASPECT. Professionally a writer, writing in third or first person, no omniscience, cannot feasibly know the name of the new character. The end all is that if the judges are to grade on writing ability, they need to follow it through 100%, which includes docking for using a character's name. So whether any of us like it or not, better pull out those thesauri and look up "every possible euphemism" or with a good IC reason, be it in your character's nature or just for a distinguishing feature of the enemy, create a nickname until you learn otherwise.