This post is brought to you by one of the worst line deliveries in the history of Supernatural: Sam’s reveal of Ruby 2.0 in “Lazarus Rising”.
Introducing new characters to a scene and figuring out the precise moment to announce their name without sounding clunky can be very tricky. So let’s break it down into three scenarios:
Name is known by the narrator to be given in narration
Name is either known by the narrator, to be given in dialogue, or known by another character
Name is not known to anyone in the scene but the new character
But first: The Pronoun Game
I don’t actually know if this is the official term but it’s what we’re going with, otherwise known as contrived vagueness on a character’s identity to keep the secret from the audience.
“You know… ~him~.” “Who?” “HIM.” “One more time.” “HIIIIIIIM!” “…”
Stop doing this. No one talks like this. Or at least come up with a better in-universe code name even if it’s just “the client” or “the target.” Anything is better than this glaring contrivance.
It’s not so much the secret name, it’s how clunky the dialogue becomes without it (ignoring when this is done for humor and supposed to be a little ridiculous). Just name the character. Do it. Audiences will be as confused as if you use a vague “he/him they/them she/her,” but at least they have a name to keep track of, even if it’s faceless at the time they hear it.
It doesn’t even work as a mystery. Characters only play when they’re obfuscating the villain. It’s almost never a red herring. Sure you didn’t say the name, but by deliberately hiding it, you’ve shown your hand.
Real people don’t play the pronoun game unless it’s motivated. So? Make it motivated.
Best example in history: He-who-shall-not-be-named
Why? It’s not just a pronoun, it’s got lore and myths and mystery baked into it. There’s a plot-based reason to be vague. Everyone who says this moniker admits they’re at worst terrified of and at best spiteful of its owner. You can’t copy the epithet, but you can learn from it. Give your characters a reason to be vague beyond preserving the secret for the audience.
Names have power, speaking theirs draws too much attention or bad vibes
Character f*cking hates them, and pronouns them out of spite
Character is being vague to mess with the narrator on purpose
Character fears eavesdroppers and is being careful
Character is testing whether they can trust another by being vague and checking if they’re in on the secret
Character is drunk/high/exhausted and cannot remember the name or care about it to save their life
Optional substitutes here can get quite creative, my personal favorite is “what’s-his-nuts” because I like the cadence but you get the idea
All of these reflect back on the story and the world you’ve built, to give an in-universe reason for the obfuscation. Now stop playing the pronoun game.
Scenario 1: Name via narration
Personally I don’t have any problem whatsoever with: “This is character, they do X.” It’s quick, inoffensive, and doesn’t need to get convoluted and over complicated.
Now, if this is meant to be a reveal to the audience, you’ll have to play the Pronoun Game for a bit until you pull the trigger (so long as it is motivated and reflects back on the characters and isn’t just because the author is bad at suspense), but I’d recommend reworking the scene so your narrator discovers this information with the reader for the lowest risk of confusing your audience.
Generally I think if you introduce a new character into a scene via epithet, then in the next paragraph have the narrator use their name, I think the audience is smart enough to pick up on: “new entity has arrived on stage = unfamiliar name must belong to them” so you can even skip the exposition tag entirely.
The cook returned from the dining room, freshly traumatized by a wild Karen. Tyler took a breath, steadied themselves, and resumed their station.
Scenario 2: Name via other character, or dialogue
This is the aforementioned Supernatural blunder. There doesn’t appear to be a clip for this specific scene on YouTube so the moment in question:
Ruby: [Walks in through the back door] “Getting pretty slick there, Sam. Better all the time.” Sam: [Sighs, and contemplates all his life choices that led to this moment] “What the hell’s going on around here, Ruby?” [Pause for dramatic effect and damn-near looks into the camera]
Ruby’s “Sam” is delivered seamlessly and is flavored with some dry wit, in character for Ruby.
Sam, on the other hand, not only pauses before saying her name, but emphasizes her name in a completely unnatural way. I didn't do it justice here explaining how clunky this is, just trust me.
Nothing sounds or reads quite so juvenile like awkwardly tacking on a new character’s name to dialogue when no real person would talk like that. The line serves purely as exposition and it’s glaringly obvious and uncreative?
How to fix? As I said in my other exposition post: Make it motivated. Have the name reveal come with either inflection, tonality, or dual purpose so it’s not just exposition.
Meaning:
Have speaker be trying to get the person’s attention, and call their name
Have the speaker admonish the person, using their name
If this is a happy reunion, have the speaker excitedly exclaim the name
If this is a bad reunion, have the speaker mutter, growl, whisper, or grumble the name
If this is a surprise reunion, have them speak the name like a question
Have the speaker use a nickname the new character doesn’t like, prompting a correction to their real name
Have the speaker blank, prompting the new character to supply it, while offended that they forgot
Have the known character introduce the new character after a few exchanges that isolate the narrator, prompting an explanation a la “Sorry, this is X, they’ve been my friend for years.”
Scenario 3: Name via new character
Very similar to above with the same advice: Make it motivated and double as clueing us in on something either about the new character, or about the characters’ relationship with the scene, or how they see themselves, or how they expect this meeting to go.
If they’re bold, sassy, or snarky, they introduce themselves like they expect their audience to be impressed
Or, if they expect that name to already be known, and are surprised or irritated that they must introduce themselves
Straight up, have someone ask them who they are if they’re not supposed to be there
Or have someone ask them in a social faux pas, blurting out the question and then being embarrassed by doing so
Have the asker be rude, demanding an introduction where it might otherwise not be appropriate
Have them introduce themselves with uncertainty, if they’re shy or unsure about where they’re supposed to be
You get the idea? Whatever it be, make it be in character, and you’ll pull double-duty (as most exposition should) both naming your character and immediately establishing a relationship between your characters.
Scenario 4: When plot demands you must wait
Bonus! This happens when asking for a name would ruin the pacing and be wildly out of place in whatever’s happening (like mid-fight scene), or the narrator is unable to ask for plot reasons.
In which case, this still can pull double-duty by having your narrator come up with their own way of identifying the person: maybe they come up with a cute or insulting nickname, or a unique feature stands out that they’re jealous they don’t have, or there’s an identifiable piece of clothing or uniform to call them by their profession (works well for a group of distinct unknowns), or they’re acting in a suspicious fashion and can be labeled with a derogatory adjective.
At which point, narrator can either sleuth out their name themselves or it falls into one of the previous three scenarios.
Point being, once again, you are establishing a relationship between these two characters as soon as they’re on page together. Your exposition is pulling double-duty.
Comments