Results 61 to 65 of 78
May 11th, 2013 07:21 PM #61
Bronte or Salinger that is so overtly linked to literature. If it helps, I feel similarly about obvious nature names like Rain or religious names like Magdalena or Faith (though they're pretty!). Virtue names that are still used as everyday words, like Charity or Chastity, are also not a great idea for first names either, in my opinion. I put family names in a different category, because that's not an association most people will know about immediately. But, as I said, obvious associations aren't such a bad thing at all, it's just too unsubtle for my tastes &, in very few cases, it makes me think it could be a bit of a burden for a child. My guilty pleasure list is full of names I'd love to use but feel like they're too strongly associated with something/someone (basically, names that will prompt a lot of questions). I suppose what makes me think a name seems 'pretentious' (/ostentious/showy/unsubtle) is when a name has a super strong, virtually exclusive, association (which may be hard for the child to live with). Names like Bronte or Salinger could be wonderful in the middle though, I love an ostentatious middle!
The old standbys:
Annora Juliet, Verity, Elspeth, Marianne, Josephine, Gwendolyn, Rosemary Constance
Edmund Henry, Winston, Gilbert, August, Walter, Edwin, Hugh Theodore
The wildcards:Zelda, Griffin, Guinevere, Bertram, Mirabel, Josiah, Clio, Reginald
May 12th, 2013 07:00 AM #63
I like ostentatious! I'd rather use names that are like BOOM. POINT MADE. As opposed to a nice series of twenty questions with people for them to figure out your hidden naming inspiration. If you love Jane Austen, name your kid Austen, because otherwise you'll HAVE to explain all the time that no, your Jane wasn't named after Jane Doe. I like simplicity and clarity.I’m just trying to behave as I think a friend should behave. Granted, I haven’t had much practice.
~Elphaba Thropp, Wicked, by Gregory Maguire
May 12th, 2013 02:05 PM #65
I've never really looked at it that way. When I think of it, I would use a literary name because of what the character meant to me. I would assume that's why other people used it too.
May 13th, 2013 06:52 PM #67Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Pacific Northwest
So there seems to be a few strong opinions:
A: Parent reads a book, names child literary name = ostentatious
B: Parent doesn't read a book, names a child literary name =ostentatious
C: Parent reads a book, has a deep association (which they may or may have not been shared), names child a literary name = not ostentatious/ostentatious
Who then are the "naming police" determining what is ostentatious? Like Freakanomics pointed out; there is a larger social-economic underpinning with names. So are you ostentatious then if you are poor, and less educated and you name your child Gatsby because of the newly released movie, and haven't read the book? Jay Gatsby is not a stand up character, but am I to judge these parents for not picking the "right type" of literary name?No Reserves. No Retreats. No Regrets.
May 13th, 2013 10:41 PM #69Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
Nevaeh because it's unappealing/tacky/trendy/ugly/other arbitrary reason. It is different from saying I dislike people who use the name. I think it's reasonable for someone to dislike a name for whatever reason without being the "naming police." I'm just saying I find the names themselves ostentatious so I would be hesitant to use them, even though I like them.
And the thing about poor parents naming their children these literary names- I've not seen it happen. I bounce between areas of different socioeconomic classes, and the trends in naming are VERY distinct, and it's not the poor parents with kids named Salinger. My point is not to judge parents who pick these names: as I've said, I like many of these names quite a bit and I completely understand why someone would pick them. However, I personally am uncomfortable choosing a name that automatically reveals my privilege. My objective in asking the question was to see whether I am the only one who feels that way (which appears not to be the case.)