Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 4 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast
Results 66 to 70 of 78
  1. #66
    I don't think we can assume people are naming their children after these characters or authors, but rather because they like these names. I met a little Harper and later found out HER mother had never even heard of Harper Lee! Maybe we're giving people too much credit...

  2. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    I do roll my eyes a little when I see a little Scout, Harper or Atticus, but that's just because I'm sick to death of them.
    gaia ● gwen ● marian ● maxima ● pearl ● philippa ● sylvie
    conrad ● desmond ● felix ● orlando ● peregrine ● robert ● winston
    arthur stellan | louisa miriam

  3. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Pacific Northwest
    Quote Originally Posted by daisy451 View Post

    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.)
    @daisy451 I think your message definitely got lost in the many points/viewpoints!

    Perhaps the core of your question comes from feeling "uncomfortable choosing a name that automatically reveals my privilege." You probably have a higher education degree, have had time to be introspective, and think about the very concept of revealing privilege, which I would say is a smaller group as a whole (U.S. based in this context) who have this luxury, so therefore would be a smaller group of people who you might consider pretentious or ostentatious for picking a literary name. When the general public is working at minimum wage and a gallon of gas takes up half of their hourly wage, you don't have time to consider if your child's name choice is communicating status or intellect.

    I guess it is worth saying; everyone’s experience is different around the world, and definitely the U.S., and this is just my experience (again, everyone's experience is different!):

    When I worked with wealthy coworkers/families from NY/Long Island their children’s names were Caroline, Anabel, Jack etc.

    When I worked with struggling families in the Deep South, their children’s names were Othello, Apollo, Anikin, and Cain etc (the last little kiddo was super adorable, and his dad said he “wanted a Biblical name,” my silent/unshared thought was “have you read that particular story? Cain isn’t the good guy!) –

    One of my clients in the Pacific NW services a heavily Hispanic community with children named Hugo, Esmeralda and Caesar on the roster, which I associate as “literary” titles.

    I currently live in Seattle, which hits various well-read, literate city lists, but I wouldn't consider my friends, coworkers, clients or acquaintances who chose a literary name to fall within the pseudo-intellectual-child-status-branding club. This is of course framed by my experience, and the above examples.
    No Reserves. No Retreats. No Regrets.

  4. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    London, England
    Quote Originally Posted by withinreason View Post
    ^ Agreed!

    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?
    In my opinion, situation B is more straightforwardly pretentious, & it is only a very specific type of literary name that is ostentatious when used.

    As I said, this is only my opinion, I don't think it makes me part of some sort of 'naming police' because I have opinions about styles of names. We all must have such opinions, or what is the purpose of discussing names on a naming forum beyond simply naming our own children? Names send signals, people interpret those signals. This is not some terrible, judgemental phenomenon, unless it is based on factors like class or race. In the case of literary names, I think it is only tangentially related to class, in the sense that it is way of revealing a privilege, as Daisy's post explained.

    I think the name Gatsby is an ostentatious name in all cases, as it is so strongly associated with the character (who is himself an ostentatious character, ha!). It doesn't make a difference to me, particularly, if the person has read the book or not. Though it does seem pretentious if the parents chose the name after only seeing the movie partially because they liked the idea of being associated with a famous piece of literature. If, however, they simply chose the name because Leo DiCaprio is charming, or because they like the sound, then that's a different kettle of fish. I would hope, though, that all parents research the names they are considering for their children. If, after researching and discovering the history/associations of Gatsby, parents still chose the name; then, yes, that seems ostentatious to me (as it a deliberate statement/choice of signal). If parents do not research the name, then I would be disappointed about that. These are judgements that do not directly relate to class, and at most only reflected internalised societal perceptions of class.

    Annora Juliet, Elspeth, Verity, Zelda, Josephine, Marianne, Rosemary Constance
    Edmund Henry, Wesley, Jonah, Gilbert, August, Winston, Hugh Theodore

  5. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    I think it is extremely important to make the distinction between extremely literary names- Gulliver, Tennyson, Eponine, Gatsby (though I don't hear that one often- and names that are kind of accidentally associated with literature, names that were used commonly before the books, such as Hugo, Ray, or Caesar. They are absolutely not the same thing and I'm talking about the former group only.

    The assumption that the lower-class doesn't know about these literary names is wrong. I didn't grow up in the wealthiest of neighborhoods, and people still read classics in school, memorized the quadratic equation, all the normal education things that everyone does. With the few exceptions that you get anywhere, we still knew what the books were and who wrote them- people generally weren't so busy that they had no idea what was going on in the world. And kids from my neighborhood ALWAYS called things "rich people stuff." Starbucks= rich people stuff, Vacations = rich people stuff, Pomegranates = rich people stuff. I have a feeling that names like Keats would've fallen under our "rich people stuff" category. We thought about privilege, even if we didn't call it that.

    Now that I've gotten an undergraduate degree and I'm doing fairly well, I've taken a liking to a lot of the "rich people stuff." So maybe it is my own sense of how my old friends would perceive me that's holding me back. Not everyone at home was as lucky as I was- I got a scholarship so hefty I graduated with virtually no debt- and it seems almost traitorous to do what I feel like is flaunting that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts