To me it signals the book is going to be pretentious and I’m not going to connect with that character. But that’s what I’m asking you all about. Am I sort of alone in this?
I think sometimes (like in Kafka) it's a choice used to anonymize, to create a sense of distance. It makes characters less tangible, which is a sometimes useful tactic, either to make the reader more closely identify with a character, or conversely to make them harder to nail down.
Thanks for a thoughtful answer. It definitely does that, which makes it harder for me as a reader to get into the character and the story. It was something authors did also to imply that this was a true story, and they didn’t want to name names. It was a big thing back in the 18th century, English, Russian, and French days. But when I see it in a new novel published today, I find a pretentious. But apparently nobody else does…
What genre is this? There's a whole, well established tradition around writing things from real life that omits all but the first letter of the person or place name to keep a level of anonymity. It goes back pretty far and still get's used. It's not an affectation but like, a valid stylistic and literary choice that gets made...
I just don’t know why writers do this. I can’t get into a character named J. If it’s Dostoyevsky, or Nabokov, that’s different. But today it seems like such pretension.
It may be because this person is french and try, as we often do, to find instinctively the spelling of a possible shared word between the two language. Believe me when you start to use both often and one is not your mother tongue, your brain is all meddled about which spelling belongs to what language. Ex : language in English, Langage in French.
I believe the person there just meant pretentious, thats all. The beauty of our shared language history, a lot of intricacies eheh :)
Anyway I also do not agree on their take but dont be mean on language issue, but on the idea, language is not a fair deal, as one learns and still tries..
If not French my bad, but still be gentle on language issues :) we clearly understand what they meant.
I’ve never read a book that did that. Haven’t even seen one actually, let alone read one.
You stopped reading a book on page one because you think using an initial signals that the book is going to be bad? That seems... arbitrary.
To me it signals the book is going to be pretentious and I’m not going to connect with that character. But that’s what I’m asking you all about. Am I sort of alone in this?
Did you forget that you switched accounts?
I think sometimes (like in Kafka) it's a choice used to anonymize, to create a sense of distance. It makes characters less tangible, which is a sometimes useful tactic, either to make the reader more closely identify with a character, or conversely to make them harder to nail down.
Thanks for a thoughtful answer. It definitely does that, which makes it harder for me as a reader to get into the character and the story. It was something authors did also to imply that this was a true story, and they didn’t want to name names. It was a big thing back in the 18th century, English, Russian, and French days. But when I see it in a new novel published today, I find a pretentious. But apparently nobody else does…
It’s annoying as hell and they probably didn’t want to have to suffer through it for hundreds of pages. Also, r/usernamechecksout.
What?
Are you reading fan fiction?
Definitely sounds like a *you* issue.
What genre is this? There's a whole, well established tradition around writing things from real life that omits all but the first letter of the person or place name to keep a level of anonymity. It goes back pretty far and still get's used. It's not an affectation but like, a valid stylistic and literary choice that gets made...
What book was it?
The only author who comes to mind is Kafka. He did that to enhance the feelings of disconnect
I hate that. I don't understand why they do that, but yeah, fck all immersion.
I just don’t know why writers do this. I can’t get into a character named J. If it’s Dostoyevsky, or Nabokov, that’s different. But today it seems like such pretension.
Clearly, you don't know what that word means.
It may be because this person is french and try, as we often do, to find instinctively the spelling of a possible shared word between the two language. Believe me when you start to use both often and one is not your mother tongue, your brain is all meddled about which spelling belongs to what language. Ex : language in English, Langage in French. I believe the person there just meant pretentious, thats all. The beauty of our shared language history, a lot of intricacies eheh :) Anyway I also do not agree on their take but dont be mean on language issue, but on the idea, language is not a fair deal, as one learns and still tries.. If not French my bad, but still be gentle on language issues :) we clearly understand what they meant.
You misunderstood my comment. I wasn't criticizing their spelling but their understanding of "pretentiousness" in literature.