(AYRT) Ahaha, no, I have NO TIME to write that, and I couldn't do it justice even if I did. But someone else totally should. Names and identities fascinate me, and all the DF stuff about names is like my catnip.
Especially since as it stands in the books I don't feel like I believe it. It desperately wants to be tweaked until it makes sense!
Because when I was younger I went exclusively by a nickname, and if I was called the proper, longer version of my name it would actually startle me, because that wasn't me. So this idea that it's a person's FULL name in all its parts that has the power feels disingenuous.
But then these days I DO go by the longer version of my name, and not the nickname, and now the nickname would feel weird -- but the nickname is still part of who I am, because it is who I was.
And then there's also stuff about names that aren't part of one's legal name. And I have one of those too, a name given to me when I was a wee child, and it is connected to my identity, but would never be reeled off as a part of my name, because it's a separate name altogether and besides I never actually get called it.
And then there's the stuff you brought up in your original prompt, with having multiple identities through things like fannish behaviour, and I can totally identify with that too, because my fannish name is a part of me.
So it all makes me think that there isn't just a "Name" that can be recited, if you know the whole thing, and hold within it the entirety of one's identity. Identity, and names, are so much more complicated than that. And for more than just the odd person out. I know I have an unusually complicated name history, but I'm pretty sure that MOST people have a more complicated relationship with their name than DF's thing about Names would have you believe.
Er.
Sorry about the tl;dr. I, um, feel strongly about this, in case you hadn't noticed....
Ahaha. I basically just wrote this exact comment in reply to luciazephyr above and then deleted because I thought it was getting too tl;dr for the anon meme. So in other words, I feel you!
I have a nickname that was used all through childhood, and I have my legal name which has always been used by a different set of people than the nickname (which is still used by people who've known me since childhood), and then there are several versions of my legal name, and then there's my online handle which at this point I've been using for a significant portion of my life, and is mostly a written name because it doesn't really have a set pronunciation, and then there's my stylized initials which I almost feel more strongly about than any of my spoken names because I put it on things I'm putting my honor/pride into, then there's the fact that when I'm calling myself something in my head it's never my name, it's "kid," or "lady," or something like that, because I don't really feel myself in any of those names: and actually I tend to think my naming history is simpler than a lot of folks', because after all, I've never legally changed it, nor even made a particular effort to get people to use a different nickname.
So. ...this is kind of a thing with me. I have no idea what my own Name would be.
A lot of fantasy novels deal with it by having truenames be something entirely separate from the names we get called? In fact in some fantasy novels I think truenames are a lot closer to what Dresden thinks of as a soulgaze - they're not language, they're imagery. Or they're really complicated, long descriptions, which are constantly changing or growing, like the computer-code like truenames in Young Wizards.
But I kind of like what Dresden Files does with it, because you have the spirit creatures who really are there names, because in some ways they are as simple as a single unchanging word, spoken. And you have people like the White Council wizards, who treat, and empower, their names like almost like the Sidhe do, because they've been taught early on to protect and value them, and maybe also because, dealing with the forces they deal with, they need that rock-solid version of self that they can turn to in extremity and know who they are.
But your average vanilla mortal - and this gets mentioned at least once in one of the early books - their names aren't stable, aren't simple, are hardly worth the collecting, because by the time you've bought the name and set up the spell, half the time they've changed their mind about who they are, even if they ever had just one person that they were in the first place. And yet they still have power, because all names have power, it's what names are for, you just have to be like quicksilver through a net to get a hold on it. Mortals are tricksy like that. ^_^
And ooh, your last two paragraphs fascinate me, because either I wasn't paying enough attention when reading the books, or I just haven't yet gotten to the relevant books. Because that DOES make a whole lot of sense, in terms of how names work in the DF universe. In fact, that stuff is awesome.
THIS yeah, I think the RPG book says a mortal's Name will only be fresh for a few months. Wizard's Names last quite a bit longer. Immortal Names tend to be absolute.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: A haunting in Iowa City
(Anonymous) 2011-03-11 06:31 am (UTC)(link)Especially since as it stands in the books I don't feel like I believe it. It desperately wants to be tweaked until it makes sense!
Because when I was younger I went exclusively by a nickname, and if I was called the proper, longer version of my name it would actually startle me, because that wasn't me. So this idea that it's a person's FULL name in all its parts that has the power feels disingenuous.
But then these days I DO go by the longer version of my name, and not the nickname, and now the nickname would feel weird -- but the nickname is still part of who I am, because it is who I was.
And then there's also stuff about names that aren't part of one's legal name. And I have one of those too, a name given to me when I was a wee child, and it is connected to my identity, but would never be reeled off as a part of my name, because it's a separate name altogether and besides I never actually get called it.
And then there's the stuff you brought up in your original prompt, with having multiple identities through things like fannish behaviour, and I can totally identify with that too, because my fannish name is a part of me.
So it all makes me think that there isn't just a "Name" that can be recited, if you know the whole thing, and hold within it the entirety of one's identity. Identity, and names, are so much more complicated than that. And for more than just the odd person out. I know I have an unusually complicated name history, but I'm pretty sure that MOST people have a more complicated relationship with their name than DF's thing about Names would have you believe.
Er.
Sorry about the tl;dr. I, um, feel strongly about this, in case you hadn't noticed....
Re: A haunting in Iowa City
(Anonymous) 2011-03-11 07:02 am (UTC)(link)I have a nickname that was used all through childhood, and I have my legal name which has always been used by a different set of people than the nickname (which is still used by people who've known me since childhood), and then there are several versions of my legal name, and then there's my online handle which at this point I've been using for a significant portion of my life, and is mostly a written name because it doesn't really have a set pronunciation, and then there's my stylized initials which I almost feel more strongly about than any of my spoken names because I put it on things I'm putting my honor/pride into, then there's the fact that when I'm calling myself something in my head it's never my name, it's "kid," or "lady," or something like that, because I don't really feel myself in any of those names: and actually I tend to think my naming history is simpler than a lot of folks', because after all, I've never legally changed it, nor even made a particular effort to get people to use a different nickname.
So. ...this is kind of a thing with me. I have no idea what my own Name would be.
A lot of fantasy novels deal with it by having truenames be something entirely separate from the names we get called? In fact in some fantasy novels I think truenames are a lot closer to what Dresden thinks of as a soulgaze - they're not language, they're imagery. Or they're really complicated, long descriptions, which are constantly changing or growing, like the computer-code like truenames in Young Wizards.
But I kind of like what Dresden Files does with it, because you have the spirit creatures who really are there names, because in some ways they are as simple as a single unchanging word, spoken. And you have people like the White Council wizards, who treat, and empower, their names like almost like the Sidhe do, because they've been taught early on to protect and value them, and maybe also because, dealing with the forces they deal with, they need that rock-solid version of self that they can turn to in extremity and know who they are.
But your average vanilla mortal - and this gets mentioned at least once in one of the early books - their names aren't stable, aren't simple, are hardly worth the collecting, because by the time you've bought the name and set up the spell, half the time they've changed their mind about who they are, even if they ever had just one person that they were in the first place. And yet they still have power, because all names have power, it's what names are for, you just have to be like quicksilver through a net to get a hold on it. Mortals are tricksy like that. ^_^
Re: A haunting in Iowa City
(Anonymous) 2011-03-11 07:13 am (UTC)(link)And ooh, your last two paragraphs fascinate me, because either I wasn't paying enough attention when reading the books, or I just haven't yet gotten to the relevant books. Because that DOES make a whole lot of sense, in terms of how names work in the DF universe. In fact, that stuff is awesome.
Re: A haunting in Iowa City