A Rose is a Ross is a Rosa is a Rhys?

Not-Alexandra, but Harriet? Really?

HANK PHILLIPPI RYAN:  It should be such an easy question. When I check into a hotel, the clerk asks: What's your name, please?  Yeah....I have think--who am I here?  The perils of having a legal name that's different from my usual name. Anyway.

My mother told me she had planned to name me Alexandra (which is funny, when you read  this blog) but decided when I was born that I didn't look like an Alexandra. How that makes sense she could never explain.

But I bet it's kind of the same when authors name a character. We know what works, but we may not be able to explain exactly why.

Sandra Parshall (Sandy to some...) explains it all--and, fabulously, has special info about the Reds. 

Names by the Numbers

    by Sandra Parshall

Naming a character in a novel can take longer than finding the perfect moniker for newborn offspring. A kid is a blank slate. You can pick out a name just because you like it, or you’re expected to pass it down in the family, and hope your son or daughter grows into it. Not many parents seem to consider whether their precious little Daisy will one day be six feet tall and big-boned.

Characters, on the other hand, are already fully formed (or should be). Unless you’re going for a funny contrast, you have to fit the name to the person — the character’s age, social status, region of birth as well as personality and values. I can’t write about a character until I’ve named him or her, and if I make the wrong choice initially, I will have trouble with that character until I change the ill-fitting name.

So I plow through baby-naming books. I look up the meanings of names. I consult the Social Security database of popular baby names in the US (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/), which goes back to 1879, to get an idea of how many people my character’s age would have the same name. More than anything else, the sound of the name is important.

I tried several names before I settled on Rachel Goddard, and the writing on the first book in my series, The Heat of the Moon, didn’t proceed smoothly until I knew exactly what to call her. This Biblical name, which is used in different forms in many languages, appeals to me because it’s simple and strong. It was in the top 20 baby names in the US during the 1980s, when Rachel was born. Deciding what to call Rachel’s younger sister was easy: Michelle has a light, pretty sound that suits the character. Their mother, Judith — well, let’s just say nobody ever called this woman Judy.

Sandra Who? you know this.

For naming secondary or minor characters, those who pop up briefly in a book and aren’t seen again, the Social Security database is invaluable if I’m going to describe the person mainly by age.

Naturally, I’ve kept track of my own name’s popularity. Sandra started life as a nickname for Cassandra or Alexandra but has assumed an independent identity over the last century. Throughout the decade I was born, it was one of the five or six most popular names for baby girls in the US, and it stayed in the top 20 until 1968. Every Sandra I’ve ever met has been my age or a bit younger,

 but I know younger ones are out there, like Sandra Bullock, age 49, who was born in 1964. Alas, in 2012, the last year for which figures are available, our name had fallen to number 679. The reigning five were Sophia, Emma, Isabella, Olivia, and Ava.

And how have the Jungle Red Writers’ names scored down through the years?

Julia is the one with the most staying power. This Biblical name is found, in different forms, in many cultures, and it has been consistently popular in the US since the SS database was established, falling out of the top 100 in only a few years. It was number 26 in 1880 and 27 in 2001. In 2012, it was down to number 65, but if its past pattern repeats, it will rise again.

Hank doesn’t show up as a girl’s name, although it’s made the top 1,000 boys’ names list for the past three years. Harriet (Hank’s real name), however, was in the top 1,000 until 1970, and the top 200 through 1946. 

Lucy, comfortably within the top 100 baby names from 1880 to 1924, has enjoyed a resurgence of popularity recently, rising from number 203 in 2004 to 66 in 2012.

Hallie was popular in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, fell out of favor for a long stretch, but has been back in the top 1,000 since 1983. In 2012, it was number 525.

Rhys — sorry, but it’s never been among the top 1,000 girls’ names in the US, but in 2012 it was number 476 on the boys’ list.

Deborah and Susan are classic names that have usually been in the most popular 100. Deborah was in the top 10 from 1950 to 1962, rising to number two in 1955. Susan had an even longer ride in the top 10, from 1945 to 1968. Both have dropped in the last few years, though, and in 2012 Deborah was down to 797 and Susan was number 839. Perhaps a little campaigning among enceinte fans and family could bring them back up in the rankings?

Have you looked up your own name on the Social Security site?  http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/ How has it fared in popularity over the years? 

Do you think it suits you, or have you always wished your parents had chosen something else?

HANK: I used to tell people my name was Hyacinth, but that was in grade school. If I had to pick a name for myself, for years, it would have been Charlotte.  :-)  But now, strangely, I am very happy with Harriet. Weird, huh? How about you? 

And a copy of Sandy's new POISONED GROUND  to one lucky commenter! (Isn't this a gorgeous cover?) 

***********

Bio:

Sandra Parshall’s new novel, Poisoned Ground, is the sixth mystery featuring Rachel Goddard, a young Virginia veterinarian. Sandra lives in Northern Virginia with her husband, a veteran Washington journalist, and their cats Emma and Gabriel. Visit her website at http://www.sandraparshall.com.

POISONED GROUND

When a powerful development company sets its sights on Mason Country, Virginia, as the location for a sprawling resort for the rich, the locals begin taking sides. Many residents see the resort as economic salvation for the small Blue Ridge Mountains community, while others fear the county will become financially dependent on a predatory company. Few oppose the development more vocally than veterinarian Rachel Goddard. She sides with locals reluctant to sell their land and, in the process, complicates the life of her new husband, Sheriff Tom Bridger. When a beloved couple are gunned down on the farm they refused to sell, it seems supporters will stop at nothing to ensure the success of the resort. As the violence escalates, Rachel discovers the attacks are more sinister than they appear. Can she bring the truth to light before her community tears itself apart?

She's Bad, She's Bad, She's Really Really Bad

HANK: Who's your favorite bad guy? Hannibal Lecter? Moriarty? The Agatha-winning Sandra Parshall (who doesnt have an evil bone in her body--she loves animals and flowers and is a very good pal to writers) has been thinking about bad guys. And why the bad ones are good--and why the good ones are bad.

I Love the Broken Ones 

                          by Sandra Parshall

                

Maybe I should be happy when readers tell me they despise Judith, my protagonist Rachel Goddard’s mother. I should smile when they say they’d like to heat up a vat of boiling oil for Lindsay, Rachel’s rival and Tom Bridger’s former girlfriend. If readers hate my “bad” characters, that means I’ve made them convincingly villainous, right?

But for me it’s not that easy.

I understand my villains, inside and out. I know all the life experiences that shaped them and drove them to behave the way they do. Understanding leads to compassion. No, I can’t defend Judith’s actions, but every time a reader gets started on what an evil witch she is, I find myself interrupting with, “Yes, but…” I doubt that I’ve persuaded anyone to view her more kindly. The one and only time a reader said, unprompted by me, “I felt sorry for Judith. She had such a sad life,” I wanted to cheer. At last, somebody got Judith.

 Tom’s old girlfriend, Lindsay, who wreaks havoc in Broken Places, is a real piece of work, I’ll admit. A lot of readers think I should have come down harder on her. As in: dropped a concrete slab on her from a great height. Dropped her from a great height. No punishment would be bad enough to satisfy the readers who hate Lindsay. But I feel compelled to point out that other people/characters, including Tom, bear some responsibility for Lindsay turning out the way she did.

The damaged characters who provoke strong reactions from readers and conflicting emotions in their creator are the most fun to write about. I love Rachel and Tom, but they are good, honorable people who always try to do the right thing, and they won’t hold a reader’s interest unless they’re challenged by villains who are worthy opponents. Occasionally Rachel and Tom have to be tempted to do the wrong thing because that seems the only way to defeat the bad guys. I enjoy nothing more than dreaming up characters who are strong enough to push my goodhearted protagonists to the edge. The more complex my bad guys are, the farther away from pure evil I can take them, the more I like them.

There are exceptions. Some villains are evil through and through, and I can’t summon any pity for them. The ultimate villains in Under the Dog Star and my new book, Bleeding Through, are pond scum and deserve what they get. The people around them, though, who get drawn into helping them, merit a little more sympathy.

At least I think they do. But then, as the song says, I can’t help it, I love the broken ones.

How do you like to see villains portrayed? Do you want to be able to hate them without reservation? Or can you find it in your heart to understand why they behave the way they do?

HANK:   An article about thriller writing I once read discussed the tension between the hero and the villain--it said they had to be "equals." That it had to be a "fair fight." And that each one had to have believable reasons for what they do. Who's your favorite? And why?  

Sandra Parshall with Broken Places

ROBERTA: Today JRW is delighted to host Sandra Parshall, who has just released her third mystery in the Rachel Goddard series, BROKEN PLACES (Poisoned Pen Press, 2010.) You will know Sandy if you are a member of either Sisters in Crime or SinC’s Guppy chapter for unpublished writers—she seems to be always online with helpful information, funny stories, and pictures of her feline muses. (Gabriel on the right, and Emma below. Are they not gorgeous creatures?) Today she’s agreed to answer questions no one ever asks. Welcome Sandy!

Let’s start with a question about your series. Why are your heroine, veterinarian Rachel Goddard, and your hero, Deputy Tom Bridger, so nice? Why don’t you write about a kick-ass woman with a wisecrack for every situation? And a cop who drinks too much and can’t keep his temper under control?

SANDY: I tire of brittle, angry characters very quickly. I have more options—more directions to take a story—with lead characters who are relatively normal (in spite of some serious problems in their backgrounds), warm and compassionate, with a strong sense of duty. Rachel is still capable of getting into some crazy trouble and doing things she shouldn’t, and Tom occasionally loses it when somebody crosses a line, but I hope readers will like them and be on their side.

ROBERTA: So you write what you know?

SANDY: Why would I want to? How boring! It’s more fun to write about experiences that I’ll never have. Both Rachel and Tom are bolder and braver than I am, so I can live vicariously through them. If I wrote about what I know—well, it would be a short, dull book, heavy on cat care tips.

ROBERTA: Point taken, that sounds a lot like my life too. Three years ago your novel, THE HEAT OF THE MOON, won the Agatha for best first mystery. How much do awards matter? Do you think readers are impressed by your Agatha?

SANDY: I wish they were! I learned pretty quickly that average readers (I’m not talking about DorothyL mystery fanatics) have never heard of the Agatha Awards—or the Anthonys, or the Leftys, for that matter. Most people who live in the DC area have never heard of Malice Domestic and have no idea that a major mystery conference is held here every year. (They won’t learn about it from the Washington press, which steadfastly ignores Malice.) Some mystery readers have a vague impression that the Edgar Award is a big deal. One bookstore customer looked at the “Agatha Award Winner” sticker on The Heat of the Moon and asked me, “Is the Agatha Award for women’s books, like the Edgar Award is for men’s?”

ROBERTA: Is there anything you’d like to see changed in the process of giving awards?

SANDY: I’ve concluded that the fairest awards are those given by judges who read everything published in the different categories. Having been a judge, I know what a deep sense of responsibility comes with the honor of serving on an awards committee. You have to set aside personal connections. As a judge, I have looked for exceptional writing with power and grace, vivid and unforgettable characters, a story that is fresh and will stay in my mind after I finish the book. Believe me, when you read all the eligible novels, one after another, the best books stand out. And they’re not always the most famous books.

By the way, every year I hear complaints that traditional mysteries don’t stand a chance of winning juried awards like the Edgars, but that’s not true. A number of traditional mysteries have been nominated for, and won, Edgar Awards.

For the fan awards given at conferences like the Agatha and the Lefty, I would like to see nominations made only by fans, committees of readers who agree to read everything that’s been published in the categories they’re judging. The resulting nominations could then be voted on by all who attend the conferences, including the writers.

ROBERTA: Let’s hope the conferences take your suggestion—I think it’s a good one! What question do you wish people would stop asking you?

SANDY: That’s easy: “When are you going to move up to a bigger publisher?” I can’t count the number of times people have said that to me. I guess those who ask the question intend it as a compliment, but it’s insulting to both me and to Poisoned Pen Press, one of the most respected publishers in the country. I don’t write cozies and I don’t write blockbuster thrillers, and I’m positive that if I had started with a New York publisher I would have been dropped long ago for failing to “break out” with huge sales. That’s a rat race I could never win.

ROBERTA: If you could be anything you wanted to be, other than a writer, what would you be?

SANDY: I would work in animal studies and conservation of endangered species, someone like Dr. Jane Goodall. She has the life I wish I had. Dr. Jane has made enormous contributions to our understanding of other species, and she continues to fight for protection of wildlife and preservation of irreplaceable natural resources. She does more for the world in one day than most of us will in our entire lives. I hope there’s something of Dr. Jane’s spirit, on a small scale, in my character Rachel.

ROBERTA: Thanks to Sandy for visiting today—she is standing by to take your comments and questions! And visit her website to read more about Broken Places.