Home

Why ______ de Coverley?

Why ______ de Coverley?

Submitted by wadsbone on Sun, 12/11/2005 - 01:28.
"The meal was served in enormous helpings on damask tablecloths by the skilled Italian waiters Major ______ de Coverley had kidnapped from the mainland and given to Milo."

Why do all those old-timey writers (like Joseph Heller?) use underscores for a person's first name all the time? This has baffled me for years, and I'm tired of being in the dark. Can someone help me out here?

» login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ade's picture

Never noticed the trend

Submitted by ade on Mon, 12/12/2005 - 12:29.

Not claiming any authority here, but I haven't ever paid any attention to any underscore-name-substitution as a trend in "old-timey" literature. I always presumed it was a device of Heller's particular to that character. The way I remember, Maj. de Coverly had a face so fearsome no one ever dared ask his first name.

» login or register to post comments
wadsbone's picture

Right

Submitted by wadsbone on Tue, 12/13/2005 - 12:53.

Yeah, that's the explanation in Catch-22. I read the part that said as much after posting this.

But that technique definitely exists in other older books. The only explanation that I've heard (from an English grad student) was that it was used to imply some sort of fictional redaction, but the reason for the redaction depends on the book. I've seen it used both for place names and for people's names. It might also be that the author wants to imply that the association of a real person of place to the character's in the book without making libelous claims.

I haven't heard a very satisfying explanation yet. The smarty-pants English guy said that he thought there was a technical term for it, but didn't remember. I'd be satisfied with the "it depends on the book" explanation if I knew what it was called.

» login or register to post comments
terp's picture

Silly old writers and poets

Submitted by terp on Tue, 12/13/2005 - 14:21.

Don't you know that haphazard capitalizing, emphasizing, and omitting should be left to philosophers?

I really don't think that there is any rule, and for your purposes I think "it depends on the book" or "it depends on the genre" or "it depends on the time period" might also work. For example, English romantic poets LOVED to CAPITALIZE the most random WORDS. Although 99% of the time it wasn't so random.

Coleridge, _Rime of the Ancient Mariner_: "I shot the ALBATROSS."=not random

Shelley, _The Witch of Atlas_: "she had a BOAT."=maybe random (correct me if i'm wrong on the title)

The point is that these old farts employed all sorts of crazy devices, sometimes they hold significance and SOMETIMES they don't. I think that your idea about the omission of a first name to circumvent any sort of charges of libel probably has some ACCURACY. That was the first thing that popped into my head when I read your post. The modern-day equivalent, of course, would be the disclaimer at the beginning of telivision shows and movies: "the characters depicted are fictional . . ."

» login or register to post comments