Evocative versus descriptive names

I'm facing something of a dilemma about the names of concepts and such in my story. Up until this point I've used purely descriptive names as placeholders - for example, the tendency among artificial intelligences to suddenly become murderously insane is called "AI psychosis". As my story approaches a more developed stage, however, I think I'm going to have to decide between using these descriptive names or going with something more evocative and unique to my setting.

The problem is that I see reasons to do both. The advantages to evocative and unique names is pretty obvious, but I've also felt in the past that sometimes - especially with a common genre concept - it's better to really just give it the simple name that readers will probably be using anyway rather than try and make up something different for difference's sake.

So I'm creating this thread to ask for advice. Where do you, the writers of Writer's Block, stand on the issue of names for setting elements and concepts?

I think I recall once disagreeing respectfully with you on the worth of meaningful names, so it's possible that in this also we'll be on opposite sides, but no one's tastes are less valid than anyone elses. Insofar as naming anything is concerned, then, once you've eliminated personal taste the inevitable key feature in naming has to be readers' ease. Thus every step you take in naming sometihng needs to be tested against that. Realism is also a major thing to test for, but falls second to readers' ease.

To use/mess with your AI Psychosis example, which - in my opinion - is actually both descriptive and evocative, you could very easily imagine that when this concept first was described the scientists or engineers behind it did call it precisely that. So it hits realism quite well and the lack of random apostrophes, et cetera, does make it easy for readers. However it is a long thing to say and those not using it in official statements and documentation would likely shorten it - AI-psy, they might say, in casual speech and this does work as long as the concept has been fully named before. It's easier to read and say, still describes well and is evocative of a place where this is common enough that it actually has a name (as alarming a thought as that is).

Of course, the main problem with the realism issue (which is needed since not enough realism results in breaking suspension of disbelief, which a poorly chosen name can do) is that truth is stranger than fiction and that in reality most people named places and things in ways that were either: painfully and inappropriately traditional, dully descriptive, mythologically and culturally evocative to the point of incomprehensibility for outsiders or just plain stupid.

Consider how producs and places are named in our world - Energy Drink is dully descriptive but for the first ones it worked. Then you get things like Calci-YUM which is evocative, but you kind of need to read the label to be sure of what it is and if an outsider doesn't know that Yum is a term for enjoying a taste, or what calci is short for, it makes no sense.

Then there are places. If you seek out translations of place names in Europe, you'll find that most of them sound interesting in their native language but are just dull descriptions in English (or both - I'm looking at you City of Bath) and back in the oldern days when they got their names they were given dull description names because it told you what was where. However, too many blantant description names can irk readers because they stop sounding like names and start sounding like capitalised descriptions. Then there's stupidly traditional names: every English colony has place names borrowed straight from places in England, which meant something there but mean nothing in their new locations, seem downright silly at times and can be highly confusing because people (and readers) will go "are we talking about the British one, the American one, the Canadian one, the Australian one, the New Zealand one or one of the other ones?!?" - not good.

Then, of course, there are the just plain stupid ones. These are usually the fault of invaders not fact checking place and item names before applying their own language and naming. The classic example: Pendle Hill. Or, in English, Hill Hill. I believe there's at least one in the world which is actually Hill Hill Hill Hill thanks to centuries of idiots renaming things.

The point of this being that you can evoke a huge amount of background and realistic feel to a place by using realistic naming attitudes and in the end the key is to use a carefully chosen mix. Things which are easy to understand can have names that don't really explain them, but anything that is harder to understand needs a name that makes it clear (the bookmark and favourite options on your browsers are pretty obvious when you read it, so easy for readers but could be called something else "She hit the Hemley's button so she could find it later", but if you don't know what a Lazy Susan is you aren't going to figure it out without further information, so unless you're taking the time and plot to explain it this should be the central table bowl turner or such).

Lastly, things that are important to the plot or scene should be relatively easy to understand (Moana Street and Fleet Road next to each other imply cultural mixing without you needing to stop and explain, but call them Fleet Road and asd'fa rt asdfads and your audience can't be sure what the [vulgarity] that second one even is ("Is it a bird? Is it an alien? Is it a... I give up"). Obviously, don't aim at the lowest common denominator - since readers can figure a fair bit out and get used to odd terms within a chapter or two as long as their use is clear - but instead of being a question of the evocative versus the descriptive, they need to work in harmony to give a feeling to a world which is still comprehensible.

At least, that's my take on the whole matter.

I believe you're thinking of Torpenhowe Hill ( Supposedly from the Old English torr, Welsh penn, Danish haug-r (Anglicized to howe), and Modern English hill) The problem with that one is that there's no hill named that. The Derwentwater River is a slightly better example: Brythonic Celtic "derwent" (river with oaks), "water", added in probably the 17th or 18th century, then "river" added still later by people who didn't think calling it the Derwentwater was clear enough (because, you know, it might be a lake...). If you really want to use "river", the proper way to call it is the "River Derwent"

edited 15th Mar '14 6:58:33 PM by Madrugada

As in so many things, I think this is heavily dependent on context.

A name bestowed in a official capacity, will almost certainly be descriptive. (Though possibly opaque to the layman.) Names given more informally may be descriptive or evocative more or less based on the inclination of those who give them and the urgency of their information.

AI Psychosis is both descriptive and conveys something reasonably important without much chance of anyone misunderstanding, so complicating it wouldn't serve a purpose to anyone. If A.I.s have a problem with developing a sudden need for chocolate pudding, giving it an obscurely referential label would be fine.

edited 15th Mar '14 7:36:28 PM by Night

@Madrugada, You're probabbly right about that, especially since these sorts of things tend to get confused via memetic side effects. Which, come to think of it - is probably also something to keep in mind when naming places and things in fiction.