Notorious for dropping names:

[miyako73]

who are the novelists who like to drop names of scientists, mathematicians, industrialists, theorists, philosophers, writers, actors, singers, dancers etc. in their fictional novels?

Thanks a lot.

[Windup]

In Gore Vidal's "Washington D.C." Freud was mentioned numerous times, along with Cicero and a few other Roman political leaders/philosophers.

[Genocide]

Dante? In "The Inferno" if I remember correctly, there were plenty of allusions to writers, political members, characters, etc.

[Seasider]

who are the novelists who like to drop names of scientists, mathematicians, industrialists, theorists, philosophers, writers, actors, singers, dancers etc. in their fictional novels?

Thanks a lot.
What is the point of this question? Fictional characters have fictional conversations and they might mention in passing names of writers, scientists etc just as their factual counterparts do. But name dropping has a negative connotation...trying to impress with names but not necessarily with knowledge.
I am reading Of Human Bondage at the moment and in one particularly tedious passage Philip,while trying to sort out a belief system drops the names of Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Hobbes, Spinoza and Hume within a few paragraphs. This did nothing to advance my understanding of the narrative or the character. But I assumed that Somerset Maugham must be very well read or very eager to impress. Or both.:rolleyes5:

[Emil Miller]

What is the point of this question? Fictional characters have fictional conversations and they might mention in passing names of writers, scientists etc just as their factual counterparts do. But name dropping has a negative connotation...trying to impress with names but not necessarily with knowledge.
I am reading Of Human Bondage at the moment and in one particularly tedious passage Philip,while trying to sort out a belief system drops the names of Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Hobbes, Spinoza and Hume within a few paragraphs. This did nothing to advance my understanding of the narrative or the character. But I assumed that Somerset Maugham must be very well read or very eager to impress. Or both.:rolleyes5:

You can take it that Maugham was very well read and he also studied philosophy at Heidelberg university. He was particularly interested in philosophy so it's not surprising that he mentions various philosophers in the novel.

[LitNetIsGreat]

...However I would doubt if that is the reason why Maugham mentions philosophers - to impress his readership! I doubt that a writer of Maugham's stature would do such a thing. I would assume that it is employed in order to add something to that of the character. I've not read On Human Bondage, I've just ordered it, but this would be my strong impression.

From a wider point of view, many post-modernist texts will purposefully allude to or directly mimic other writers and texts, especially grand narratives such as Shakespeare and the Bible. It is not a surprise to find any number of such texts saturated with references. This is just part of the make-up of the post-modernist trend in literature. Whether the aim is to subvert these narratives, champion them or to question the status of "high" and "low" narratives or whatever - they are usually there in some form or another.

In other literature, references to other writers or texts will have the affect of adding to character or mood of the work or to incorporate the ideas of those writers into the narrative or setting, for example references to instances in the Bible in the past would certainly bring something to the text because the writer would assume, more than likely, that those references or allusions would have been clearly understood by general population and the implications that were being referenced.

It is hugely unlikely that any writer of merit references writers or texts in order to show off. This is almost laughable.

[Seasider]

One of your names is straight out of the pages of Of Human Bondage. Is that the reason you responded to my post? Of the 2 of you I think I prefer Mr Bean.

[dafydd manton]

Oh Dear!

[Emil Miller]

One of your names is straight out of the pages of Of Human Bondage. Is that the reason you responded to my post? Of the 2 of you I think I prefer Mr Bean.

You are quite right. When I was looking for a pseudonym to use I thought at first to use one of the names that Maugham had considered using for himself before rejecting the idea of using one at all. I had seen them mentioned in some of his autobiographical writings but although I spent a good deal of time trying to locate them, I was unsuccessful. I was interested in the minor character Emil Miller who was a German that had anglicised his name from Müller. However, that isn't the reason that I responded to your post. Like Neely, I don't think a man Maugham's intellectual reach would have needed to impress by name dropping. My actual name doesn't bother me but I really prefer Miller.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your comments.

Posts containing personal remarks will be removed without further notice.

[Seasider]

...However I would doubt if that is the reason why Maugham mentions philosophers - to impress his readership! I doubt that a writer of Maugham's stature would do such a thing. I would assume that it is employed in order to add something to that of the character. I've not read On Human Bondage, I've just ordered it, but this would be my strong impression.

I expressed some doubts about Maugham's stature as a novelist and was clearly in the minority. That is why I bought Of Human Bondage. It has not changed my opinion. While the narrative is interesting the writing is often banal and overblown. He placed himself in The Second Eleven and I think I agree with him.


It is hugely unlikely that any writer of merit references writers or texts in order to show off. This is almost laughable.

The original poster used pejorative language to describe the habits of some novelists. "Notorious" "Name dropping" which inclined me to think that the habit was not being commended.
You might be right about any writer of merit not using references to show off. But it is a habit in frequent use...(did you see Annie Hall?) and the peole who practise it are called pseuds

I may not have got the measure of the quote facility...so apologies if it is done incorrectly

[miyako73]

Seasider, I want to learn how they integrate or use real famous people in their fictional novels. I think dropping names can add textures of reality, insecurity, intellectualism, etc. in fiction.

[Wilde woman]

I think some of us just have a problem with term "name-dropping", because it makes these writers sound like their main objective is to show off, which is unlikely. It's probably more PC to say "intertextuality" or something.

[.Kafka]

Eliot. Marukami. Vonnegut. Poe. To name a few.

Most postmodern literature does.

[.Kafka]

I think some of us just have a problem with term "name-dropping", because it makes these writers sound like their main objective is to show off, which is unlikely. It's probably more PC to say "intertextuality" or something.

Isn't "intertextuality" showing off? How many readers outside of academia are familiar with the term?

[OrphanPip]

Isn't "intertextuality" showing off? How many readers outside of academia are familiar with the term?

Not really, it's using a term that has a specific meaning which may be more useful for the discussion than one which is deliberately contentious.

[dafydd manton]

I would hardly describe myself as being any part of academia, but the word is surely self-explanatory. Surely, if we start to only use words that can be understood by the overwhelming majority, the language - indeed, any language - will suffer immeasurably. The dreaded "dumbing down". This isn't a form of snobbery, but it would be unwise to limit the means of expression for the sake of inclusivity.

[Emil Miller]

I would hardly describe myself as being any part of academia, but the word is surely self-explanatory. Surely, if we start to only use words that can be understood by the overwhelming majority, the language - indeed, any language - will suffer immeasurably. The dreaded "dumbing down". This isn't a form of snobbery, but it would be unwise to limit the means of expression for the sake of inclusivity.

My sentiments entirely. Dumbing down and inclusiveness are synonymous.
I wish it were not so but, as with so many disagreeable things, we have to live in the real world.

[miyako73]

I will give few examples of my own that have bothered me lately. I have tried so hard not to appear pretentious and showy. But my mind is telling me the opposite.


“Do you think this book will point at you by itself?” His witty sarcasm, the way he said it, resonated like a dialogue in an existentialist play. “Entre en soi.” Very Jean-Paul Sartre.

“Stick to the script” was one of his parting lines at every end of his class, almost similar to “The Book” of Paul Erdos, the mathematician I wished I could meet.


Instead of detailing what Sartre said about "being" I just mentioned his name and his famous line, so a reader can look them up. Besides, the character in my story is existentialist in his own way.

Instead of talking about the genius of Paul Erdos that bordered between brilliance and insanity like the character in my story, I just wrote his name and the craziness, “the book,” he was famous for.


Every time I reread them, something deep within screams "edit them out."

[Seasider]

My sentiments entirely. Dumbing down and inclusiveness are synonymous.
I wish it were not so but, as with so many disagreeable things, we have to live in the real world.
I disagree. Some texts are meant to be understood by everyone; The Ten Commandments and The Sermon on the Mount are examples. They are not "dumbed down" but are expressed in simple terms. I can only speak for these texts in English but I assume that they are as accessible for speakers of other languages.

Julia Kristeva's work on intertextuality, I would have thought is for advanced students of literature who are an exclusive group of academics and writers. The essential meaning is that all literature is shaped to some extent by the literature which preceded it...the vertical axis... and by the language that it is written in which has played a part in shaping the consciousness of the writer. Everything which is written is sited within and linked to a tradition of past and precedent.
Sorry if that is [I]dumbed down[/ Maybe someone else can try to explain it.

[Emil Miller]

I disagree. Some texts are meant to be understood by everyone; The Ten Commandments and The Sermon on the Mount are examples. They are not "dumbed down" but are expressed in simple terms. I can only speak for these texts in English but I assume that they are as accessible for speakers of other languages.

Julia Kristeva's work on intertextuality, I would have thought is for advanced students of literature who are an exclusive group of academics and writers. The essential meaning is that all literature is shaped to some extent by the literature which preceded it...the vertical axis... and by the language that it is written in which has played a part in shaping the consciousness of the writer. Everything which is written is sited within and linked to a tradition of past and precedent.
Sorry if that is [I]dumbed down[/ Maybe someone else can try to explain it.

The examples you have quoted were written at a time of mass illiteracy and were of necessity presented in simplified terms. Had they been written at a time when literacy was the order of the day, they would have conformed to the prevailing standards.
I am sure there are people in society today who would love to rewrite Julia Kristeva's book in the name of inclusiveness but only because they are unable to ban it outright.

[stlukesguild]

I would also note that the Ten Commandments and The Sermon on the Mount are not works of literature but rather fragments of larger works. The Bible as a whole is far from being easily understood or accessible to all. We only need to look at the multitude of interpretations even now. The same is true even if we break the Bible into the separate books. Some are certainly more accessible than others, but they are not by any extent dumbed-down.

I would also suggest that I don't find the idea of "intertextuality" or the concept that all literature is informed by literary precedents to be in any way something limited to advanced students and academics. All art engages in a dialog with art as much or more than it engages in a dialog with life. It would seem to me that as a reader gains experience... has more and more books under his or her belt... elements of this dialog become increasingly clear.

[Seasider]

The 2 examples I gave were, if you hold to any of the Abrahamic religions, the words of God and, for Christians, of his Son. So it was important that they be universally understood. But The Catholic Church insisted that the Bible to be used was the Latin Vulgate which only priests and scholars understood. This gave them a crucial importance in society and one which many of them abused.
The early writers of the English Bible were determined to produce a translation which would be accessible to all English speakers and break the monopoly of the Catholic Church for reading and interpreting The Bible. The antagonism of The Church is demonstrated by the fact that one translator, Tyndale,was forced to flee from England and after more than a decade of being a fugitive was strangled and burnt by the Church authorities.
I know this takes the discussion far from from where it started but I wanted to give an example of a struggle for universal accessibility which could not be regarded as "dumbing down".

[Alexander III]

Your argument only makes sense if we consider theology/religion=art and art=theology/religion

But that is not the case...

[Seasider]

My argument is not concerned with Art or Religion. I used the example of translating The Bible to suggest that inclusiveness is not always associated with "dumbing down". In this case it was believed that since everyone was in possession of an immortal soul, then all should have a chance to read and interpret The Bible for themselves. I agree that much of The Bible is open to different interpretations...if it were not so there would not be as many religious groups preaching their own versions. But there is no ambiguity about The Commandments.
But in many other circumstances of opinion, theories and their interpretation, I would agree that much may be lost through oversimplification.