A few episodes ago, I told you about a moment in a short story I wrote called “Signal Zero.” A military sergeant gets ambushed by an alien intelligence — and inside that ambush, the system gives him a designation. It calls him Sentinel. And next to Sentinel, a number: Frame: Seven.
I didn’t say much about that moment in the episode. But it’s been bothering me ever since, in the productive way ideas bother you. Because what the alien system did, in that scene, is the smallest possible unit of theme. It chose a word. And the word was an argument.
Today I want to talk about naming. Not naming as in what should I call my fantasy kingdom — that’s a different episode. I mean naming as theme. The proposition that what you call a person, a place, a system, an event, is never neutral. Every name is a small thesis statement. And when you understand what your names are arguing, you can sharpen them. When you don’t, they argue without you.
NAMES AS BINDINGS
Start with Ursula K. Le Guin and the Earthsea cycle. Le Guin built an entire magic system on the proposition that to know a thing’s true name is to have power over it — and that to give your true name to another person is the deepest possible act of trust. Wizards spend their lives learning the secret names of things, in a language that predates lying.
What’s interesting is that Le Guin doesn’t treat this as a gimmick. The true-name doctrine is woven into the moral architecture of the books. A wizard who uses a name to hurt has done a different kind of harm than one who uses a sword. To name a thing wrong is to misunderstand the world. To name a person without knowing them is to assume a power you haven’t earned.
So when the protagonist Ged finally tells his real name to a friend in the second book, that’s not a beat about intimacy. It’s a beat about the cosmology of the entire series. Names bind. Knowing someone’s name commits you. The plot of Earthsea is, in a deep structural sense, the question of what a person owes to the things they have named.
That’s the move I want you to notice. Le Guin didn’t decorate her books with fancy names. She made the act of naming into the thematic engine. Once you’ve done that, every name in the book is doing thematic work. There are no neutral nouns.
NAMES WITHHELD
Now go to the opposite end of the spectrum. Cormac McCarthy wrote a novel called The Road about a man and a boy walking through a post-apocalyptic landscape. They are the protagonists. They are on every page. And neither of them has a name.
The man is the man. The boy is the boy. Other people they meet are the thief or the woman. There are no proper nouns for the people who matter most. There are barely any proper nouns for the places they pass through.
That’s not a stylistic tic. That’s a thematic argument. McCarthy is saying: in a world this stripped, names are a luxury that the world can no longer afford. Identity is reduced to function. The man is whatever this person is to the boy — protector, provider, dying body — and the boy is whatever this person is to the man — reason, future, soul. The withheld names universalize them. They become every father and every son. The book is doing what a parable does: refusing the specifics that would localize the meaning.
Now hold that against Le Guin, and notice. Le Guin makes naming the engine of theme by showing the act of naming, repeatedly, with reverence. McCarthy makes naming the engine of theme by refusing the act of naming, repeatedly, with severity. Both are using the same craft tool. Different argument, same lever.
This is the thing I want every writer to take away from those two examples. Whether you name something is itself a thematic statement. Whether you name them once or every chapter is a thematic statement. Whether you name them with care or with contempt is a thematic statement. None of these are neutral choices. None of them are stylistic preferences. They are all small claims about what your book thinks names are for.
NAMES AS ARMOR
One more example, and this one is the most useful for the kind of fiction I think most of us are actually writing — not parable, not high fantasy, but something somewhere in the contemporary literary middle.
Kazuo Ishiguro wrote The Remains of the Day. The narrator is an English butler named Stevens. And Stevens has a habit. He almost never uses people’s first names. The aristocrats are referred to by title. The other servants are referred to by surname or position. The American politicians are referred to by their offices. Even the woman he is in love with — and we, as readers, slowly come to realize he has been in love with for thirty years — is referred to throughout most of the book as Miss Kenton. Not Sarah. Not by any first name. Miss Kenton.
Ishiguro is using job titles and surnames as armor. Every time Stevens refers to someone by their title, he is performing a small act of emotional avoidance. The titles are how he keeps himself professional. They are how he keeps himself not in love. The whole book is, structurally, the slow realization that Stevens has named himself out of his own life. He has called everyone around him by their function for so long that he has come to believe his own function is all he is. Mr. Stevens, butler.
The moment in the book where Stevens slips and uses a first name — I won’t spoil which one or where — is the moment the entire psychological architecture cracks. A single proper noun lands like a shot.
That’s how powerful a name can be when you’ve withheld it for three hundred pages.
WHAT MY ALIEN SYSTEM WAS DOING
Which brings me back to Sentinel. Frame: Seven.
When I wrote that moment in “Signal Zero,” I wasn’t thinking about Le Guin or McCarthy or Ishiguro. I was thinking about how to make first contact land in a single sentence. But what I was reaching for, without naming it at the time, is the same craft tool all three of those authors are using. The system gave Voss a name that was true. Sentinel. Twenty-two years of military service, and the alien intelligence designated him for what he was doing when it arrived: standing guard.
And the system gave him a number. Frame: Seven. A category that means almost nothing to him in the moment, but which the reader will eventually understand is a measure of capability the system can see and Voss cannot.
Two designations. Two arguments about what kind of being Voss is. The first is profoundly seen. The second is profoundly mis-seen. The whole story of how Voss relates to the Integration that arrived that day is contained in the gap between Sentinel and Frame: Seven. Names doing thematic compression. Names as the smallest unit of meaning the story can carry.
THE PRACTICAL MOVE
So here’s what I want you to do. Pull up whatever you’re working on. Pick three names in it. Could be character names, place names, the name of an organization, the name a character calls another character, the name of a magic spell, the name of a piece of technology — any noun that took a choice.
For each one, ask: what is this name arguing?
If the answer is nothing — it just sounded right — that’s fine, but flag it. You have an opportunity there. You can sharpen the name into one that argues for something the rest of the book is also arguing for, and the book will tighten.
If the answer is something I didn’t know it was arguing — that’s the most interesting case. Sometimes the names you chose intuitively are smarter than you are. Don’t fix them yet. Look at what they’re claiming and ask whether the rest of the book is keeping that promise.
If the answer is I know exactly what this name is arguing — congratulations. Now check whether anyone else in the book uses a different name for the same thing. Because the disagreement between names is where theme lives.
Every name in fiction is an argument. What you call a person is a small claim about what kind of person they are. What you call a place is a small claim about what kind of place it is. What you call an event is a small claim about whether it can be understood at all.
Le Guin makes the act of naming sacred. McCarthy refuses it. Ishiguro hides behind it. My alien intelligence in “Signal Zero” deploys it as both a gift and a wound. Different writers, different stakes, same lever — and once you can see the lever, you can’t unsee it.
What you call a thing is never neutral. It’s the smallest unit of theme your book has. Use it.
Until next time, thanks for listening.
Leave a Reply