Showing posts with label names. Show all posts
Showing posts with label names. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The Right Name

Tonight, I've been musing about the difference having the right name can make.

Entertainers and writers often take a nom de plume, and it seems to be beyond dispute that having the right name can make all the difference, no matter what one's line of work may be.

And it's funny, sometimes, the names that gravitate to certain professions.

I recall seeing, for example, a sign for a dentist whose name was Dr. Paine. I often wondered how many potential patients were driven to a different dentist simply because of his name.

(Which reminds me of something George Carlin once said. "If 'Janitor in a Drum' made a douche," he said, "no one would buy it.")

I once knew a florist named Rose. No kidding.

A few times I have known of basketball players whose last name was Short. That doesn't sound like the right name for someone who plays a game in which height is looked upon as a decided advantage.

For many years, I worked on copy desks for daily newspapers. On one such job, I worked nights. It was a morning paper. For awhile, I worked with a fellow named Day. I suppose that is considered ironic.

Another irony from those days involved one of our lead editors, the fellow who designed the front page of the paper every night. In those days, color was not as widespread as it is today. The editors could use it on the front pages of their sections if they wanted to — but it was with the understanding that the color process would make production more expensive.

Color gradually became commonplace for newspapers, but, in those days, the decision to use color was often a gut–wrenching experience for the editors, who frequently had to justify their decisions. For those who designed the front page, the most compelling reason to use a color photo was to attract readers. We were in the midst of a newspaper war, and the editors of the main section saw color as the key to boosting circulation.

I worked in sports, which seemed to have been given the green light to use color whenever we wanted to. And color really did bring sports photos to life, whether they were produced by one of our photographers or came across the wire. But the front page of the sports section was not the one on display in convenience stores and news boxes.

Anyway, this fellow on the news side had a reputation for resisting color. I always assumed it had something to do with his frugal nature — and, truth be told, I agreed with him most of the time. In those days, it was hard to justify using color for photos of people's faces — like the photos you see on columns.

The newspaper term for such photos is mugshot, and most of the mugshots that news had were of men wearing dark suits and dark ties standing in front of a dark background (think Blues Brothers without the sunglasses). What could color possibly add to that?

But there were times when I disagreed with the decisions that were made.

The name of the night editor who stoutly resisted using color photos on the front page was ... Ed Gray.

Known as the "aptly named Ed Gray" by some of the copy editors on the news side.

Still with me?

Well, the reason I'm on this tangent this evening has a lot to do with some interesting facts that are connected to tomorrow, November 19:
  • Forty years ago tomorrow, Apollo 12 landed on the moon, and Pete Conrad and Alan Bean became the third and fourth men to walk on its surface.

    For more than 40 years now, children have studied the Apollo program in school, and they have been told that Neil Armstrong spoke the now iconic words, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," as he took the first steps on the surface of the moon.

    I suppose it was the luck of the draw that Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the first to step on the moon, but sometimes it seems like it was destiny. What if the crew had come down with something and a backup crew had to go instead? Suppose it had been Conrad or Bean who spoke the first words from the moon. What was said surely would have been different. And neither Conrad nor Bean has the same impact as the name Armstrong.

    Maybe that's because it conjures up images (for older Americans) of Jack Armstrong, the All–American Boy, a radio character who was popular when Neil Armstrong was a boy.

  • Ten years earlier, in 1959, the Ford Motor Co. discontinued the Edsel. It was named after Edsel Ford, son of Henry Ford, company founder. Edsel the man died of cancer in 1943. His namesake vehicle was introduced to the public in September 1957, but it was discontinued a little more than two years later because it was so unpopular.

    No one ever determined an overriding reason for the Edsel's lack of popularity. But I always thought the name had something to do with it. Edsel didn't have much magic.

  • Sometimes, I guess, it isn't necessary to do anything at all if you've got the right name. On Nov. 19, 1990, a pop duo that went by the name of Milli Vanilli were stripped of their Grammy Award because they did not perform at all on the album that won the award — studio musicians and singers were used instead. The duo merely lip synched in live performances.

  • As I said, some names just seem destined for certain occupations. On Nov. 19, 1862, a boy named William A. Sunday was born in Iowa. As an adult, he was known as Billy Sunday, the most famous evangelist in America in the early part of the 20th century.

    Billy Sunday influenced national policy. He was a supporter of Prohibition, and it was widely believed that he played a key role in the passage of the 18th Amendment, which made the transportation and sale (but not the consumption) of alcohol illegal.

    If your aspiration is to be a preacher, Sunday is a pretty good surname to have.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Name Your Children Well

I ran across an article in the New York Times that reminded me of something I had completely forgotten.

The article talks about the boom in newborn babies who were given the name Barack — in the wake of the election of Sen. Obama as president.

"Like the Dwights and Lyndons of Old, Baby Baracks All Over," says the headline.

Actually, the article is quite interesting, but the point that it made — that the choice of a baby's name can be influenced by whoever happens to be popular when that person is born — reminded me of an experience I had when I was working on the sports copy desk of the old Arkansas Gazette more than 20 years ago.

Without going into too much detail, we had a long-standing commitment to getting the final high school football scores and at least a brief article on every high school football game involving a school from Arkansas into our Saturday morning sports sections.

Sometimes, when it took a lot of effort to track down anyone who could provide any information at all from some of the tiny schools in the far-flung districts, the staff was in the office until 2 or 3 in the morning.

On one such evening, I remember taking a call about a game from someone in a remote, rural school district. One of the football players in the game was named "Lyndon Johnson."

I mentioned it to the sports editor. He observed that children are frequently named after the president — or the president-elect.

"Gee," I said. "I wonder how many little Richard Nixons are running around out there?"

He laughed.

I guess that phone conversation took place in 1985 or 1986, which means the football player was probably born in 1967 or 1968, near the end of Johnson's presidency — when his general approval ratings had plummeted because of the unpopularity of the Vietnam War.

But the person I spoke to on the phone sounded black, and the district itself was in an area that was mostly black. So my assumption was that the young man was given the name as a tribute to LBJ's role in civil rights and voting rights. Vietnam, I assumed, was not a factor.

Later, I reflected on the observation the sports editor had made — and it occurred to me that one of my high school classmates had probably been named after the man who was president when we were born.

The president was Dwight David Eisenhower. I never knew anyone with that surname, but my friend's given name was "Dwight." According to the figures I've seen, "Dwight" enjoyed its greatest popularity in the 1940s (when Eisenhower planned and oversaw the invasion of Normandy) and the 1950s (when Eisenhower was elected president twice).

Author Laura Wattenberg told the Times it was once an "American tradition" to name babies after presidents, but the custom went into a decline after Watergate.

But how could you tell? The first names of all the presidents since Nixon — Gerald, James, Ronald, George (twice) and William — are reasonably common names and have maintained spots among the leaders for years, although there has been some movement away from them, which hasn't necessarily been related to the occupant of the Oval Office.

"A shift away from traditional names has meant a decline in the prevalence of John, George, William and James," writes Jennifer Lee in the Times, "the popularity (or unpopularity) of presidents notwithstanding."

Of course, presidents aren't the only ones whose names are given to babies. Movie stars, popular singers, even fictional characters can provide inspiration for new parents.

For example, I've known of a few women who were named Tabitha. My guess was that they were born in the late 1960s or early 1970s — when TV viewers knew that to be the given name of Samantha's daughter on "Bewitched."

And I knew of one gentleman whose name was "Charles Manson." I can only hope he was born — and named — before the notorious "Manson family" murders of 1969.

In the long run, I guess it wouldn't help much if he was born before the murders took place — he just had the misfortune of having the same name as the leader of a notorious, murderous sect.

It could happen to anyone, I guess — just like the fellow I met once who was named Ted Bundy.

Anyway, I suppose my point is this: It's fine to admire Barack Obama or anyone else. But wait awhile and see what he accomplishes before you make a permanent tribute to him — like naming one of your children after him.