Humanities desk
< January 1	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 2

Unusual given names of movie characters

Yesterday I watched a re-run of Parrish, a 1961 Troy Donahue/Claudette Colbert/Karl Malden movie, which I’d heard of but never seen. I’m not at all sure I’m any better off for having done so. But anyway, my question is about names of movie characters.

Dean Jagger played a man named Sala Post (Sala pronounced like a non-rhotic Sailor). The only Sala I’d ever heard of is a surname (pronounced Sah-luh). I checked and found there are three Wiki-notable people with the first name Sala, but one’s a woman, one wasn’t even born till 1976 (the film was based on a 1958 novel), and the other was hardly well-enough known to have influenced the novelist. So, we have a character with a particularly unusual given name (nothing wrong with that per se).

Now, unusual given names are things that people in real life notice and often comment on or ask questions about. There would be a point in having a character with such a name if the name itself played some role in the plot, or at least there was some acknowledgement in the movie of its oddness. But if it’s treated as if it were a perfectly normal name like Bill or Harry or Mary or Jane, then what actually is the point of going to the trouble of giving the character such a name to begin with? The title character Parrish Maclean is another case in point. Maybe in this particular case the novel went into the name issue but that explanation got lost in the translation to the screen. Nevertheless, I’ve often noticed this tendency, particularly in American movies, of characters with given names that virtually nobody has ever heard of but everyone treats them as perfectly normal and never asks how they're spelt. I could probably produce quite a long list if I had the energy.

I can see some sense in making a character stand out from the crowd by giving them an unusual attribute – but to then treat it as if it was not remotely unusual is sort of giving out a confused message.

So, what am I missing here? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that uncommon for people to have uncommon names. "Parrish" sounds like one of those last names used as first names, like with the real-life people McGeorge Bundy, Jefferson Davis, Anderson Cooper, Jackson Browne, Turner Gill, Brooks Robinson, etc. Perhaps if you had 300 pages to discuss someone, it would make sense to explain the origin of the name, but in a 90 minute film it might be a distraction. Come to think of it, did they ever explain the origin of the title character's name in any of the 247 episodes of Murphy Brown? And The Simpsons has never given an in-universe explanation, as far as I know, for Homer and Bartholomew Simpson's unusual first names. (Fans know Homer was Matt Groening's father's name and "Bart" is an anagram of "brat."). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that Homer and Bart are uncommon names but not unusual ones, which is a bit different from the original question. They're familiar enough names so as not to require any explanation. Not so with "Sala Post", of course. Google tells me that "Sala Post" was the name of a real person in Connecticut history, where the film and novel was set, and where the author was from. Maybe the author was familiar with the name and picked it for historical reasons, or just liked the oddness of it. Maybe the novel explains the name. That said, I think movies characters are sometimes unusually named just to be offbeat and memorable. Examples abound, as Jack says. One of my favorite movies, Bottle Rocket, springs to mind. A main character is named Dignan, perhaps a first name, which is unusual. Another character is called "Future Man", with no explanation given -- or needed. Just go with it. —Kevin Myers 05:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hermione Granger stood out, but she was in a book first. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Context is pretty significant. Hermione is uncommon in middle class Britain, but it's a name I have heard a number of times in an upper class context. Equally I'd consider many given names in the US slightly unusual, given my own experiences.

ALR (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mwalcoff's made a good distinction. There are many names that are unusual as given names, but very well known as surnames and so are not uncommon per se. For example, if I were to meet an Anderson Jones or a Smith Johnson or a Cartwright Kennedy, I'd have no doubt how to spell their names. But watching that movie yesterday, every time I heard someone say "Say-lah", I was thinking "Sailor", forgetting that they'd be pronouncing that word rhotically if it were really Sailor. But even if that had dawned on me, I'd still be wondering how to spell this "Say-la" name. It seems to me that's an unreasonable burden to place on a viewer. It's one thing to have a list of the characters and players at the end (this movie didn't do that), but for reasonably intelligent viewers to have to depend on seeing such a list to work out how characters' names were spelt seems a bit much. This movie was made decades before google. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sala is a Biblical name. Americans have always had weird Biblical names, and that was especially true in old-timey sepia tumbleweed days. Perhaps obscure Biblical names are less common in Australia, but the minute I saw the name "Sala", I thought to myself, that's gotta be some leper or shepherd or something. 90% of weird American forenames are from the Old Testament. American history is full of Gomers and Jethros and Zebulons. People must have been used to it, either from familiarity with the Bible or simply from dealing with lots of Biblically named people. LANTZY ^TALK 08:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By definition it's only weird if you are not used to it. I'm sure there are tons of names that sound normal to you and weird to me (or any of the other editors here). Ariel. (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lantzy -- Such American naming habits were heavily influenced by those of 17th-century English puritans. At least names like "Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barbon" stayed on the other side of the Atlantic...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens gave his characters unusual nasmes - I wonder if that was done to reduce the chances of libel actions. 92.24.185.225 (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz -- for many years I had great difficulty parsing the name "St. John Rivers" in Jane Eyre, and wondered whether this was some bizarre British naming practice...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "sinjən" is bizarre. But the British have a national obsession for bizarre pronunciations and rituals and traditions, so that's part of the deal. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the movie have been better if it had had Sallah in it instead of Sala? Matt Deres (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, nothing could have saved it. That's the miracle of TV, though: they can take a movie that died at the box office, and bring it back to life 50 years later. (Or even 6 months later, rebadged misleadingly as "comedy smash".) :)

I guess they couldn't have called him Shelah (one of the alternative forms of Salah (biblical figure)) - I'd be thinking "What's a bloke named Sheila doing in this movie. Johnny Cash, this is obviously where you got your idea for a A Boy Named Sue from". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ObPedantry- A Boy Named Sue was written by Shel Silverstein; Cash just recorded it. Matt Deres (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Matt. I was just guessing anyway. (Btw, it's not pedantry to enlighten others. Any truth, no matter how trivial, is more important than any misinformation.) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A Boy Named Sue" may have been inspired by the real-life Sue K. Hicks, named for his mother who died soon after his birth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally English-speaking Protestants have given their children first names from the Old Testament and family surnames as first names, to avoid the names of saints.--Wetman (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? In which country and which form of protestantism? DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

17th-century Puritans were not too fond of non-Biblical names associated closely with traditional Catholic saints who were not considered by the Puritans to be precursors to themselves (names such as "Sebastian", "Benedict", "Ursula" etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

19th century pioneers of the American Old West often had biblical names such as Zachariah, Zebidiah, Esther, Rebecca, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wednesday Addams from the Addams family? Googlemeister (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old children's story

Resolved

I once owned a set of books called the Blue Books which were volumes of children's poems, fairy tales, and stories. They were published in the USA in the 1950s. I recall one of my favourites was a story called Little Diamond and the North Wind. Does anyone have any information regarding that lovely tale? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be the same as At the Back of the North Wind? ---Sluzzelin talk 09:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, Sluzzelin! The Blue Book had an abridged version of the story. Thank you. Once again, the ref desk has come through and provided the right answer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now curious about the blue books. Were they Blue Book (magazine), or are they perhaps not featured at all under blue book disambiguation page? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they had another name. My mother always referred to them as the blue books due to their blue binding, but after Googling blue books and coming up zero, I believe they had another name. I recall there had been at least 12 volumes, with the first ones dedicated to nursery rhymes. I do remember Andersen's Snow Queen was in volume seven. The illustrations were beautiful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! They were called My Book House and were edited by Olive Beaupre Miller. My set was published in the late 1930s, rather than 1950s. Here is the external link: [1].--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 03:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"American" style wedding

During episode 4 of series 6 of Top Gear, Richard Hammond describes an outdoor wedding as an "American style outdoor wedding". I'm American and I wasn't aware that we had pioneered the concept of the outdoor wedding. ;-) Seriously though, what was meant by this? What's particularly "American" about this? Dismas|^(talk) 12:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the fact that it's not performed in a church? Dunno, just guessing, but I can say that a Christian wedding that's not performed in a church is a somewhat odd concept for the part of Europe I live in. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British weddings are almost always held indoors, whether in a church or a registry office. The idea of standing around in some garden wearing a dinner jacket to get married is usually only seen in American films, hence Hammond's remark. 87.112.177.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

(ec) The large majority of weddings in Britain are held indoors either in churches or registry offices. Since the passing into law of the Marriage Act 1994, approved premises may also be used (Castles, Football grounds, hotels, country houses etc) but are seen as an extravagant option. Nanonic (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantry alert: the official name is Register office. There are less-extravagant alternative venues than castles etc: I recently attended a fairly low-key ceremony in a Cambridge college. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official name may be "register office", but "registry office" has been widely used for at least a century, according to the OED:

1911 G. B. Shaw Getting Married 236 Marriages gave place to contracts at a registry office. 1931 J. S. Huxley What dare I Think? vi. 205 The marriage ceremonial among most primitive peoples‥contains a religious motive, just as much as does a Christian wedding ceremony (and just as little as does a wedding in a registry office). 87.112.177.117 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You went to a wedding which was held at Jesus, but not in the chapel? Marnanel (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The British weather is too unpredictable to arrange weddings outdoors. I don't agree that hotels and country houses are seen as an extravagant option; they are the norm these days for people who don't want to get married in a church or registry office for whatever reason.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This never would have happened if the wedding had been inside the church with God instead of out here in the cheap showiness of nature!" Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a regular Top Gear watcher I hope that you have noticed that part of their approach to humour is, in effect, sending up the tendency of the British (and the people of many other countries) to condemn what those strange foreign folks do. They make fun of the French, the Australians, the Japanese, and not surprisingly, Americans. All the while they are really sending up themselves, because the "attacks" are so silly at times. In this approach Americans are usually identified as being over the top in lavishness and the size of their vehicles. Could the line in question from the show be part of this approach? HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of their joking about other countries, like when Jeremy claimed that a German sat-nav system would only give you directions to Poland or James pointing out the large seats in another car, which was designed in America, saying that the seats would have to be big to fit the large butts of overweight Americans. But in the case of the wedding, it was the fact that it was outdoors that was stressed. I'm satisfied with the answers provided above. And I think it's interesting that a government would mandate not only who performed a marriage ceremony but also where they had it take place. Thanks for the responses, all! Dismas|^(talk) 00:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical copyright

In Britain, mechanical copyright on recorded works exists for a term of 50 years from that work's creation. This means that music recorded in 1960, for example, is currently out of copyright in Britain – and therefore that the earliest recordings of the Beatles will come out of copyright in just a couple of years.

However, the entire Beatles catalogue has recently been remastered. Are these remasters a last throw of the dice by the copyright holders to maximise their revenue before the expiration date, or is it understood that the remasters count as "new recordings" under the law, thereby conveniently extending the mechanical copyright by another few decades? 87.112.177.117 (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know British copyright law. But in the US context, the originals would still be their same old copyright, and the new material (including remastering, studio work, etc.) would be copyrighted as a new recording. That means that if the former did fall into the public domain, it would truly be in the public domain, but the new versions (with whatever new art/decisions/what have you) would not be. To use a concrete example, the Mona Lisa would be in the public domain, but the moustache would not be. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which raises the question of who the new copyright falls to in such a situation. Does that mean that the copyright on the new remasters would by held by EMI (whose engineers made the necessary decisions when remastering), rather than the Beatles themselves (who only contributed to the original, soon-to-be-public-domain versions)? 87.112.177.117 (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the original isn't in the public domain when the work is done, then the subsequent masters are a derivative work (the engineers have some copyright credit, but the Beatles' copyright credit precedes them). No problem or surprise there. If the original works are in the public domain, then they're effectively "authorless" for the purpose of copyright law, and the copyright goes to the engineers only, no Beatles required. (Or, put with the analogy above, there is never a need to pay any money to the Di Vinci estate, whomever they are at this point.) At least in basic US copyright law, as far as I understand it. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's another possibility, which is that the engineers' creative input is adjudged insufficient to create a new copyright, and the remastering stays in the public domain. I've never gotten a good handle on just how much you have to transform the work to create a new copyright. --Trovatore (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, though the amount is (in US law) clearly "not very much." The bar is pretty low. If you claim you are doing something creative (rather than making it look identical to what it was before, which was the Bridgeman v. Corel issue), generally the courts have agreed. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends. Restoration work on, say, a painting or a photograph does NOT confer a new copyright for the restorer, so one may claim that a straight "remastering" is akin to restoration work. However, a remixing, like say Let It Be... Naked, where the actual songs are different from the original may have a new copyright. --Jayron32 14:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recording has a separate copyright from that of the song. This is why recordings of classical music have a copyright. Although the piece may be in the public domain, the recording cannot be copied. While the Beatles recording may enter the public domain, the songs will not. Copying the recording will not violate the copyright of the recording, but it will violate the copyright of the song. A good example of this distinction is with the British group The Verve with their hit Bitter Sweet Symphony. While the group had acquired the rights to the recording of the Rolling Stones Song by an orchestra, they had not for the song itself. The Beastie Boys encountered the same problem with their song Pass the Mic. That group was sued for the sampled use of a recorded flute. They had secured licensing for the recording, but not the song; however, the court ruled that the three notes they used constituted de minimis copying. See Newton v. Diamond 349 F. 3d 591 (9th Cir. 2003)[2] In the complex world of licensing and division of copyrights, the expiration of that of the recordings' only eliminates one possible copyright holder. Unauthorized copying of these recordings will still be copyright infringement for at least 70 years after the death of the song writers under the copyright laws of the UK and the US as the songs are registered in both jurisdictions. Gx872op (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the recording and the song have separate copyrights, in the case of the Beatles, when the original recordings and the song were fixed into a tangible medium at approximately the same time in almost all cases, I don't really see why they wouldn't be expected to fall into the public domain at around the same time. It's true that in the US, anyway, sound recordings have a more complicated legal history than textual records, but my skim of the relevant terms is that they are not so dissimilar in most cases. I don't know the UK, though, of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did January 1 become a bank holiday in England?

When did January 1 become a bank holiday in England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.226.65 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1974 [3].--Shantavira|^{feed me} 21:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

House of Reuss

How do the males in this family refer to each other when they have family reunion when they are all named Heinrich? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably they all have personal names or nicknames which they use to distinguish each other. Maybe just numerically. You could ask the sons of George Foreman how they do it. --Jayron32 20:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]