First name or last name

[Rosie]

Help!

A prominent sports person passed away in the community recently and I'm ending my column with a short tribute.

I know its standard to use the last name after using the full name, but in this case, it just doesn't seem right.

What would you do?

 

[pressmurphy]

Use "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Dr." in the secont reference and beyond.

Readers will understand that you're being respectful to the deceased.

 

[Rosie]

In this case, that is absolutely not going to work. But thanks for the suggestion.

 

[fishwrapper]

What about "Dude?"

 

[Rosie]

*wiping the coffee off the screen*

He would have laughed at that. ;)

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

If it is a column and you identified the person by full name, it is acceptable to use first name only.
If you are trying to pay tribute to a close friend in a column and you refer to John Smith as Smith, instead of John, throughout the piece, it won't feel right. It will come off as impersonal.

Use "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Dr." in the secont reference and beyond.

Readers will understand that you're being respectful to the deceased.

You must work for the Post-Gazette. ;)

 

[fishwrapper]

It's a little tough to give immediate advice without knowing any context.
But, if it is absolutely clear the reference is to him, and you're doing it for effect, you can use the first name.
If someone in an Appreciation or Tribute column used "Bear" for Paul Bryant, I'm sure the objections would be limited.

 

[Sxysprtswrtr]

If it is a column and you identified the person by full name, it is acceptable to use first name only.
If you are trying to pay tribute to a close friend in a column and you refer to John Smith as Smith, instead of John, throughout the piece, it won't feel right. It will come off as impersonal.

Ditto. Go with the first name.

I presume you didn't have a petname for him, like "snookums" or "sweetie pie" ? :)

 

[Ace]

Rosie,

If it is a column, do what you think is best. If you want to go with the first name, do it.

 

[casty33]

Rosie, it's difficult to answer the question without knowledge of the name. For example, if the person was extremely well-known by the first name, I'd say it could be used even though technically, an obit should refer to the person by last name. And when I say well-known by first name, only you can answer that. My best example would be Yogi Berra. If I were doing the obit, I'm sure my editor would accept a reference or two to Yogi and not just Berra.

Hope that helps.

(And no, Yogi is not dead but I did do an obit for him and a few other aging athletes before my retirement from the paper).

 

[bigpern23]

If it is a column and you identified the person by full name, it is acceptable to use first name only.
If you are trying to pay tribute to a close friend in a column and you refer to John Smith as Smith, instead of John, throughout the piece, it won't feel right. It will come off as impersonal.

Ditto. Go with the first name.

I presume you didn't have a petname for him, like "snookums" or "sweetie pie" ? :)

Schmoopy, perhaps?

 

[Sxysprtswrtr]

If it is a column and you identified the person by full name, it is acceptable to use first name only.
If you are trying to pay tribute to a close friend in a column and you refer to John Smith as Smith, instead of John, throughout the piece, it won't feel right. It will come off as impersonal.

Ditto. Go with the first name.

I presume you didn't have a petname for him, like "snookums" or "sweetie pie" ? :)

Schmoopy, perhaps?

It's in poor taste to out yourself like that bigpern.
:)

 

[Cansportschick]

Rosie, I would put down just the first name but in brackets say the full name. Does that work?

 

[Rosie]

Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone.

I tried it both ways, and went with the first name. Using the last name just didn't look right.

 

[EStreetJoe]

I was going to say as long as you have a first reference in there for first and last name, then after that, since it's a column and a tribute at the end of a column (per your first post), it's fine to go with just the first name.

 

[micropolitan guy]

Moonlight sounds much less formal than Archibald, and cooler than Archie.

 

[Sam Mills 51]

Rosie, I don't see the first problem in the world with using the deceased's first name after the first reference ... or another nickname, as long as it's not obscene.

Besides, it's a column. On top of offering your .02 as a tribute, that gives you the professional flexibility needed.

 

[Jones]

Rosie, I would put down just the first name but in brackets say the full name. Does that work?

No offense, CSC, but that's an awfully weird idea. "Things won't be the same around here without Johnny (John Smith)" Even "Johnny (Smith)."

I think newspaper writers have to assume their readers are not dumb as rocks.

And I think Rosie made the right call -- some writing rules are good. But good writing should trump every rule in the book.

 

[John]

Rosie, I would put down just the first name but in brackets say the full name. Does that work?

No offense, CSC, but that's an awfully weird idea. "Things won't be the same around here without Johnny (John Smith)" Even "Johnny (Smith)."

I think newspaper writers have to assume their readers are not dumb as rocks.

And I think Rosie made the right call -- some writing rules are good. But good writing should trump every rule in the book.

Well put.

 

[buckweaver]

And I think Rosie made the right call -- some writing rules are good. But good writing should trump every rule in the book.

Bingo.

As is the case with all rules.