Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/5473
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/5473
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

No, it doesn't work, and no, I don't think you're using the technique correctly.

When you use descriptions attached to someone's name, it is to differentiate them from someone else with that name.

To use a stereotypical example, take an Italian neighborhood with five friends all named Joseph. One will go by Joey D (for his last name). The second is Joe the Hammer, because he's a carpenter. The third is called Joey Goombatz because he picked up the nickname in second grade and nobody has ever called him anything else. Number four is called Joe Kings after some ridiculous incident at the old Kings Plaza mall, and when the fifth Joseph moved into the neighborhood the guys heard his father calling him Jo-Jo, and it stuck.

When I read your piece above, I see six guys named Nicholas talking with five or six guys named Hakim.

If you intend this to be a dialogue between two people, then your adjective phrases are so excessive as to become silly — I'm expecting the next ones to be "Nicholas of the Gilded Liver" and "Hakim Who Wears Crushed Peony Booger Perfume." Now, if that's what you're aiming for (ridiculous, giggle-inducing overkill), then you're right on target. If you want to be taken seriously, however, pick _one_ description per person and stick with it.

Even if you can point to ten medieval sources where "they all wrote this way!" I guarantee that 99% of your audience is not going to know that, and will think you're writing a parody of some kind.

Original score: 14