New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Tacky (m)
in reply to a message by Amphelise
Yeah, it's a problematic term because it's classist. I should have used a better descriptor. I guess Amber bothers me because it lacks a rich history and is associated (for me) with the 80s/90s. I'm sure it'll sound as dainty and fresh as Opal in 80 years.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I was surprised when I saw that Amber was in the top thousand, with the exception of nine years, from 1880 through 1916. Granted, the highest it achieved during that run was #640 in 1904, so obviously it's going to be tied much more with the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s than with that time period. But it still did give me more of a sense than I'd previously had of Amber as a solid, established name rather than a more recent artifact.
1
H.G. Wells had an affair with Amber Reeves in 1909, so yeah, it's been around.
1
It has been used for quite some time
I think it became more common after having been used for the main character in "Forever Amber", a book released in 1944. There is also a film, made in 1947.
The book is set in the 17th century (England).
I think it became more common after having been used for the main character in "Forever Amber", a book released in 1944. There is also a film, made in 1947.
The book is set in the 17th century (England).
1
Okay, but no one in 17th-century England would have been named Amber, I'm sure. I'm also sure that someone would deem Amber a 70s/80s/90s name well before they'd consider it a timeless, historic name.
Of course, the name isn't intrinsically bad. I personally dislike it because I prefer names that aren't associated exclusively with one decade.
Of course, the name isn't intrinsically bad. I personally dislike it because I prefer names that aren't associated exclusively with one decade.
1
I flipped through an old book whose main character was called Amber and it might have been this one. It definitely felt very dreamy and anachronistic and fantastical. Like someone today writing an 18th century character named Jade or something. But it gave me the impression of the name Amber as a whimsical name far on the edge of people's radar.
1
I'm guessing in 17th century England it was more likely to be a nickname based on the person's hair color or something like that?
ETA: But I don't think the history really matters in this case. Tiffany has a long history, but it still sounds tacky because of how popular it was in the 80's and it doesn't feel like it has a sense of history. And there are some names that were invented within the last decade that sound very solid and feel like they have history even if they don't. Like Tiffany, which feels more modern than Amber even though it has more actual historical usage. The sound of Tiffany is more frilly so I think it seems more frivilous and superficial, while Amber has a deeper sound even if its usage is more "Tiffany" than Tiffany itself.
ETA: But I don't think the history really matters in this case. Tiffany has a long history, but it still sounds tacky because of how popular it was in the 80's and it doesn't feel like it has a sense of history. And there are some names that were invented within the last decade that sound very solid and feel like they have history even if they don't. Like Tiffany, which feels more modern than Amber even though it has more actual historical usage. The sound of Tiffany is more frilly so I think it seems more frivilous and superficial, while Amber has a deeper sound even if its usage is more "Tiffany" than Tiffany itself.
This message was edited 8/2/2020, 10:01 AM
1
In "Forever Amber", the heroine is conceived out of wedlock by two lovers who are torn apart because their families are on opposite sides during The English Civil War. The male lover has amber eyes. The female lover, upon learning that her baby is a girl, says she wants to name her Amber after the color of her father's eyes. And Amber inherits her father's amber eyes, which means that Amber has amber eyes.
So the name is a one-off based upon certain circumstances. I find it believable enough.
So the name is a one-off based upon certain circumstances. I find it believable enough.
1
Yes, since it re-entered the top thousand in 1945, the year after the book was published, it seems certain the book brought it back to the public consciousness, but it didn't enter the top hundred until 1974. It's interesting to me that when names are introduced or re-introduced from books, it still takes a good long while before they come really popular. My name was introduced in a novel published in 1899, but didn't enter the top hundred until 1932. And then there's Scarlett. GWTW published in 1936, and the name mostly absent from then until 1992, and the top hundred not until 2011.
1