View Message

It’s okay. It is a nice name if a bit dated. My grandfather’s older sister was a Susan and we all called her Aunt Susie.

---

I do like Susannah for a girls name today.

There are five generations of Susans in my family, so to me it's a classic name. It was in the top 100 for almost 50 years, dropping out of the top 1000 in the late 2010s. I prefer Susannah because I think Zanna is a snazzy nickname. Susan would probably be used to honor someone these days.

I really like Susan, even though it's dated like everyone says. I think it's very pretty.

One of the earliest associations with names that I can remember are Susan and Nancy. I think it's a fair assumption: both EXTREMELY popular around the same time, both with a repeated first letter in the name. Of those two, though, I've always found Susan much prettier.

---

I do think it's a bit bland, just because it was SO popular, but I think it has a nice sound, and is eminently useable as a middle name or somethng.

---

For a child today, I do think Susanna is both prettier and perhaps less dated-sounding. Suzanne is fine, but it almost sounds more dated than does Susan.

---

Anyway. It's fine.

It's a nice name with great versatility from small child to respected adult.

I like it. I like Susana, Susannah, e.t.c. more than Susan. I do like Susie, as a nickname or a full name.

I think it’s nice. 1940s girl-next-door type, steadfast, a little stern, exactly Susan from the Narnie books/movies. I named a cat after that character.
Suzie / Susie is a problem for me though, I’m sure if I met someone named Susie I would fall in love with it but for now it just sounds whiny and insufferable.

While I prefer Susanna, I can’t deny Susan’s staid charm.

It gives off "common name" vibes even though it's not anymore. Very dated.
That being said, it's a pretty name. I prefer Susanna, but to each their own.

I like it but it was super common in the 50s and 60s, I don't know if it would work today. However Susanna is a better choice.

I prefer every other form of Susan.

I think it's bland, but pleasant. It would make a nice mn too.

I used to think Susan was possibly the ugliest name imaginable and I never understood how anyone had ever found beauty in it. But I see it with a kinder eye now. It's still a bit flat and unmusical to me - Susanna is infinitely prettier and easier to digest, but Susan does have a certain something. It's a very adult name, very competent and capable, no nonsense. It has that clipped, wry, art deco sort of glamour to it. Susie and Suzy are very cute nicknames for it.

---

It would be refreshing, almost startling to see on a little girl these days, and I think that's why it's growing on me.

Boring and dated, but I think it's an okay name. I like Susannah and love Susanna.

Very 1930s, and so it should be OK for use now - not that many 1930s people still around! In the Arthur Ransome series of 'Swallows and Amazons' books, the Susan character is a sensible, competent mother-substitute, while in the Narnia series Susan is a 'good character' for most of the time but so beautiful that she becomes more interested in herself and her appearance than in the battle between good and evil that runs through the series: Aslan does however hold out hope that she might become more like her old self again. So, a name for unusual, interesting characters. To me, Susan is a name for all seasons: no personlity of its own, so it fits in anywhere. DH's maternal grandmother was Gertruida Susanna Maria, and we were able to honour her by giving our first daughter Mary as a mn: his mother was Bertha Maria, and a form of Maria was the best we could do! We never even considered a form of Susanna. Susan is also very dated where I live, but that wouldn't worry me necessarily. I just find Susan extremely bland and dull, though I've known some pretty Susans and some very bright ones. I'd prefer Suzanne, I think.

It's a fine name. I personally prefer it to Suzanne or Suzanna.