On my thread about [name]Jane[/name], [name]Io[/name] reminded me of YouCan’tCallItIt’s fabulous poston “little black dress” names. Her list is as follows.
[name]Alice[/name]
[name]Anna[/name]
[name]Anne[/name]
[name]Claire[/name]
[name]Eve[/name]
[name]Grace[/name]
[name]Jane[/name]
[name]Kate[/name]
[name]Laura[/name]
[name]Rose[/name]
[name]Sophie[/name]
I’m not sure if I agree that all the names on this list are little black dresses. [name]Laura[/name], [name]Sophie[/name], and [name]Grace[/name] in particular jump out at me as not quite belonging. This is probably because [name]Laura[/name] and [name]Grace[/name] seem dated, and [name]Sophie[/name] not only has a very uneven history of use and has skyrocketed to popularity, but also seems distinctly, well, frilly.
So what IS a little black dress name? I would say it’s chic, versatile, and never truly goes out of style. Thinking about my post on [name]Jane[/name], I’d also add that a little black dress name is pure: [name]Jane[/name] is the original form of [name]Jean[/name] and [name]Joan[/name], which, while they would otherwise fit the criteria, I wouldn’t include because they’re elaborations.
This definition (which is certainly up for debate!) begs a number of questions, of course. Can a rare or new name be a little black dress? [name]Calla[/name], for instance, is a nature name that’s virtually unheard of, but its stripped-down, simple sound makes it surprisingly adaptable: [name]Calla[/name] could be a teacher, an undertaker, a judge or a surfer. [name]Seren[/name] seems to hit that same sweet spot: sleek, chic, and adaptable. Then again, [name]Calla[/name] and [name]Seren[/name] are both very recent and unusual to the American ear. Does that necessarily mean they aren’t little black dress names?
What about longer names? [name]Catherine[/name] and [name]Margaret[/name] certainly seem to have claims to little black dress status. Again, there’s that adaptability – it’s hard to pigeonhole [name]Catherine[/name] and [name]Margaret[/name] as being a certain kind of girl (or woman). [name]Both[/name] have been in steady use for hundreds of years. On that note, how about [name]Elizabeth[/name]? With four syllables she’s hardly slight, but [name]Elizabeth[/name] is perhaps the last word in versatility. She can be a [name]Betsy[/name] or a [name]Beth[/name], a [name]Libby[/name] or a [name]Liz[/name]. Or would [name]Eliza[/name] qualify but [name]Elizabeth[/name] not? Why?
If [name]Catherine[/name] and [name]Margaret[/name] and [name]Elizabeth[/name] have a claim, how about [name]Frances[/name] and [name]Agnes[/name]? Sure, they’ve fallen off the charts, but they’re also simple, pure, and arguably quite versatile, not to mention both have an extremely long history of use. Their datedness would probably be a strike against them. But then again, ten years ago [name]Alice[/name] was sipping tea in the nursing home with [name]Bertha[/name] and [name]Gertrude[/name]. Or does falling off the charts lose a name its little black dress status?
What about [name]Mary[/name]? Or are the religious connotations too strong? (As someone of Jewish descent, I would never use [name]Mary[/name].) And hey, why isn’t [name]Sara[/name] on this list?
It’s worth mentioning that this list is also very Eurocentric. In the Hispanic community [name]Juana[/name], [name]Maria[/name], and [name]Elena[/name] have been around as long as [name]Jane[/name], [name]Kate[/name], and [name]Ellen[/name] (another little black dress contender!). For any cultural heritage you could name, there are names that would definitely have little black dress status. What are your favorites from YOUR heritage? Are there names that have long been popular in other cultures that you would love to use yourself? And do little black dress names survive translation?
Talk to me about little black dress names, Berries! [name]Do[/name] you agree with this list? If not, why not? What additions or deletions would you propose? What are YOUR favorite LBD(N)s?
