Character name as a book title.

In the film world, this can cause a flop. A name gives no indication of what the story is about - look at the film John Carter. Can it work with books, though?

I think it works when the name is obviously connotative of something of the book theme.

'Dolores Claiborne'

There's three separate words in a name like that; which almost tell a story in and of itself.

'Junior Bonner'
'Charley Varrick'
'Tom Horn'
'Rose Madder'
'Norma Rae'
'Mr Majestyk'
'Joe Kidd'
'Bobby Deerfield'
'Kitty Foyle'
'Alice Adams'

--you get the idea

Kristin Lavransdatter is the collective title of a trilogy by Sigrid Undset.

The name must be memorable in sound and what it conveys of the context, and the character must be up to the designation.

Forrest Gump
--- imho not the best movie ever. I hated how cheesy it got with Forrest getting slugged into every big moment of the 20th Century. Still, it was a sweet story. Of course, if no one had told me why I should go see it I would have probably passed simply because the name didn't give away anything that made it sound good enough to see!!

Worse, it actually beat Pulp Fiction for Best Picture. Seriously, Academy?

Emma
Jane Eyre
Rebecca
Oliver Twist
Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Othello (okay, these are plays, not novels)
Anna Karenina
Carrie
Mr Chartwell
Moll Flanders
Robinson Crusoe
Orlando
Lolita
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
Tom Jones
David Copperfield
Morvern Callar
Jonathan Livingstone Seagull
Dracula
Frankenstein
Titus Groan
Kim
Mister Pip
Little Red Riding Hood
Cinderella
Snow White
Rapunzel
Shirley
Villette
Silas Marner
Don Quixote
Mrs Dalloway

Just a few off the top of my head ;-)

To add to the list Booksloth already gave:

Ann Veronica
Ash
Beauty
Eric
Faust
Gobbolino
Kaspar
Kipps
Luna
Mary Poppins
Matilda
Mort
Nostromo
Parzival
Peter Pan (or Peter and Wendy)
Tam Lin
Temeraire
Tristan and Iseult
Tristram Shandy
Winnie-the-Pooh
Ysabel

It's a fairly common practice, I think, and it can work quite well. What's it about these characters that makes using their name as the title the most desirable (or the most viable) option? Who is this person? What have they done? What's their story? Etc.

I know, right? :)

It makes you think. Some names do convey something of the character's nature, but most have me thinking I'd have to read about them first or find out about them from someone who has already read them before deciding to take a crack at them. Good lists, too btw.

re: #5, Thresher
"Worse, it actually beat Pulp Fiction for Best Picture. Seriously, Academy?"

Wasn't surprising at all, to my eyes. For these reasons: The Academy almost always favors the bland, 'conventional', straightforward picture ..especially one which in any way, is a watershed-attempt at re-telling American history. Anything which is 'homespun' and 'feel-good' or 'helps children understand American' or 'spurs discussion of American values' is a front-runner with them. They also love movies about the mentally incompetent.

Reasons why they wouldn't honor PF: it made a splash in Europe (which they hate) it was filled with expletives (not a family picture); and they also probably recognized that anatomically, it wasn't anything original on its own; just an assemblage + pastiche + take-off (as well as downright theft) of a slew of a bunch of previous movies. In all honesty they couldn't reward something merely 're-packaged'.

>10 Dzerzhinsky:
Oh please, what's completely original in this day and age?

There are only X basic plots, for X some single-digit, or at most a small double-digit number, etc.

Per Google, the most common number seems to be seven.

Is this novel named after its main character?

A Nameless Witch

Paging Kurt Godel...

Well, as Platonic theory states, nothing any man can ever create or invent is entirely original. There's no such thing as a 'first man who invented the wheel' because of the theory of Ideal forms (pretty solid reasoning, too).

But setting that elegant abstraction aside; the history of actual creativity is driven by men who were always markedly more creative than some other men. Its one of the key things which distinguishes them to our notice. We admire the Mozart, rather than the Salieri; and so we should.

Mozart didn't invent music. But even though a great artist's career may branch off from a context previously established--the great artists don't simply purloin something outright and re-label it under his own name; without adding something unique of his own.

Classics are classics because they've usually got some element of originality ...and you can find many which are not even that old. You can still enjoy them in this day and age; without resorting to watching an integrity-lacking pilferer like Tarantino.

When you're an artist with integrity you don't need to steal (I'm hoping not to hear the horrible mis-quote from Picasso that everyone cites in defense of QT).

Plots: there are several sources for the 'finite number of stories' concept you're referring to. One system says seven, one system says 200, the most famous (Georges Polti's) states 36; but its an adumbrated argument because every story has thousands of variations; almost unlimited. Its moot in any case, doesn't cover the nature of QT's methodology.

I suppose there are things that Tarantino did in Pulp Fiction that had been done before. But as you said, that's true of pretty much any work of art. And "integrity-lacking pilferer"? Come now!

Also, I find it particularly unpersuasive to criticize Pulp Fiction for not being original, in comparison to Forrest Gump, which was largely a hodge-podge of scenes featuring real people, and in historically real (or close-to-real) situations!