What's in a name?

                Have you ever noticed how some of the names in our pop culture seem to be repeatedly used as stereotypes? Take my name, for instance: Derek. In most TV and movie releases, Derek is a jerk. He's egotistic, opportunistic, clueless, or worse. I point to movies like Zoolander, Monsters vs. Aliens, Ski School and American History X as just a few examples. At least I can take some satisfaction from the fact that Derek usually either stands out as an individual in some way, or is the leader of a group. Other than that, he very seldom has any redeeming qualities.

                Now, take the name John. I can think of many offhand: John Connor, John McLane, John Rambo, John Quincy Archibald, and so on. John is often the hero, possessed of at least a few great character traits, although there can also be some tragic flaws as well. John can often be an anti-hero--John Rambo, John Q.--who struggles against the evils of the status-quo.

                Both names can have offshoots: Derek is often replaced by Dirk, and sometimes by Drake or Duke, while John has even more stand-ins: Jason, Jack, Jeff, and many others. It's very curious to me that Hollywood, in the heart of the free-market capital of the world, seems to turn the ideal of individualism on its head in its use of these names. The name John is often used in the generic sense, as when a body has yet to be identified, it's a John Doe. So, in effect, what Hollywood is doing is allowing the average Joe—another replacement for John—to put himself in the place of the hero: you, too, can stand up to injustice and seek revenge for wrongdoings! Thus, John is the quintessential 'everyman.'

                Now, so far the practice doesn't seem to un-American, but then look at Derek. As we've established, Derek is either the irritating, insufferable individual or the leader of the pack. That's a very admirable quality, from an individualistic point of view. But then, he's vilified, or at the very least, ridiculed for this role. He's nasty, self-absorbed or even destructively violent, in extreme cases.

                John and his many offshoots are a collective; Derek, as leader or lone wolf, is the individual. Considering the generally hostile American attitude toward things communal and its embrace of individual freedoms, the usage of these names is a curiosity to me. But, perhaps I'm just seeing schemes where there are none.

                Then again, the heroes in my novels have both been 'J' names: Jaren and Jaxan. Maybe there's something to this tendency, after all.