View Message

I think it's great.

From the way you described your name preferences, Hawthorne seems to meet each one perfectly. Surnames are "in" but Hawthorne is still unique as a FN. I like that it's a very traditional surname and I also like the woodsy sound and the literary association.

---

I do teach in a US elementary school and I definitely don't find it too "out there" in comparison to the names I see every day. I think he would fit right in, but still be the only Hawthorne in the school.

It's out-there but I can see its charm. I associate it with the writer more than with the plant.

It's a whole lot better than Nathaniel. I find the Hawth sound unattractive; the tree of course is fine.

---

I'm not American, so I've no idea where "out there" is. I'd be startled to meet one here.

Hawthorne is my fave surname and I prefer it that way. Still, it doesn't seem strange as a fn when you consider all the various surnames-as-fns out there. Would you call him by the full name or Thorne for short?

I think it could grown on me. I don't think it's too out there.

I hope you use it if you like it.

I like this one. One of my favorite treenames. I wouldn't be surprised to see it on a modern boy.

I kind of like it but it sounds too pretentious.

It's a surname, a nature name (almost), and a reference to literature (Nathaniel Hawthorne, Gale Hawthorne), so...it doesn't sound made up.

---

I'd say use it if you really like it.

This message was edited 12/14/2015, 2:07 PM

It is not too out there! I love it. Great sound, definitely sounds woodsy. I also have no trouble with surnames as first names, so it's all good to me. Is this hypothetical or for a real child?