O. Really.

I'm now reading Hidden Moon, the second novel by James Church about a North Korean policeman. In this book, a bank robbery has taken place in Pyongyang and it's a startling new crime, one which no one is quite sure how to investigate. Or even if. Again, the "trying to investigate in a system that doesn't like things uncovered" atmosphere is great, though I'm not far into the book yet.

Because of events in the first book (to say no more in case you haven't read A Corpse in the Koryo, the first one yet, which I recommend you do) the narrator has a new boss. This one uses his name much more than the previous one did. The problem - for me - is that his name is O.

Just O.

I'm more used to seeing that transliterated as Oh, but O is perfectly fine. My problem is that every time I see "Inspector O" I think of it as an initial, not a name, as if they're trying to hide his identity. And sentences like "Min here. That you, O? Why does it take you so long to answer?" (It's because he hasn't figured out his new cell phone yet), or "Mobility, O. It keeps us mobile and in touch. And modern." or worse, where "O" as a vocative is the first thing in the sentence, such as "I'm interested in things that pop up, always have been. Sometimes I say to myself, 'O, try to pay more attention to things that pop up, can't you?'" - well, they always take just a split-second longer to grasp than they would if his name were, say, Yoon.

This isn't a criticism of the books or his choice of the character's name. It's an observation on how I read. I'm a quarter of the way through the second novel, and I still get the wrong interpretation. (In my defense, they are first-person narratives. I think if I'd seen "O" in all the sentences that say "I" - "O went into Min's office." "O looked for his cellphone." "O wasn't sure." - I'd have been completely at home with it long before now. But the books wouldn't work nearly as well.