The alteration of a person's name by pronoun

[WaterFox]

(The Chase by Sidney Sheldon, Chapter 1) (The digits were added by me.)

"Would you care for more coffee?"
"No, thank you."
Seven thousand miles away in a lovely suburb of Tokyo, Masao Matsumoto was having his breakfast. Masao(1) was a handsome boy, eighteen years old, tall and well-built with a sensitive face and bright, intelligent eyes. He(2) had inherited his(3) father's strength and his(4) mother's gentleness, and it was combination that made him(5) very special. Masao(6) had been graduated at the head of his class in high school. He(7) was a natural leader, as his(8) father had been. He(9) had been captain of the high school baseball team and was popular with his(10) classmates. Masao (11) loved to dance and occasionally, when he was not busy with homework, he(12) liked to go to the Shinjuku discos.

Hi.
From what I was taught at school, (1) (6) and (11) should be replaced by "he", because the proper name "Masao" is already mentioned earlier, and no other person who is hard to distinguish was mentioned.
Am I correct ?

And if so, why Sidney Sheldon used the proper name "Masao" at (1), (6), (11),
and the pronoun "he" at (2),(7),(9), and (12) ?
Is that Sidney Sheldon's preference?
Is there any good/marvelous effect to choose such a way, by the famous story writer?
Rhyme?

If you were him (Sidney Sheldon), would you decide to choose the proper noun and the pronoun just like him?

 

[Colin Howell]

From what I was taught at school, (1) (6) and (11) should be replaced by "he", because the proper name "Masao" is already mentioned earlier, and no other person who is hard to distinguish was mentioned.
Am I correct ?

Those pronouns could be replaced by "he", and perhaps they would in ordinary usage, but the language doesn't demand that they must be replaced without exception. It's simply a matter of style, and it is OK to repeat a noun every so often, as long as you don't overdo it. Repeating the noun might make the meaning clearer, or it might avoid monotony or remind the reader of the person or thing being discussed.

Note that when the noun is repeated, it's always at the beginning of the sentence. To me that seems to be the most natural place to do so, at the point where a new subject might otherwise be introduced.

Of course, this only applies to third-person pronouns. For first-person or second-person pronouns, the pronoun must be used because it's the only way to determine the speaker's relationship to the person being talked about.

And if so, why Sidney Sheldon used the proper name "Masao" at (1), (6), (11),
and the pronoun "he" at (2),(7),(9), and (12) ?
Is that Sidney Sheldon's preference?
Is there any good/marvelous effect to choose such a way, by the famous story writer?
Rhyme?

I would guess it was simply his preference. As for the effect he desired, I don't know. Perhaps adding emphasis or avoiding monotony, as I supposed. He may not even have been conscious of it himself. I don't think it was done for rhyme, though.

If you were him (Sidney Sheldon), would you decide to choose the proper noun and the pronoun just like him?

I doubt it. Perhaps I would repeat the name at some point, but my personal preferences would probably differ from his.

This was an interesting question. I don't remember ever thinking about this issue before.

 

[WaterFox]

Thank you very much, Colin Howell.

Your reply solved everything.
It has become crystal clear now.

edit)
On second thoughts, I think of something.

No.1) Might it be because of the unfamiliar name?
If the boy were not Japanese, and his name were "John", would the writer repeatedly use "John", instead of "he" ?
I wonder he repeated the name because it was not being familiar with by native-English speakers. I wonder he would use "John" less frequently than "Masao".

No.2) About "avoiding monotony"
If I were the writer and wanted to avoid monotony, I might use "the boy", "the Japanese" as paraphrasing words.
Yet, I somehow think "the boy" and "the Japanese" are worse alternatives. I somehow think just "he" or "Masao" is better, though I cannot explain why.

 

[Colin Howell]

On second thoughts, I think of something.
No.1) Might it be because of the unfamiliar name?
If the boy were not Japanese, and his name were "John", would the writer repeatedly use "John", instead of "he" ?
I wonder he repeated the name because it was not being familiar with by native-English speakers. I wonder he would use "John" less frequently than "Masao".

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I could easily imagine a similar paragraph with "Masao" changed to "Matthew", for instance, and with the placenames changed to fit. The effect would be the same, and the writing would not seem unnatural.

No.2) About "avoiding monotony"
If I were the writer and wanted to avoid monotony, I might use "the boy", "the Japanese" as paraphrasing words.
Yet, I somehow think "the boy" and "the Japanese" are worse alternatives. I somehow think just "he" or "Masao" is better, though I cannot explain why.

Good point; using different paraphrasing nouns to refer to the same thing breaks monotony even more, and sometimes a writer might make that choice. But I agree it doesn't seem to work here. It is hard to explain why these style choices work the way they do, and I bet many writers judge this "by feel".

 

[WaterFox]

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I could easily imagine a similar paragraph with "Masao" changed to "Matthew", for instance, and with the placenames changed to fit. The effect would be the same, and the writing would not seem unnatural.

Good point; using different paraphrasing nouns to refer to the same thing breaks monotony even more, and sometimes a writer might make that choice. But I agree it doesn't seem to work here. It is hard to explain why these style choices work the way they do, and I bet many writers judge this "by feel".

Thank you, Colin Howell, I got it.