okay, without looking it up...

[clauclauclaudia]

Does this usage of eponymous seem okay to you or not? Why?

[blah blah Chekhov on film] "Based on his eponymous 1891 novella, THE DUEL gives life to a classic Chekhovian tale...."

All right. Look it up if you want to, but let me know if you do.

I'm screening comments for a bit to get independent answers, but I'll unscreen them soonish. [Edit: slow unscreening now complete.]

Comments

[kjc.livejournal.com]

No, cuz eponymous means something like "the same name of" so in this context, the novella would've had to have been named Chekhov.

There's a difference between "the same name of" and "having the same name as" and it's subtle, but definitely not working the way the sentence is currently worded.

[zdenka]

No. I think it should say "Based on his 1891 novella of the same name". Unless there is a character named The Duel. ;-)

I would accept a usage such as, "In Alexandre Dumas's novel The Count of Monte Cristo, the eponymous hero believes his revenge is ordained by Providence."

[jbsegal.livejournal.com]

No. If the novella was titled 'Chekhov's Duel' or similar, maybe.

'Chekhovian tale' is valid, sure, but not the novella.

[dot_fennel]

To expand: I googled [["based on * eponymous"]] and was like, whoa, millions of hits? But on looking at them, I realized it was, broadly speaking, a usage I see all the time, and don't remember ever looking twice at before.

The factors I mentioned *seem* to be what separate good sentences from bad in my head, but whether those guesses are right or not, it's pretty clear that the rule I pedantically want to insist on is not the rule I usually actually apply when reading.

So that's interesting!

Also, it occurs to me that changing the order would normally make it a lot harder for a writer to use "his" instead of "the". I think you'd have to find some way to stick the writer's name between the title and the pronoun, like

"THE DUEL is one of Chekhov's finest cinematic moments, based on his eponymous 1891 novella..."

I mean, even then I don't like it much stylistically, but I'm much less sure I've even run into it in the wild.

[lil-brown-bat.livejournal.com]

I'd say no, for two reasons. One is that I always think of "eponymous" as referring to things that are very different from their namesake (example: Frankfurt (a city) is the eponym of frankfurter (a food)). A film and a book are the same thing in different media. Also, the usage is bizarre: "Based on his eponymous 1891 novel" makes it almost sound as if the novel (the antecedent) was somehow planned to have a namesake ("gee, I think I'll write an eponymous novel!"), whereas of course anything is only eponymous after the fact. I'd say it's a case of strained diction from someone who likes the word and forced a fit where "the novel of the same name" would probably have worked better.

[evwhore.livejournal.com]

(a) no
(b) I am surprised this generated 50+ comments :-)

Also

[lioritgioret.livejournal.com]

While we're being picky, can I just mention that "eponymous" is unnecessary in this sentence?

[sarcasma.livejournal.com]

I thought of you just now when I read this in the Globe and Mail (a major newspaper that ought to get this sort of thing right):
George Corbo, owner of the George C. boutique, where he worked with Ms. Buchowski – the new boutique’s co-owner – went through a naming ordeal of his own. An ownership dispute with the co-owner of his previous boutique, the eponymously-named “Corbo,” left him on the outside. He says he ultimately spent $60,000 fighting for – and ultimately losing – the right to his own name, which is why his new boutique uses only his last initial.

Eponymously-named?!? (Not to mention that every sentence in that paragraph seems to have been tortured into shape by inquisitors.)