So, being brilliant AP students, you're all well aware by now that an author approaches his or her work very deliberately - you're not likely to come across much in a novel that was not deposited there with great care. This can mean a line of dialogue, a bit of foreshadowing that will pay off later on, or even a green jellybean which, consumed carelessly by a villain, symbolizes the innocent nature of childhood and its eventual, inevitable mastication in the maw of a cynical, unfeeling world. Stuff like that.
This also applies when it comes to characters. In chapter 6 of How to Read Novels Like a Professor, Thomas C. Foster addresses the role of minor characters in fiction. Unlike their more fleshed-out counterparts, the major characters, minor characters are "two-dimensional cardboard cutouts rather than fully-developed, complete persons" (84). They are there, like everything else, to serve a purpose. This can mean supplying much-needed exposition, helping to develop a theme...all that heavy lifting with which our major characters need not be bothered. And because we see them less and they are more devices than people, minor characters are more sketches - suggestions, if you will - than full-on folks in whom we can feel totally invested. So, what say you? Do you agree with Foster's assessment? Can you think of any minor characters in fiction that break his rule and appear as three-dimensional, fully realized people instead of cardboard cutouts? Can you think of a minor character in Dune and determine its basic function? And, lastly, do you think that there's something to be said for characters who are less than fully defined, characters for whom the reader must supply the details? I eagerly await your replies and hope they will supply me with all the backstory and nuance that major characters such as yourselves deserve.
56 Comments
Smrithi Ramachandran
7/6/2015 01:37:37 am
I half agree with Foster – minor characters always serve some sort of purpose, which is why an author chooses to create them. Every character is meant to show the reader a different way he or she can connect with the story and form that key relationship the author initially intends to form. A lot of smaller characters are less developed in order to allow for the reader to shape up some personal connection and add his or her own dimension to complete the characterization. However, in Chapter 3, Foster also highlights the differences between British and American literature; he states that because British literature, namely mysteries, stems from reason and intellect, minor characters are often used as a means to bridge the gap between the reader and some overarching-above-our-heads- Sherlock Homes -sort of major character. In this case, minor characters narrate a story and make events more comprehendible for the reader, and they are not simplistic. This is where I disagree with Foster’s statement about minor characters as only two-dimensional. His claim is subjective, for all relationships with characters that readers develop differ from one person to the next, and what an author might have interpreted as a minor character, the reader could have favored and viewed in a brighter light.
Reply
Kieran Smith
7/6/2015 05:34:28 am
Personally, major characters are the ones who impact the plot, impact the lives of other characters. They're in control. Besides this, however, major characters are often the ones in whose minds we spend the most time. Characters can remain in a novel for a long time and never be touched on directly by the author. Main characters are the ones that we follow around like little ducklings as opposed to the ones we merely observe from a difference. A lot of authors, especially in fiction novels, make the main character special in some way - he/she is the focus of a prophecy, he/she is the last dragon rider, she/he gets chosen to fight in the Hunger Games, etc. so that's another way.
Reply
Elaine Wood
8/25/2015 12:32:17 pm
I agree with Kieran that the major characters have the main impact on the plot; however, I believe that the minor characters do as well. It is my opinion that the minor characters are used by the author to further the plot. The minor incidences and deaths that must occur are all minor characters pushing the plot forward and keeping the novel interesting.
Stella Ji
7/15/2015 07:56:59 am
I agree with what Kieran said about distinguishing between major and minor characters. Minor characters aren't just minor because they only exist for a certain amount of time; they are minor characters because they are either not fully formed or because they just do not influence the story as much. I feel as if minor characters simply do not leave as much of a lasting impression as the major characters do. In The Catcher in the Rye, Allie, a character who is dead throughout the story, is arguably a major character, or at least a major minor character. His presence remains evident throughout and it boosts his position to more than just minor. The main distinguishing factor is the impact left by the character and how readers respond to it.
Reply
Andrew Zheng
8/7/2015 08:13:33 pm
As major events in an novel play out it becomes apparent that in every event either a specific character or characters are intended to be at the center of attention, or be the actual cause of the change in events. These specific characters are what I believe to embody the role of the major character, an entity that eventually incites a crucial change in either the plot, or flow of the story. Yet, as the major characters drastically change the story through an event, the minor characters are determined by their usage to enable or help the major characters succeed in changing the story line. An example of this relationship can be found in A Clash of Kings, in which Qhorin Half-Hand is able to become this crucial minor character by allowing himself to be killed in order for the major character to survive and eventually change the outcome of an entire kingdom. Although both major and minor characters can be identified and classified, what really allows the magnitude of their significance to be realized is the sheer percentage of their respective "world" affected by their actions, this is what I believe to truly be the key factor in deciding the importance of a character.
Reply
Ayo Shonowo
8/26/2015 11:12:15 pm
I agree with Andrew when he says that determining whether a character is major or minor depends on how they affect the course of the story, or how much they affect. In Dune Duke Leto can be seen as a minor character because he is more of a figure of a person whom we can't reach. The insight to what he is thinking is limited. We may have felt more of a connection if he was introduced to us earlier on in the novel, and if we had known his intentions in going to Arrakis knowing that it was a trap. The reader is informed along with Paul a vague explanation of why the Duke is running operations the way he is. The Duke cones off as a shady character unlike Jessica and Paul. Even Thufir Hawat is an easier character to understand, and his loyalty to the Atreides house is evident. He has much to do with how the story unfolds in the end when his loyalty prevents him from stabbing Paul with the poisonous dagger. In the last moments of his life his conviction is shown. Because of this we feel more for Hawat than the Duke when he was killed
Kerry Furman
8/16/2015 05:07:06 am
You could see which characters are major and minor from the severity of the situations that they're placed into. For instance, if one of the characters is part of a royal family or of royal blood, or is naturally taking part in something bigger than themselves, that usually means that they'll play a key role in the plot. Minor characters are here to develop the major ones and further the plot, so you might see less of them or have them participate in less daunting or emotionally tolling situations.
Reply
Kelly Fan
8/25/2015 12:30:22 pm
Like the above comments, I believe that major characters are defined as protagonists and antagonists through the impact they have on progressing the plot. Does he or she make a considerable difference in the story-line? Is he or she included in and affected by the climax? If the answers to these questions is yes, then more likely than not, this character is a major character. If not, then they are probably a mere minor character.
Reply
Sahiti Rudravajhala
8/25/2015 12:52:11 pm
In this type of situation, I think it would be a bit more difficult to distinguish between the major and minor characters. I believe that the minor characters also play a significant role and pitch in toward the plot. However, the minor characters tend to be less developed, and they are the ones that the author leaves the reader hanging on. I believe by the end of the novel it would be easier to tell who the main characters are by the amount of information we can gather about them regardless of their level of contribution to the plot.
Reply
Sri Sridhar
8/27/2015 10:04:18 am
Even though the minor characters are less developed, I think the author isn't compelled to provide us with detailed information about them because I believe that we just need to enough information about them in order to see how they affect the major characters and the plot. Sure, it would be nice to know some of their background information. but it's not required.
Jasmine Banks
8/26/2015 08:50:16 pm
A Major character would have more of an impact on the plot, and we would still be seen following their story line, while a minor character could possibly just be in the background and would more so impact on the main character tan the plot, and they also would not add value to the tone of the story, nor would they add too much to the underlying principles or morals of the story.
Reply
Nimesh Patel
8/27/2015 10:04:30 am
I believe the same rules the Foster explained in his book would still apply. Regardless of how long the characters are in the book, distinguishing between minor and major characters would still be based on their actions that affected the plot as well as the character development that the author takes the time to add into the novel for that specific character. If we see that a character in the novel makes large changes in their personality or greatly affects how the story is going to play out, I believe those characters would be major in that novel.
Reply
Kieran Smith
7/6/2015 05:28:08 am
1. I think Foster’s analysis hits it spot on. Authors do not have the time to develop every single character into emotional depths comparative to those of real people (and nor would readers have the patience to read it all), but most plots require some semblance of interpersonal interaction. It would be a rare book if it only contained one character.
Reply
Luca Tomescu
7/7/2015 03:50:15 am
Regarding your question about the Duke Leto, I think his status as a minor or major character is largely dependent on your own definition of what a minor character is. In my personal opinion, Duke Leto is a minor character because the reader hardly gets to spend any time with him, he seems like the stereotypical cardboard cutout of a minor character, and he serves a single, discernible purpose within the story.
Reply
Melinda Cloudy
8/12/2015 06:57:16 am
Catch-22 is an interesting novel to talk about regarding minor characters since the actual main character behaves like a minor character throughout most of the book. Yossarian does not seem to be any more developed than the other characters in the book. We see that he is crazy, but so is every other character. The author does not talk about his past or his ambitions outside of the war. Until the end of the book there is not really anything to set him apart in that respect from the other characters.
Reply
Hisham Iqbal
8/17/2015 05:35:22 pm
I do feel that Duke Leto is a minor character as he is not described to the extent of other characters within the novel and was used in the novel for a specific purpose. From the beginning of Dune, the story of Duke is not shared from his times before Paul's training and neither is it afterwards. Also, Leto was placed into the novel for a purpose, like Foster said in that minor characters have a specific role in the novel. Leto was used as a precedent before the Baron and Paul as a leader.
Reply
Rithica Deepak
8/25/2015 02:52:53 pm
I also believe that Duke Leto was a minor character with a huge role. He inspired Paul, and made him into the man he is. I think that is one of the most underrated teachers of Paul. Leto also does the right thing regardless of what tradition tells him to do. He had a lot of good characteristics about him and he essentially set an example for his son Paul.
Reply
Luca Tomescu
7/7/2015 03:29:23 am
1. In my opinion, Foster is correct in labeling minor characters as "cardboard cutouts" because I think that's part of how we define minor characters anyway. There can be more main characters than simply the protagonist and antagonist, and the number of these major characters is simply determined by how much time the author spends with each one. If an author largely disregards a character and only uses him or her for a handful of purposes, then that defines a minor character, and it is likely obvious how the author uses that character as a device and for what function.
Reply
Luca Tomescu
7/7/2015 03:33:24 am
Although I am venturing into cinematography, the Star Wars movie have a host of minor characters that are barely seen in the movies but that have, over time, been developed through their own dedicated novels and media. This is what makes the Star Wars universe so uniquely rich - fans of the saga used their imagination to create their own ideas of what minor characters' stories were like beyond the movies. Such is the case with a few well renowned novels such as the Harry Potter series. In conclusion, I think minor characters are necessary for any novel because there can't be a story with only the protagonist, his companion, and the antagonist. Minor characters are needed in order to flesh out the story itself and help carry the major characters through the plot.
Reply
Albert Chen
8/24/2015 09:55:48 am
I agree with you answer about minor characters. Developing an effective minor character is often challenging. The minor character shouldn't be intriguing enough or significant enough to detract from the main characters; however, the minor character must contribute something of value. In some stories, a friend or family member offers advice or creates tension for a main character. Best friends in a romantic story often compel the main character to act in a certain way. Without the role of the friends, the reader may struggle to see the compelling influence for the character's actions.
Reply
Stella Ji
7/14/2015 01:52:56 pm
1. I completely agree with Foster’s assessment. Minor characters are not main characters for a reason. They are in a sense less than the major characters because they are not fully formed. Minor characters merely exist to enhance the story; their purpose is different from that of a main character. That being said, I do think there can be three-dimensional minor characters that simply do not get the time to be presented as major characters. They remain in the background for whatever purpose the author decides on.
Reply
Albert Chen
8/27/2015 07:45:45 am
I agree with you answer about minor characters. Creating a worthwhile minor character is often demanding. The role of the minor character should not be as important as the major characters, but they still need to have a certain amount of aspect to them. They may not be as important as the main character, but they have some sort of value. For example, friends or family members give tips to the main character. Best friends in romantic novels make the main character act a certain way. Without these types of people in the life of the main character, the reader may have a hard time figuring out the influences for the character’s actions in the novel
Reply
Kalpana Vaidya
7/26/2015 05:07:46 pm
1. I think that Foster pretty much accurately sums up the definition of a minor character. In general, the main character(s) remains the focus of our attention. In order to demonstrate different aspects to that character, an author throws in some minor characters, whether it is to juxtapose that person or compliment them. In addition, minor characters allow the reader to invest their time in more than just one or a handful of characters which would be kind of boring. I think that authors use minor characters as interjections or exemplifications of certain aspects as Foster said.
Reply
Arianna Carr
8/23/2015 12:21:29 am
I also read Fahrenheit 451, and I would agree with the points that you are making about the minor characters, especially Clarisse. This character, although minor and with a short duration in the novel, had a surprising resonating impact on the novel. In fact her short stay in the narration is actually what made her quick entrance and exit so devastating. It left the reader with a sense of wonderment and even confusion. This doubtful mindset actually ended up impacting what I thought was going to follow in the rest of the book. I believe it was Ray Bradbury's intention to leave the reader with this major question in their mind in order to get us in a speculative mindset - a mentality that he encourages considering that he does not want for society to put full blinded trust into their governments.
Reply
Laura Paglicawan
8/11/2015 06:01:02 pm
1. Foster’s statement is accurate because minor characters dutifully affect the plot of the story according to the author’s purpose. There is no need for detailed descriptions on minor characters because they just have to exist for a certain function like to act as a catalyst or maybe highlight a reoccurring theme. Moreover, I feel applying one of Foster’s ideas would shed further insight into these supporting characters. In the text, they are simply cardboard cutouts but the lack of description encourages readers to bring in their own details. In the effort of upholding the illusion that novels are real, readers paint two- dimensional characters to their own vision in the same way that we inflict our opinion on people we’ve seen but never talked to. Although they start as sketches, by the end of the novel the reader transforms them into something other than two-dimensional.
Reply
Ahad Haidry
8/12/2015 01:05:58 pm
1. I agree with Fosters analysis that minor characters are like two-dimensional cardboard cutouts, they are not as fleshed out as main characters, and exist mainly only to advance the stories narrative forward. Yet i do not believe this relative two dimensionality necessarily impedes a minor character from feeling "real" and substantial. In other words, minor characters undeniably receive less development than main characters,yet they can become just as substantial (as in the depth of character and role in the narrative) as major characters to the readers.
Reply
Kerry Furman
8/16/2015 04:10:09 am
1) I agree with Foster's assessment for the most part. In a lot of stories minor characters have taken the story in totally different directions than it would've gone if they weren't there. Also, minor characters shape the protagonist and antagonist in more ways than you can imagine.
Reply
Hisham Iqbal
8/17/2015 05:32:34 pm
1. I completely agree with Foster's assessment of a minor character being a two dimensional cardboard cutout rather than a fully functional character. No author has the ability to describe every important detail of a character in a novel which forces the concept of a major and minor character. Throughout literature, there are countless examples of minor characters being added to novels simply to compliment the main character and add some needed depth to the storyline. Without minor characters, the major characters have no possible interaction.
Reply
Stephanie You
8/23/2015 11:16:47 am
Do you think that because Neville was given a more important role in the last book, he can be elevated to a position as a major character? Somehow, although the terms seem black-and-white, I can find so many nuances in which characters are deemed major characters and which are minor characters. To me, Neville could be considered a major character in the last novel because he was given such a large role in killing Nagini; plus, he co-led Dumbledore's Army in the last book, signifying his importance in rallying the students still at Hogwarts against Voldemort and his Death Eaters.On the other hand, he wasn't really given that many scenes in the book, and minor characters can commit heroic acts as well. I guess the answer lies in a reader's personal definition of major and minor characters.
Reply
Gordon Chen
8/22/2015 10:48:04 am
1 & 2.It is agreeable that minor characters are usually portrayed as "errand: boys who play little to no significance in a story; in the Hunger Games, it is a defiance against Thomas Foster assessment. Gale, a character in the Hunger Games, is first seen in the beginning as Katniss lover. When Katniss sacrifice herself to be in the Hunger Games, Gale becomes a "ghost", having no duty, other than Katniss lover. Later in the story, Gale arises and becomes a part of a revolutionary movement. Gale arises from being in no part of the narrative, to the support and aid of Katniss and revolution. Gale slowly becomes a more fully developed character, rather than being a minor character.
Reply
Brandon Pham
8/25/2015 03:00:51 pm
I believe you have the right idea about minor characters, but to say that they "play little to no significance in a story" is a little too far. I see them as the trigger or catalyst that allows the story to progress. Dr. Yueh got the conflict rolling when he deactivated the shields, Mapes gives Jessica her crysknife, Alia kills the Baron. Every minor character is crucial to the plot, but simply their role and complexity does not match to that of a main character like Paul.
Reply
Zach Hall
8/23/2015 03:47:17 am
1. I agree with Foster’s assessment in the fact that certain minor characters are only there to be a plot device and nothing else. This is their purpose, and their character traits are to resemble what they end up doing in the novel to further progress the plot of the story. Most minor characters in novels are incomplete, using the fact that the reader does not usually know all of the character’s beliefs, life experiences, etc. This is because the author should only use the character traits that are important to the development of the plot and character, among other things. Then, the reader may fill in the wholes of these sketches of the character and make their own assumptions about them.
Reply
Victor Guo
8/27/2015 08:02:34 am
I don't agree with your statement about how you have never seen any 3 dimensional minor character because of the fact that the exposure we get to minor characters is very little. Character development occurs over time and when you first meet any character for you they will appear as three dimensional if we had maybe a fifth of the time that a major character has with character development then maybe we could start to see the differences that makes a minor character '2D'
Reply
Abigail Cloudy
8/23/2015 07:03:40 am
1. I do agree with Foster in regards to minor characters. While they themselves do not have a lot of depth, they add many layers to the story and contribute to the development of the major characters.
Reply
Stephanie You
8/23/2015 08:44:56 am
I agree with Foster that minor characters are not fleshed out like major characters usually are. I cannot think of any minor characters that had different aspects to them and a whole backstory that actually mattered. However, at the same time, I don’t know if the roundness of characters, or how developed they are, one hundred percent determines their statuses as major characters. To me, there are many factors that help me decide: how often I see them in the novel, how they impact the story as a whole, and how developed they are. If a character is lacking in one of these departments, something else could make up for that and elevate them to the status of major character, at least in my mind. This is how I see the baron. As I mentioned in a different post about villains, I do not see the baron as three-dimensional, purely because I only see the evil, greedy side of him, but I still view him as a major character because he is the primary antagonist and features in quite a few narratives throughout the novel.
Reply
Kasey Zhang
8/23/2015 02:46:51 pm
I think that the Baron was lacking a bit to be considered as a three-dimensional character. We do not know much of his background or burning intentions to rule the planet besides for the power of the spice, and we also do not know how he became the mortal enemy of the Atreides or why he entrusts his nephew so much. There are a lot of elements lacking for him to be considered a character that is three-dimensional, but at the same time I don't think that this determines whether or not he is a major or minor character. I do think that he is considered quite a major character since his role in the book as the mortal enemy of the Atreides does allow for the story to be held the way it was and because he is the main antagonist that is presented throughout the entire novel.
Reply
Vibhav Joopelli
8/25/2015 11:00:33 am
Stephanie,
Reply
Matthew Nevle
8/26/2015 10:27:28 am
The Baron didn't feel like a three-dimensional character at all to me. He is the classic villain, fat, ugly, rude, and a horrible person. He is too much villain and not enough human. Like why is his personality formed in such a way that he has become a horrible person? What led the Baron to where he currently is? Nothing is answered about him other than the fact that he is clearly the villain.
Reply
Kasey Zhang
8/23/2015 02:41:34 pm
1. I do agree with Foster’s assessment. Like he mentions, minor characters serve only a few purposes in fiction, and do not need to be fully developed with a background and physical appearance attributes. Just like he mentions, the minor characters only need the necessary amount of constituent in order to add to the story. However, I feel that not all characters that aren’t necessarily the main characters are considered to be minor. I think that some characters can serve more purpose than just a minor character does, and therefore only depends on the judgment of the reader.
Reply
Hannah White
8/23/2015 02:48:13 pm
I do agree with Foster in the aspect that the minor characters are not as well developed as the major characters but what I find interesting is that they are given the same amount of background information as the major characters. For example, what we know about Paul from the author is that he is a 15 year old boy with internal power struggles. Anything else we as readers come up with. A minor character, such as Staban Tuek, is given about the same treatment. We know that he is a smuggler leader and son of Esmar Tuek. The difference between the two is that we are able to develop Paul so much more because he resides throughout the entire book while Staban disappears as quickly as he comes in.
Reply
Brandon Pham
8/24/2015 03:11:31 pm
I agree with Foster’s definition of a minor character. It would be too long to give every single character a backstory and a unique and dynamic personality. The reason why they are minor character is minor is because of the small, yet possibly important role they play in a novel. To give someone of such relatively little significance (not to say they have no significance) to the plot depth would be a waste and a distraction from the traits of the main characters. As Foster has stated many times, the writer must not overload the reader with needless information.
Reply
Matthew Nevle
8/25/2015 09:35:09 am
1.I agree with Foster’s statement that minor characters are only “2D”. Minor characters only serve as a tool to push the story along and never answer exactly answer who they are or explain the reason to the things that they do.
Reply
Elaine Wood
8/25/2015 12:20:25 pm
An example of a minor character that fits Foster’s description is Shadout Mapes. She was entirely two-dimensional, solely a servant of Lady Jessica and Fremen— her physical description is limited, mainly . She brought a crysknife to Lady Jessica, and as Jessica proved to Mapes that she could potentially be from the myth of the Kwitz Haderach, she began to earn her trust and that of other Fremen. Giving over the crysknife was a symbol of respect and loyalty.
Reply
Sahiti Rudravajhala
8/25/2015 12:46:24 pm
1.I partly agree with Foster. While it is understandable that many minor characters show up in the novels, play their roles, and disappear into the book again, it is also fair to say that some minor characters manage to do more than just play a small role. These characters are able to create a connection with the reader or even create a significant impact in the protagonist’s life even if their appearance was brief. I think Foster is correct when he says that they are there to serve their purpose, but sometimes these characters’ purposes are far more important that we realize.
Reply
Kelly Fan
8/25/2015 12:46:25 pm
I definitely believe that Foster's theory about minor characters is accurate. Even the seemingly smallest of roles have and serve their purpose in the piece of literature. In Dune, Dr. Yueh plays as a minor character, but Herbert's intention in including him are obvious. The doctor's betrayal to the House of Atreides signifies a universal theme regarding loyalty. Through him, Herbert teaches both his readers and the House of Atreides that loyalty is a virtue, capable of being lost.
Reply
Selina John
8/25/2015 01:24:01 pm
Foster labeled minor characters as “two dimensional cardboard cutouts rather than fully developed, complete persons” (84). In other words, minor characters are not as complete and three dimensional as major characters because they are not solely focused on by the author, but they do serve a purpose whether it is to support or challenge the main characters. Minor characters in fact have “specific roles” (83) to play.
Reply
Rithica Deepak
8/25/2015 02:10:54 pm
There are many minor characters that break his rule and appear to play very important roles. A minor character from Romeo and Juliet played a huge role in the play. Friar John the friar who had been sent by Friar Lawrence to give a letter to Romeo saying that Juliet did not die was crucial to the ending of the book. He failed to reach Romeo and Romeo thought that Juliet was “dead”. But Friar Lawrence gave Juliet a potion that would put her in deep sleep for a few days. Since Friar John did not reach Romeo, there was a huge misunderstanding. Romeo thought she actually died and killed himself to be with her. She awakens to find Romeo dead, then takes the dagger and stabs herself which ended the story. It was the friar Johns fault that Romeo was not informed. This minor character made a big difference in the story.
Reply
Arun Sabapathy
8/26/2015 12:43:31 pm
I think Foster's analysis is definitely situational, though only half true. Minor characters are only described as such characters because of the limitation of how much we as readers can interact with the character in comparison to the protagonist. This does not mean that they are not vital to the entirety of the plot. A specific case of this minor character is the perceived antagonism in Snape from Harry Potter. Throughout the 7 books, the darkness of Snape's personality glooms over the main characters of the story as it suggested hostility and plotting against Harry. The involvement with the Death Eaters, and the assassination of Dumbledore only serve as proofs of this malevolence towards the journey, as we see him time again trying to manipulate Harry through fear or pressure. It is only at the time of his death when we see the true identity of Snape. He truly loved Harry's mother, and ever since James Potter took his place as her best friend, he presented hostility towards them. He took the death of Lily quite hard, confirming the devotion towards Harry. In following events, we understand that his work as the spy proved to be the staple in his involvement, single handedly providing the intel to Dumbledore in the war against Voldemort. Harry does not let this shocking turn of events slip past after Snape's passing. He honors him, through the broadcast of his betrayal in Voldemort's face and the naming of his son, which we see later.
Reply
Quyn Westfall
8/27/2015 08:58:28 am
I disagree with your assertion that Snape is a minor character. I believe that while he may have started as a minor character in the first book, he evolves into a major character as the books progress. We learn more about his back story, his love for Lily and hatred for James, and he becomes quite essential to the plot line. A minor character would have been Lily or James, whose only real impact on the story came with their death.
Reply
Noah Lee
8/28/2015 09:07:56 am
Harry Potter has been used endlessly as an example, so I'll use it again. I think that the books, especially combined with the movie, use minor characters heavily to gain connection from the audience (not in a super refined and masterfully written sort of way; it's a basic connection audiences can make when they relate to a habit or action or appearance of a character). All those minor characters add up and help make the entire setting a little more realistic, or at least immersive. In Dune, many minor characters make subtle yet important contributions. Dr. Yueh is one of the first to help out Paul, and Idaho quickly follows not long after. These little sacrifices begin to define Paul's leadership, and mark big changes in the novel.
Reply
Nimesh Patel
8/26/2015 03:41:35 pm
1. I agree with Foster about this topic for the most part. The minor characters in Dune, or any novel, are seemingly put into the story solely to move the story along. While some may have a bigger role in terms of who they are, they are all very underdeveloped in the book itself and not many details are given about them so the reader has no way of seeing them as a three-dimensional character.
Reply
Vibhav Joopelli
8/27/2015 08:15:28 am
For the most part, I agree with Foster's assessment that minor characters are two dimensional cardboard cutouts that don't have much dynamic progression throughout the novel. The role of minor characters is to facilitate the novel and support the major characters and major plot occurrences. In my opinion, if a character gets to the point where we are able to witness they're progression throughout the novel and they become dynamic figures rather than static pieces in a novel, they are major characters. Additionally, if the character is static but still serves a major role in the novel to the point where the novel could not do without them, they are major. For example, in Dune, I would consider Baron to be a major character, because he creates major conflicts in the novel that must be overcome by Paul and Duke Leto. Even tho he is not very dynamic, Baron is an integral piece of the novel. I think characters who are not fully defined are important pieces of each novel, whether they are major or minor. It is important for the reader to be able to create their own interpretation and definition for each character, as this is the best way for readers to become fully engaged in the novel and develop a connection with the characters. If the characters are already defined in their entirety by the author, the reader is unable to form their own interpretation, immediately making the novel far less intriguing.
Reply
Quyn Westfall
8/27/2015 08:55:13 am
I agree that minor characters tend to lack depth. It would take away from the ultimate goal and plot of the main character if each minor character's life was explained in full detail. This would also confuse the reader because they would not know what to actually pay attention to. If the author does include a "minor" character that has a fully developed back story, personality, etc., then they have just evolved from a minor to a major character, one example in Dune is Chani. Although the reader's know that she is the daughter of Kynes, it isn't told how she feels about her relationship to Paul. Her entire role in the story is to support Paul with whatever decisions he makes. An example of a character that develops from minor to major is Dobby. At first he is simply the house elf of the Malfoys, even after Harry frees him. But after that, we see his conflict with being free and evolves into a major character of the novel. Its why we all sobbed at his death in the seventh book.
Reply
Sri Sridhar
8/27/2015 09:50:06 am
Even though I understand Foster's idea that major characters play an important role, I would still give credit to the 'minor' characters because I believe they are equally important as the major characters. Even though, they might not be prominent throughout the novel, one cannot take their role lightly. One example would be Rue from Hunger Games. Even she existed only for few chapters in the first book of the series, she still played a major role, especially in Katniss' life. Although many view Katniss as one of the only important characters in the series, they have take into Rue's unfortunate death into consideration because it tore Katniss into pieces and as a result it increased her agony and thirst for revenge. In Dune, Dr. Yueh is viewed as a minor character by many but I think Herbert uses him to emphasize the concept of betrayal, as Dr. Yueh betrays the House of Atreides. Having said this, I don't believe that the author is obliged to go in depth with the story behind the minor character. In other words, Suzanne Collins gave enough information about Rue and even though we didn't know her as well as Katniss, it was more than enough for us to feel attached to the twelve year old.
Reply
Chidera Azubike
8/27/2015 11:45:00 am
i do not completely agree with Foster's assessment as i believe that characters are more than just devices the author uses as an ends to a means, characters are a piece of the authors imagination, if you will- aspects of the author themselves. although not by much, some minor characters can have an affect on the plot, like faolan's mother in the book wolves of the beyond, she saved her son from being killed by the tribe because of his disability, essentially starting up the series in the first place. in dune there was yueh, who betrayed the atreides, the reason for paul's father's death in the first place. characters with not much background are like blank slates that you can use put your life in theirs and see life through theirs.
Reply
Hannah Nöelle Johnson
8/27/2015 03:01:06 pm
1) I completely agree with HTRNP’s author, Thomas C. Fosters address to the purpose of minor characters. The author places everything in a story for a reason. The major characters may run the show, but the minor characters are backstage making everything happen. They are there to basically make the main characters look better. In “Dear John” by Nicholas Sparks, John’s autistic dad plays a minor role, however from beginning to end of the novel, there is an obvious change. First he refuses to comfort his son in his times of solace, then towards the end as he is lying on his death bed he comforts his son with his relationship struggles. Now this may seem insignificant, but how wrong that is. Towards the end, he is expresses his concern for his son openly. For many, emotional expression is a challenge, yet it is such a big part of who we are, and how we cope with tough situations. I do not believe that there is truly a minor character in “Dune” who encompasses this title.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Blog Rules1. Keep it relevant; try not to go off-topic. Archives
August 2015
Categories |