My first topic in years! :D
So I'm re-reading Triss at the moment (going very slowly at that, due to other things going on) and as yet I am thinking there are a few characters in it that don't really seem to have much development or don't really do much. I have also noticed this in other books (and am not wanting this thread to come off really negative towards the books; it's just something to comment upon). It doesn't necessarily make the character pointless, mind, yet in some cases... it does a bit. If anybody responds to this post with certain characters, I am also interested in whether you think the underdeveloped character is pointless to the story or not. And maybe even why do you think they were added if they were only going to do next to diddly-squat?
Sagax the badger doesn't seem to be doing an awful lot at the moment. He's just there, piping up the odd time. Scarum's annoying, but you at least feel like he's got some development to him.
To be honest, not even Triss herself at this point has shown very much. She is the title's namesake and is allowed to wield Martin's sword, yet seems quite like a side-character to me.
That's what I wanted to add for the moment, anyway. More in time as I remember them / read about them. :)
Underdeveloped characters is a common thing in writing. Sometimes they don't need to be developed very much because they don't add very much to the story anyways, like being mentioned in passing. However, if they are necessary to the story in some way, development should be utilized, or the character should be done away with.
Writers can get attached to characters or ideas and not want to let them go, even if they don't add to the story. Often it is necessary to pick and choose what is added into the story out of the hundreds of ideas and parts so as not to clutter a story with too much unnecessary components.
Unfortunately I haven't read so many of the books in such a long time that I can't remember any characters that seemed out of place because they were underdeveloped.
I thought the majority of the cast of Triss was underdeveloped and boring.
But that's my opinion.
^ And your opinions are what I seek in this discussion. ;)
I seem to remember that Outcast of Redwall suffered from a few underdeveloped characters, such as... Bryony? (whoever the mouse was in charge of Veil (?).
I'm super bitter because Shadow got like two pages worth of character development before becoming an early casualty of the first book... that really annoys me, because he sounds like SUCH an interesting character who could have easily carried the story on his own for a while due to his abilities and mysterious figure. What a missed opportunity.
That's a good one for wasted potential! Yes - why build up this interesting character only for him to be finished with in the blink of an eye?!
Necessary for part of the story, but apparently not for the rest. Maybe he still would have met his end, but it seemed untimely quick.
How about that unnamed grumpy watervole.
He was developed enough to have a memorable personality, deal with the heroes, and show up on multiple occasions...
But apparently not enough to have a name.
. . . Which book is he in. . . ? ;D :P
The book was less memorable than the character.
Sable Quean or Doomwyte?
I think it was Doomwyte. Unless it was Eulalia.
So then would this character be undeveloped or unnecessary, since we can't even remember him?
We can remember him, but not the book he was in.
We didn't forget it; he literally did not have a name in the book.
That is another silly thing - giving a character enough of a personality to be relevant, yet giving no name. Why?? Same with the beaver. Okay, he didn't do a lot, but it was still a bit too mysterious not to even give him a name... Jacob the beaver. :D
Headcanon born.
I do not remember the beaver.
Quote from: TheTaleOfSierra on April 30, 2017, 11:13:26 PM
I'm super bitter because Shadow got like two pages worth of character development before becoming an early casualty of the first book... that really annoys me, because he sounds like SUCH an interesting character who could have easily carried the story on his own for a while due to his abilities and mysterious figure. What a missed opportunity.
Amen. One thing I used to think about when writing my incredibly bad 6th grade fan-fic was what if Brian had used a Marlfox instead of a Shadow. Imagine, they are a mystery from the first book which eventually become a threat later on. Or flip it, having the Marlfoxes me Marlrats or something like that. I dunno, that is just something I wished if Brian had planned it out further.
Scragg anyone?
I thought Scragg was developed and memorable enough for what he was supposed to be.
An upstart, who made Cheesethief mad.
Quote from: Ashleg on May 02, 2017, 04:31:59 PM
We can remember him, but not the book he was in.
We didn't forget it; he literally did not have a name in the book.
Is this the one you were talking about:
according to the Redwall Wiki
The unnamed Grumpy Watervole was a mean-tempered, unkind watervole who lived along one of the River Moss's tributaries.
After Orkwil Prink was banished from Redwall Abbey, the watervole refused to give the hedgehog food or drink, aimed an arrow at him, and tricked him into doing subservient tasks before sending him into the wilderness.
Later, the watervole was attacked by a pair of rats. Orkwil saved him and bound the vermin to a tree, showing the opposite of the watervole's contempt for him. The watervole later revealed that he tossed the two rats into a swamp, still bound, and weighted with stones.
He was captured by the crew of Vizka Longtooth and used as bait for the Redwallers. The watervole was knocked out cold by Benjo Tipps, repeatedly insulted, forced to answer questions from Rorc, threatened by Orkwil, and knocked aside by Gorath.
He was extremely paranoid of the Sea Raiders discovering him within the Abbey. After being exiled by Benjo, the watervole stole The Sword of Martin, killing Sister Atrata in the process. However, he stole the sword because Orkwil had stolen his dagger.
While in Mossflower Woods, the watervole was killed by a boulder thrown by Magger, who then stole the Sword of Martin for himself.
Though the watervole never appeared to do anything good or kind, he was seemingly mistreated and abused by everyone he met.
Quote from: Ashleg on May 09, 2017, 09:22:07 PM
I thought Scragg was developed and memorable enough for what he was supposed to be.
An upstart, who made Cheesethief mad.
I think he could have had a bigger role in the story.
Al, that's it!
Can't remember 'Scragg'; been a while since I've read Mossflower?, though.
Spoiler warning in case you have not yet read Triss! Avert your eyes and scroll on by! Not that this 'spoilt' part has much relevance in the book. ;D
That vole talk (for whatever reason) reminded me of another underdeveloped/pointless character in Triss. An old eagle is introduced and then dies within, like, two pages, going in to attack the three snakes. But even his death is not 'seen', and you think, oh maybe he didn't get killed... but then nothing more is said. That was literally it. Whhhhy. Seems the only reason to include that scenario was to kill off the owl, but the owl wasn't even a relevant enough character to really warrant a sudden death.
Scragg is from Redwall.
What about that owl from Eulalia!, Asio Bardwing, he was pretty cool, SPOILER ALERT
Spoiler
He died to quick, it would've been nice to see more of him.
Once again, he seemed to be one of the characters that were needed only for one part, and after that was fulfilled, he was no longer necessary.
That's part of what makes Redwall so good, though. Brian wasn't afraid to kill characters after they were needed. Not many children's books do that. Usually they just hide them somewhere or drag them along for no good reason.
See that's a problem. You should never kill off characters just because they've outlived their usefulness, that's lazy. Introducing characters for the express purpose of killing them is another matter entirely and is a much-beloved part of the storytelling process. Also don't have too many fakeout deaths, they come off as cheap if used too often.
I'm glad fakeout deaths aren't really a thing in Redwall.
Once or twice is fine, but after that it becomes annoying.
Off topic, but would you consider it a fake out death if most of the characters think they are dead but the reader knows they are alive after a period of believing the same?
No, because it's not played out as a surprise to the reader.
Thanks.