Twilight Lexicon Discussion Forums

Even minor characters deserve a personality.

Perhaps, Amivera, we are actually the same person and just do not know it. =P

Sorry, what do you think is an assumption?

What Ellie Ibis said was fact, because Jessica's character did not change in depth throughout Twilight nor Midnight Sun, but this:

moon sidhe wrote:I agree that she's a stock character, but she was also meant to be a minor character. I'm sure that if Edward had listened to her thoughts more regularly he might have come to understand more of the reasoning behind her actions, and not only as they pertained to Bella and himself.

Was an assumption, so I wouldn't be able to agree with it, and it couldn't be backed up by the books.

Which part of it is an assumption? It's decidedly not an assumption that she is a minor character and was designed to be that way. The rest of it was just a hypothetical if Edward had decided to listen to her more, but it's a moot point since he did not.

I don't think the hinge of this argument lies in an assumption, it lies in our respective definitions of minor characters. Jessica most definitely fits my definition of a minor character, and while I suppose you could argue I'm assuming that SM designed her to be that way, I think you'd be hard-put to argue that Jessica was intended to be otherwise. The whole definition of a minor character is that they are flat, 2-dimensional, designed to support the main characters. Like Paris in Romeo and Juliet, or Mr. Collins in Pride and Prejudice... or Jessica Stanley.

Which part of it is an assumption?

I think they are referring to the part where you said that Edward would have better understood Jessica had he paid more attention to her thoughts. The assumption would be the idea that Edward would have regarded Jessica differently had he better understood her thoughts and reasoning, unless that wasn't what you were implying when you mentioned his understanding of Jessica.

Ah ok. I was using it as a hypothetical to illustrate a point, and didn't really intend for it to have any meaning beyond that.

moon sidhe wrote:I don't think the hinge of this argument lies in an assumption, it lies in our respective definitions of minor characters. Jessica most definitely fits my definition of a minor character, and while I suppose you could argue I'm assuming that SM designed her to be that way, I think you'd be hard-put to argue that Jessica was intended to be otherwise. The whole definition of a minor character is that they are flat, 2-dimensional, designed to support the main characters. Like Paris in Romeo and Juliet, or Mr. Collins in Pride and Prejudice... or Jessica Stanley.

That is very much not the definition of minor characters.

I can name a number of minor characters in a number of books who have more personality than Jessica Stanley. Going off the book I just read, The Stand, I can name at least three minor characters presented in the book who were less important than Jessica Stanley in Twilight all who are not two-dimensional characters. It's not hard to paint a character a personality in two sentences, much less the amount Jessica got. And the thing is, Jessica wasn't that flat of a character until Midnight Sun.

And don't get me started on the personality of characters of Jane Austen novels (don't get me started on Jane Austen, period). Also, everyone in Romeo and Juliet was a stock character.

^Exactly.
Even the main characters in Romeo and Juliet did not have any personality past their immaturity, so no-go. (In defense of Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet was a play. The personality was meant to be brought by the actor)

Eragon is another example. Paolini had a little *too* much characterization. Although he should have left some of it out of the books, it's better all the characters have mounds of personality than little teaspoons of it.

Our creative writing teacher repeatedly tells us— and all the writing books I've read agree— that ALL characters introduced in a story should be fully developed.

SMeyer only needed a sentence to show another side to Jessica, but I've already mentioned that in detail in another post.

I understand the point that all characters should be developed to a certain extent. But I still maintain that Jessica's role in the story was never important enough to warrant "rounding out." And as I've stated in previous posts, most of the characters could have been fleshed out more, even the major ones. So the fact that someone with such a small role is flat strikes me as, well, minor. And to re-iterate what I think I've repeated on numerous other occasions, these books aren't great literature. So I guess you could run around and critique all the major and minor flaws in the story, but I don't find it satisfying on an intellectual level to tear apart a work that's, frankly, quite easily torn apart. Anyway, I'm mostly repeating myself. So let's move on, shall we?

Amivera wrote:Eragon is another example. Paolini had a little *too* much characterization. Although he should have left some of it out of the books, it's better all the characters have mounds of personality than little teaspoons of it.

What do you mean by that? I didn't see too much character.

I think Jessica is a bit flat. And it's not like many other characters, where they intrigue you and make you want to know more about them.

She's boring.