Too many concepts, not enough books?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 86194

-> <adollarandfiftycent at h...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Because I'm still pretty new, I was reading through the Lexicon (an
> > amazing piece of work).  I couldn't believe how many characters,
> > magical devices and spells there are in the Potter world.  I 
> couldn't
> > figure out a way to count the number of characters (does anyone
> > know?), but I don't see how even the major characters could possibly
> > be developed in just the two remaining books.
> > 
> > Maybe it is a matter of personal preference, but I would think that
> > good literature doesn't introduce a character unless that character
> > will have a purpose and will be developed.  I am starting to think
> > Rowling may be forgetting that principle, if it is a principle.
> > 
> > Any thoughts?
> > 
> > Fifty
> 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> That isn't true for the Harry Potter books. There are many 
> characters, who don't need any development, especially the random 
> Hogwarts students, and with that I mean everybody except the sextet 
> from the DoM, the other Weasley children (no longer at Hogwarts) and 
> Draco Malfoy. They just add to the flair. It's like the people you 
> met at school, but never really get to know them. It would be 
> unrealistic, if there weren't such characters. The same is true for 
> every staff member except Dumbledore, McGonagall, Hagrid, Snape, 
> Trelawney and the DaDA teachers (and maybe Filch, depending what part 
> he will play). The other characters are just there, because they 
> belong to the school setting, but they aren't important. Random Death 
> Eaters and Order members are also unimportant. They are just named, 
> so that we know that there are more characters involved in this war, 
> than Harry and his closest friends. But there is no need to develop 
> them. Many other characters from the Lexicon are just mentioned in 
> the books, like Regulus Black.
>  
> Hickengruendler

Yes and no. Certain (mostly dead) authors (Dostoevsky or Dickens, for
example) will present a vivid portrait of a minor character only to
drop that character from the story. No one has challenged their status
as great authors because of this tactic; it was simply their preferred
literary style. More recent authors, OTOH, tend to limit the number of
characters in part because modern readers expect them to do so. It's
hard to keep track of a large number of characters, so we expect a
minor character to serve a real purpose in the story. To a surprising
extent, JKR's characters DO serve such a purpose. Yes, some of them
exist simply to fill up staff positions or to provide Harry and
friends with classmates in their own and other houses, without whom
the world of Hogwarts would be too limited and too obviously
fictional. But more often than not, a name casually dropped turns out
to be important later. (Sirius Black is the obvious example.) I don't
suppose we'll hear more from Madam Malkin, who existed solely to
provide Harry with school robes in his first year, but Dedalus Diggle
(mentioned about three times in earlier books) showed up at the
beginning of OoP. I expect we'll hear more from him. I certainly hope
and expect to learn more about Frank and Alice Longbottom and
Neville's gran. For the same reason, I think Mark Evans will prove to
be important. When JKR drops a name, we should pay attention. That
person will almost certainly have a role to play in later books.

Carol