Minor character thingy. Which may not make sense.

[lesbiassparrow]

I was pondering this while watching Konstantine on HBO (don't even think about the connection because there isn't one). 

Do you think it's easier to be a minor character in a show? And by easier I mean 'be more liked'?  I only say this because when I used to go over to TWoP more regularly there'd always be a whole slew of posts about how X who only had a few lines should be much more central or something and take over the show from the rubbish leads. 

The thing is I've always figured that the great thing about minor characters is that (usually) they don't have time to wear out their welcome. Then get to come on the screen be interesting and different for an episode or two and then go off before anyone has a chance to get tired of them.  Whereas the characters you get every week, well they mess up on a regular basis because you see them more and perfection is horribly boring. But I do spend a lot of my time suspecting that if the minor characters became major characters with backstory and a whole season worth of episodes people would be all 'fecking wanker! s/he's useless. I bet [even more minor character] would be more interesting.' 

Or maybe I am just wrong about all of this.  Which is entirely possible.

Comments

[k-julia.livejournal.com]

Do you think it's easier to be a minor character in a show?

I think sometimes it's easier not being a hero in a show. (And, uh, while I've been cranky over hero-bashing before, this is totally my not-cranky voice. Just an observation.)

[lesbiassparrow.livejournal.com]

I do think it's harder to be a central character because you just know more about them and that leaves you more room to judge. And familiarity breeds contempt and all that. Whereas the minor character does have more wiggle room, because they're nearly always fresh and interesting and a nice break.

[lilith-morgana.livejournal.com]

I think you're right - if the minor characters ended up being leads we'd tire of them, too. Which might say something about how lead characters usually are written?

But also, I think people identify with the minor characters much more than they ever identify with the Hero/lead character. (At least I do.) And there's a little tendency to go "oh god, I a Real Companion/Woman/Girlfriend/Minor Character would have been so much better in that situation."

Also, minor characters can often be more flawed (and often more generalised, if you know what I mean - they can be any of us, we know enough to identify but not enough for it to be too specific) than central characters, which makes it so much easier to both relate to them and like them. Many people have an extremely low tolerance for perfection. Tin dogs, anti-heroes, often even villains - now those are characters we like.

Oh, I don't know. I just babble.

[lesbiassparrow.livejournal.com]

Also, minor characters can often be more flawed

And the advantage is that their flaws don't get shown as often, so you're not 'oh not that again! when will they be different. boring wankers!' It's variety.

And as you say, they're more like us, or at least we can imagine ourselves as them because we don't know that much about them (and when we do it is often a disappointment).

But I don't get people who seem to automatically loathe major characters as a sort of reflex action. Or expect them to ditch the major character or get annoyed because there is not enough of the minor characters, because that does sort of run against the way fiction, films and tv shows are written.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

I think you might be ON to something here; I can think of sooo many times that I've seen people write things like "I never like the main character etc. etc."

[lesbiassparrow.livejournal.com]

"I never like the main character etc

This must make reading most fiction very trying for them.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

Hee! It's true ... I'm all over the map myself; sometimes I like the villains, sometimes I like the anti-heroes, and often I like the heroes. I find this works very well for me :)

[anonymous_sibyl]

One of the reasons I like some minor characters is that they have less of a concrete back story so there's more to imagine (and create?) about them.

Also, they're more defined by one or two quirks (which are quirkier than would be allowed for a main character) so there's this big thing for the watcher/reader to latch onto. Like, "Oh! I've read and loved that book, too!" There's nothing to dislike, because that's all you know.

I can't remember the actual psychological term for this and I'm too lazy to dig out my textbook. But there's something about when you know only one or two things about a person, and those are all things you have in common, you're very happy and think you're super-compatible. Then, the more you learn about them, the more chances there are that you don't share those things in common, so this person you thought you were identical to in your tastes is all of a sudden (so you think) revealed to be someone you have nothing in common with at all. I think that's what happens with main characters, and why we keep loving the minor characters.

[lesbiassparrow.livejournal.com]

One of the reasons I like some minor characters is that they have less of a concrete back story so there's more to imagine (and create?) about them.

This makes sense to me. It is rather nice to have a bit of a vacuum to insert ideas into (er, that sounds a bit naughty but isn't mean to). It's like central mysteries on shows - the moment they are revealed everyone is on about how rubbish the reveal is.

The quirks thing is interesting. Because I think that while that's what makes them stand out it is also what prevents them usually from being viable major characters. Quirks for about 3 minutes = fun. For any longer it would drive me mad at least.

What I don't understand (beyond the human impulse to have our cake and eat it) is the wanting minor characters to become major characters. Or the thing you see which is 'this would be a much better show if X had more lines.' Because while I often like the peripheral figures I don't think I've ever felt that making them more central would be a good idea. Perhaps for all the reasons you've described.