Under-developed Characters

[MeadowR]

My first topic in years! 

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.

[The Skarzs]

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.

[Ashleg]

I thought the majority of the cast of Triss was underdeveloped and boring.

But that's my opinion.

[MeadowR]

^ 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 (?).

[Luftwaffles]

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.

[MeadowR]

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?!

[The Skarzs]

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.

[Ashleg]

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.

[The Skarzs]

. . . Which book is he in. . . ?

[Ashleg]

The book was less memorable than the character.

Sable Quean or Doomwyte?

[Matthias720]

I think it was Doomwyte. Unless it was Eulalia.

[The Skarzs]

So then would this character be undeveloped or unnecessary, since we can't even remember him?

[Ashleg]

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.

[MeadowR]

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.

[The Skarzs]

Headcanon born.