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.
Which part of it is an assumption?
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests