Little HP Questions Answered v6

[RinkyDink]

Originally Posted by PunkRockGirli

Would you consider Mrs. Weasley to be a main character?

Absolutely!

[latres33]

Does JK ever explain why Peter became the Potter's secret keeper instead of Sirius?

[PunkRockGirli]

Originally Posted by RinkyDink

Absolutely!

I ask this because to me it seems like she is as important as Peeves or Prof Sprout at the moment....which makes me wonder if she is considered to be a main character rather than just another character within the books...

[Sookie]

Originally Posted by latres33

Does JK ever explain why Peter became the Potter's secret keeper instead of Sirius?

Because Sirius thought it was the perfect bluff to make the weak and pathetic one the Secret-Keeper. Then when Voldemort came for Sirius, which he was sort of expecting, it would be pointless because Sirius wouldn't be able to tell where the Potters were. Sirius thought that Voldemort would never think they would trust someone so talentless and weak as Peter.

I'll find the quote from PoA and post it. *runs off for book*

[Artemis_Fowl_2]

Someone in another thread made the following statement without canon evidence.

Transfigured people lose their mental faculties. Animagi keep their mental faculties.

Do you know how he/she came to this conclusion? I find it hard to belive because Krum transfigured himself partially into a shark and must have kept his faculties to complete the task.

Thank you for your assistance!

[Gigglepoo]

Originally Posted by PunkRockGirli

Would you consider Mrs. Weasley to be a main character?

Nope. Her character merely follows the actions of other characters. She does not have any plot independant to more important characters. In other words, nothing would really be different if she wasn't around.

[PunkRockGirli]

Originally Posted by Gigglepoo

Nope. Her character merely follows the actions of other characters. She does not have any plot independant to more important characters. In other words, nothing would really be different if she wasn't around.

I think things would be different. But I do see where you are coming from- she isn't trully a main character-

[Gigglepoo]

Originally Posted by PunkRockGirli

I think things would be different. But I do see where you are coming from- she isn't trully a main character-

I didn't explain myself fully. I'm in a computer lab and the "A" key didn't work. I had to hit ctrl+v every time I wanted to use an A, and that got old rather fast.

To be a main character the story has to actually follow you in a way. Since the story is told through Harry's eyes, we see the world through his thoughts. However, we see Hermoine and Ron interacting with various people, their own goals and their own struggles. We see LV repeatedly try to take over the world. We see Snape doing whatever it is Snape does while Dumbledore watches over everyone. These characters have their own lives and are essential to the plot. Based on what Snape does, Harry reacts, and the story changes.

However, Mrs. Weasely merely reacts to what other characters are doing but does not actually cause any change herself. She has no authority and, because of this, the story never goes through her. Harry never needs to react or change his plan because of things she is doing. She represents the mother figure that Harry never had as well as a conservative source of action (she doesn't want any action at all because, like LV, nothing is worse that death for her. Did I really just compare Mrs. Weasley to LV? Uh oh...). We meet her only because more important characters interact with her, but her need in the story is one of symbolism. Not one with a practical purpose.

[PunkRockGirli]

that's what I thought! I was just checking what I thought because I'm theorizing with the whole new interview Rowling and all...its nice to not sound too out there sometimes. Thanks!

[Freaky]

Originally Posted by Gigglepoo

I didn't explain myself fully. I'm in a computer lab and the "A" key didn't work. I had to hit ctrl+v every time I wanted to use an A, and that got old rather fast.

How very, very frustrating for you!

Originally Posted by Gigglepoo

However, Mrs. Weasely merely reacts to what other characters are doing but does not actually cause any change herself. She has no authority and, because of this, the story never goes through her. Harry never needs to react or change his plan because of things she is doing. She represents the mother figure that Harry never had as well as a conservative source of action (she doesn't want any action at all because, like Voldemort, nothing is worse that death for her.

I would disagree with this statement in regard to Order. She is very much a key character here, because she is the one who is trying to keep Harry in the dark, doesn't want Sirius to tell Harry. She is also the first one we saw dealing with the effects of the war - i.e., the dying family boggart.

I agree though her primary role is that of giving Harry a mother, but I consider that to be fairly important, even if she doesn't have a plot line of her own.

[RinkyDink]

Originally Posted by Freaky

I would disagree with this statement in regard to Order. She is very much a key character here, because she is the one who is trying to keep Harry in the dark, doesn't want Sirius to tell Harry. She is also the first one we saw dealing with the effects of the war - i.e., the dying family boggart.

I agree though her primary role is that of giving Harry a mother, but I consider that to be fairly important, even if she doesn't have a plot line of her own.

I agree with you Freaky. She also has an effect on the story because she is they one who is always working to take Harry away from the Dursley's. She is the one planning to have him come and that effects the story very much. Things would be very different if Harry did not spend part of his summer with Molly taking care of him, which at the end of every year she tells Harry she is going to go to Dumbledore and see if they can have him.

[Freaky]

I just had another thought on Mrs Weasley - she was the one who came to Hogwarts prior to Harry's final task - she was his family, along with Bill/Charlie - can't remember which. So she was there to witness his return from the graveyard, she was there for him emotionally.

[Queen_Beruth]

Gigglepoo is right. I would break it down thus:

Protagonist: Harry (the only primary character0
Antagonist: Voldemort
Secondary characters: Ron and Hermione
Tertiary (3rd level) characters: Dumbledore, Snape
Quarternary (4th level): Arthur, Molly
Quinternary (5th level): Mrs. Figg, Bill, Charlie

Characters are not always static. Hagrid was a secondary character (near enough) in the first books. He has now been relegated to make way for new characters.

Molly is minor, however popular she may be with some fans.

[clawscall]

Originally Posted by Queen_Beruth

Gigglepoo is right. I would break it down thus:

Protagonist: Harry (the only primary character0
Antagonist: Voldemort
Secondary characters: Ron and Hermione
Tertiary (3rd level) characters: Dumbledore, Snape
Quarternary (4th level): Arthur, Molly
Quinternary (5th level): Mrs. Figg, Bill, Charlie

Characters are not always static. Hagrid was a secondary character (near enough) in the first books. He has now been relegated to make way for new characters.

Molly is minor, however popular she may be with some fans.

I'll assume your examples are not comprehensive otherwise your layout of characters doesn't make sense to me. But I definately agree the the importance of a character can change dramatically. Take Ginny for example. In book one she got like 3 lines. In two she had a few more until then end when suddenly she was very important and then she sort of drifts out again for a bit. I think Neville does some of the same things.

[Queen_Beruth]

Originally Posted by clawscall

I'll assume your examples are not comprehensive otherwise your layout of characters doesn't make sense to me.

No, those were just examples.

Ginny is a case in point. As we see (almost) everything through Harry's eyes, she only has a walk-on in Book 1.

Luna and Neville were tertiary characters in OotP, and were relegated - to the distress of fans - in Book 6, which needed to make room for Slughorn, who brings a lot of plot material together.

Dumbledore, rather a remote presence in the earlier books, needed to be brought to the front of the stage in Book 6.

[WaikikiWizard]

Originally Posted by Queen_Beruth

Gigglepoo is right. I would break it down thus:

Protagonist: Harry (the only primary character0
Antagonist: Voldemort
Secondary characters: Ron and Hermione
Tertiary (3rd level) characters: Dumbledore, Snape
Quarternary (4th level): Arthur, Molly
Quinternary (5th level): Mrs. Figg, Bill, Charlie

Characters are not always static. Hagrid was a secondary character (near enough) in the first books. He has now been relegated to make way for new characters.

Molly is minor, however popular she may be with some fans.

Proving the axiom, there are no small roles, only long, complicated titles for them.
For example, see, Quaternary and quinternary structures of native chromatin DNA in liver nuclei: differential scanning calorimetry, by Nicolini, et al.

I did...now me brain hurts...

[horcrux4]

Originally Posted by WaikikiWizard

Proving the axiom, there are no small roles, only long, complicated titles for them.
For example, see, Quaternary and quinternary structures of native chromatin DNA in liver nuclei: differential scanning calorimetry, by Nicolini, et al.

I did...now me brain hurts...

My brain hurts just looking at that!!

I see Harry as the principal character, then Ron & Hermione, then Snape & Dumbledore, then everyone else! With Voldemort hanging over them all like a monstrous bat!

[Alastor]

As interesting a question who is a major character and who is not may be, I don't see how we could find an answer of the kind this thread is supposed to be about. What counts is how Jo sees it. And that's a thing we don't know.

This thread is more about questions that can be answered with information based on canonical evidence.

[Sookie]

Because Sirius thought it was the perfect bluff to make the weak and pathetic one the Secret-Keeper. Then when Voldemort came for Sirius, which he was sort of expecting, it would be pointless because Sirius wouldn't be able to tell where the Potters were. Sirius thought that Voldemort would never think they would trust someone so talentless and weak as Peter.

I'll find the quote from PoA and post it. *runs off for book*

Okay here's the excerpt.

PoA American Paperback Page 369 "Lily and James only made you Secret-Keeper because I suggested it," Black hissed so venomously that Pettigrew took a step backward. "I thought it was the perfect plan...a bluff...Voldemort would be sure to come after me, would never dream they'd use a weak talentless thing like you..."

Hope that helps.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by Alastor D

What counts is how Jo sees it. And that's a thing we don't know.

This thread is more about questions that can be answered with information based on canonical evidence.

Primary, secondary, etc., characters are standard terms with standard definitions. JKR is well versed in writing, and she seems to use literary terms correctly. This is not like killing off a "fan" of Harry': which was interpretted as meaning Ginny or Colin by many people!

That being said, a "main" character can be used fluidly. If you use "main character=protagonist," (as many people do) then Harry Potter has one main character: Harry. If you expand it to secondary characters (see QB's list: that is basically correct). JKR must be thinking along these lines at the very least: she used the term as a plural!

So,how as JKR used the term in the past?

Regardless, perhaps some sort of dictionary/FAQ could be established for this and other threads? I know that it comes up a lot, as there often is confusion over other terms like protagonist, antagonist, narrative, etc..... (I had someone think that I was calling them an idiot when I refered to something as an idiot plot!)