Blogger: Mary Keeley
Julian Fellowes continues to amaze me. Loyal viewers are as engaged in Downton Abbey’s final season episodes as they were during the first season. No doubt the historian that was hired to advise and ensure the authenticity and consistency of every detail contributes to its enduring success. I blogged about what writers can learn from the growing phenomenon three years ago, here. Now, in the sixth and final season, I’m convinced the use of secondary characters, lesser characters and servants, is the primary technique that endears the Crawleys to viewers. Here is my case for the power of secondary characters.
Because proper decorum for aristocrats in the Gilded Age constrained them 
from expressing emotion in public, Julian Fellowes needed to reveal deeper layers of the main characters another way as they adjusted ever so slowly to the new ways of the Progressive Age. His choice to employ secondary characters is brilliant, and he does it masterfully. For example, Lady Mary could be seen as cold and calculating at times, an unlikable character, but her interactions with Anna, in particular, as well as Mr. Carson’s POV provide the right amount of balance. Fellowes uses one or both of them to give viewers a new glimpse into Lady Mary in almost every episode, a writing skill that draws us back each week.
The trick is to do it flawlessly, so settle yourself in for a few cycles of rewriting, editing, and polishing, but the end result will be worth your effort.
Secondary characters can be used in a few different ways.
- The assistant or companion. Batman’s Robin, Sherlock Holmes’ Dr. Watson, and William Crawley’s Mr. Carson are examples.
- The foil. This character’s purpose is to contrast, and therefore accentuate, the qualities of another character, good vs. bad, weak vs. courageous, corrupt vs. honorable. An example among Downton Abbey characters would be Thomas Barrow, the unlikable, scheming under-butler vs. honest, trustworthy Mr. Bates. Mostly, I wish Thomas would go away, but Fellowes surprises us with a twist. Thomas reveals a hidden caring for the family by crying, alone, over the death of Lady Sybil, and suddenly we’re curious to tune back in next time—or in reference to authors, to keep turning the pages, to learn more.
- The roadblock. This secondary character isn’t an adversary but stands in the way of progress that the protagonist desires. The way the protagonist responds to this character reveals something about him or her. A recent Downton Abbey example is Violet’s opposition to the hospital expansion that Isobel and Lady Cora want to see happen. Cora and her mother-in-law often don’t see eye-to-eye, and we’ve observed both of them using devious tactics to win their way over the other one in the past. But this season we see growth in Cora, who didn’t manipulate the desired decision and then showed genuine concern for Violet’s feelings.
- The antagonist. This secondary character is in direct opposition to the main character and whose purpose is to bring about change and growth in the main character. Famous antagonists, or villains, are Sauron, who fights against main characters Frodo and Samwise in J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, and the White Witch, who attacks the lion, Aslan, for protecting the children in C. S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
Who are your favorite secondary characters in Downton Abbey or a novel you enjoyed recently, and why? How did the writer use them to reveal inner conflicts, qualities, or the main goal of the main character? How are you using one of these types of secondary characters in your story? How can you use a secondary character in your novel to reveal something new about your main character a little at a time? This could be a fascinating discussion.
TWEETABLES:
Skilled use of secondary characters adds depth and balance to your story. Click to Tweet.
Secondary characters can be used in a few different ways. See how here. Click to Tweet.
Interesting subject, and though I never quite understood the appeal of Downton Abbey, your analysis is illuminating.
* The best use of secondaries of which I can think comes from a Peter O’Toole film, “Murphy’s War”. O’Toole plays a British merchant seaman whose ship is torpedoed by a U-boat in the Orinoco River delta in the closing days of WW2, and the remainder of the crew killed in the water by the Germans. The only other survivor is the pilot of an observation aeroplane that had been carried by the ship, who was airborne at the time.
* Murphy is picked up by a French oilfield worker, Louis Brezan (played by Philippe Noiret), and treated by a Quaker physician, Dr. Hayden (Sian Phillips, O’Toole’s wife at the time of filming). Murphy tries to convince them that the U-boat is hiding in the Orinoco, but is not believed; the doctor radios word of his survival to Trinidad.
* Initially quite ill, Murphy is glad for the chance to sit out the rest of the war…and very pleased when the badly-injured pilot is brought in by natives. But when Murphy goes to retrieve the beached floatplane, the U-boat, having picked up the radio transmission, appears in the river at the clinic, and the captain, to preserve the secrecy of his location, murders the pilot, thinking him the only survivor.
* This sends Murphy into a quest for revenge and into an effort to find and sink the submarine, and here the secondary characters come into play; the doctor, being a Quaker, is horrified both by killing, and by the irony of setting out for revenge when the war is so nearly over.
* The Frenchman, having been frustrated by not being able to participate in the war, is an enthusiastic accomplice, but comes to see that his fervour is really that of a poseur compared with Murphy’s brightly-burning hatred.
* The film was released in 1971, and escapes being a Viet Nam-era morality play through the complete lack of polemic in the story; you can understand the position of each character, and none are reduced to under-dimensioned foils or strawmen.
* The acting is superb, and the interplay between Murphy and Dr. Hayden is set off as a nascent romance based on respect – which is, I think the hardest basis from which to develop it. Murphy understands the doctor’s commitment to non-violence, while she comprehends the way in which his basic decency is shaping (and being shaped by) his need to avenge his comrades and friends.
* It’s a film I very strongly recommend; it also has some of the best flying sequences ever filmed, and none of them are CGI. They were performed by the late Frank Tallman.
* ‘Murphy’s War’ was based on a novel by Max Catto, but I saw the film first…and didn’t want to change my perception by reading the book.
And in my long-winded comment I completely (perhaps mercifully?) forgot to describe how I’m using secondaries in my WIP.
* Short answer is, I’m not. “Travels With The Dude” is the story of a Marine tank crew in Viet Nam, and as an M48 can only really be effectively fought with four crewmen (commander, gunner, loader and driver), so too can the story only have life with four main characters.
* While the characters are military archetypes (or stereotypes), they play roles in the narrative similar to their crew positions –
– The tank commander, “TC”, is the first-person narrator and occasionally bemused recorder of event; he retains the Big Picture, but doesn’t always understand it.
– “The Dude” is the driver, and the guiding intellect of the narrative, the conscience of the story.
– The loader, “Sonny”, is often used, through his brashness, innocence, and use of redneck malapropisms, to set up scenes and narrative conflict
– The gunner, “Biff”, is the baby of the crew, and often the locus for action, specific to his crew assignment.
* But this is a case of art following life, because these people were real, and their relationship is the story. None of us are secondary; none of us are foils, and I didn’t have to invent anything about them. I just had to respect the way God made them. and tell the story.
Andrew, It’s been years since I saw Murphy’s War. I’m going to look for it again. I remember the acting was excellent. Writers can pick up useful tips they can use for their own characters by watching movies or series like Downton Abbey that have masterful direction and casting.
I love fully three-dimensional secondary characters in everything I read. They change a flat, obviously fictional world into an emotionally satisfying experience that gives the feeling of real life.
*I’ve been writing a series of related novels with four completed and two outlined, and I’ve used secondary characters in every role you describe. A secondary character in the first played a key role in helping the main character sort through his spiritual confusion and arrive at a state of both salvation and successful romantic love. That secondary character became the linchpin for the next four through his relationships with their main characters, even though he was dead before three of those even started.
*In each of the five plots that followed the first, a secondary character became a main character or played another crucial secondary-character role. I hope the reader of each novel will want to read the others because they want to experience more of the secondary characters’ lives.
*It’s been extraordinarily fun creating the parallel world that all these people inhabit. The amazing thing is how the minor character seems to blossom into a major character in a sequel without me even planning for him/her to do so when the character first appeared.
I love well-developed secondary characters, and I enjoy when they later get a book of their own. I also try to write good secondary characters to brag on the hero or heroine or to tell them when they are being ridiculous. Most of my secondary characters help the protagonist, but I have tried to write some mean ones as well.
My historical period is a violent time, so I’ve written several fundamentally evil secondary characters. One political power broker was a minor secondary in the first novel and a major secondary in the second. One secondary character who appears in four novels is very Machiavellian in his approach to life. One of his sons, who is very much like him, has been both a primary character and a secondary character. It’s kind of scary how easy it is to get into the minds of the evil characters, whether primary or secondary. They seem to take on a life of their own as I’m writing. That’s probably evidence of the reality of original sin.
Satan was once an angel; and no character’s evil is as frightening as that of one who was once good.
Yes indeed, Jackie. Good point. A secondary character whom readers come to know and care about in one book is perfectly set up to be the protagonist in the next book. And the reader base will already be there, eager to buy that next book.
I don’t know how others feel (and would love to find out), but I’m put off by stories with the-villain-you-love-to-hate. I won’t read that kind of thing, and won’t write it.
* Creating that kind of character seems to be fundamentally un-Christian in that it tempts readers to baseness cloaked as a kind of righteous anger.
* There are certainly evildoers; there is an abundance of evil, and this does call for Christian wrath. But to create such a fictional simulacrum reduces what should be a harsh sacrament to an entertaining tingle, the titillation of temptation.
I think it’s a question of finding the right balance, Andrew. You don’t want to dwell in explicit detail on the depravity of an evil character, but you have to convey enough about the actions and motivations of the lost soul to have the feeling of reality in the struggle between the hero/heroine and their opponent who chooses darkness over light. Can any story of redemption be properly told without at least as restrained presentation of the unredeemed state? Even Christian thrillers, mysteries, and suspense stories must have the dark character as the opposite of the bright one.
It maps back onto the most fundamental theology of Christian salvation. Without recognizing the sinner we are at the core, we can never understand why we need a savior.
It’s an interesting question, Carol; I think that for most of us, the experiential nature of evil is through the circumstances of a fallen world, and not the ‘personal evil’ of a fell character in our lives.
* That might be at the heart of my avoidance of unredeemed (and irredeemable) villains; though I’ve met them, and have seem the Abyss in their eyes, I don’t believe that it would be right to try to give them literary life, because that would only dilute their malevolence into something that is fit for an entertaining beach read.
* And it is not that there is dramatic malfeasance; I think either Huxley or Orwell coined the phrase “the banality of evil”. It’s exactly right, and it’s what makes these individuals (those I’ve met) so worthy of prejudicial handling. Evil is their milieu, their ‘hometown’, and I don’t know if there’s a way to verily project that fell ‘ordinariness’. Thus the drama, and what I think is the wrong message.
There are no irredeemable villains, in fiction or life, although there are villains who may choose to remain unredeemed. In real life, even a cannibal and a notorious serial killer were redeemed followers of Jesus before their executions.
*I haven’t discovered the plotline yet, but the Machiavellian character who’s in four novels may yet become the primary in another where he has the opportunity for personal redemption. My husband says he should remain unredeemed to reflect the unfortunate reality of the world, but I started setting him up at the end of the last book for a possible change of heart.
Carol, excellent point that there are no irredeemable villains!
* The theme of personal redemption is an attractive one…witness Darth Vader!
I have never, ever, ever, ever seen an episode of Downton Abbey. And I want to so, so, so badly. Is it on Netflix yet? The king and queen of the remote at my home tried to find it for me once, but they said they couldn’t find it. 🙂 And it’s so expensive to buy … at Wal-Mart, anyway. It’ll happen! I know my oldest daughter will love it … she loves all things England … thank you, JK Rowling. 😉 She even has a fairly good accent going. (My love for Jane Austen hasn’t contributed in the least.)
*One secondary character in my current WIP is a good guy, and he likes my MC. But he’s a bit arrogant and his desire for selfish glory is revealed … which in turn brings out my MC’s heart, desiring glory for God. And ironically, in spite of himself, he ends up helping her meet that goal.
*I haven’t really been crazy about any of the secondary characters in the works I’ve read recently, because I’m too crazy about the MCs … and I find that secondary characters sometimes annoy me … just get back to the love already. 🙂
*I’m just really getting into the thick of things … and your post has given me a desire and encouragement to dig a little deeper … 🙂
HI Shelli…maybe check with your local library for the entire Downton series? We just picked up Season Six at ours. 🙂
Ooooh, good idea, Micky! Thank you for that.
Shelli, I’m intrigued by your description of your WIP.
I think the secondary characters are so important in what I’m writing because the love story is an organic part of the total plot, but not the total focus of the plot. I enjoy a good love story, but I like it more when it isn’t the whole point of the story. Secondary characters that add to the story instead of detract probably spring to life more naturally when the novel is about more than the romance between two main characters.
I see what you mean, Carol. That makes perfect sense. I hadn’t thought about it like that. That may be the huge difference between say a romance and a women’s fiction, etc. And like with my work … my MC is always trying to reach a goal … so the secondary characters are vital to move the story along. You’ve got me thinking this morning. 🙂
“…in spite of himself, he helps her meet that goal.”
* Shelli, that’s perfect.
🙂
I also wish Thomas would go away, but as my daughter’s Downton T-shirt says, “Haters Gonna Hate.”
*I have always liked and sometimes preferred secondary characters. Their personality adds an interesting layer to the story whether they balance, compliment or antagonize the MC.
*I once had a fellow writer suggest I “kill off” the secondary character in my YA. I was horrified and decided that readers would be too. I knew the MC could stand alone without him, but an important layer in her personal story would dramatically change. And so he continues to be the spark to her flame as well as thorn in her side.
I remember now my favorite secondary character in literature, ‘Pat Johnson’ from Nevil Shute’s 1944 wartime romance, “Pastoral”.
* He really fits into no category; he’s more the author’s alter ego, I think, than a foil to the protags, Peter Marshall and Gervase Robertson). Pat Johnson appears only three times (one of these by reference, and not ‘on stage’) but such is the power of Mr. Shute’s writing that few readers forget him.
* He’s the ‘offstage’ appearance, as faithfully as I can write it from memory…it is pretty close –
—
“Pat Johnson said that all maidens are mutts or they wouldn’t be maidens,” Peter observed.
Gervase forbore to say what she thought of Mr. Johnson.
Speaking of Nevil Shute, it always impressed me that he never wrote a real villain. Unpleasant characters, yes, but never one ‘to hate’.
* The closest he got was the Japanese officer who ordered the Australian protag of “A Town Like Alice” to be flogged to death. After the scourging, honour demanded that he ask if ‘Joe’ had a dying wish, and being an Aussie, Joe asked for a beer.
* The officer could not locate a beer, and since his offer could not be fulfilled, his code of honour demanded that Joe be given the medical care he needed to survive his wounds. That sort of nuancing is what makes Shute’s stories great.
Interesting tactic. The shock value of foil Pat Johnson’s declaration opens the door to highlight protagonist Gervase’s inner strength to respond.
And just for the fun of it, a secondary character from poetry…in this case, Telemachus, Ulysses’ son from Tennyson’s poem about the Homeric warrior. The character is nicely fleshed out, and given a skilful put-down.
—
This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the sceptre and the isle,—
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfil
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and thro’ soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness, and pay
Meet adoration to my household gods,
When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.
I’ve been trying to think of memorable secondary characters. I confess, these characters aren’t ones I’ve read recently, but they have stuck in my memory, for better or for worse. 🙂 Mr. Collins from Pride and Prejudice is the ideal foil. He’s everything Elizabeth Bennett doesn’t want in a husband, and he’s the opposite of Mr. Darcy. 🙂 The siblings in Dee Henderson’s O’Malley series all play secondary characters to each other. They reveal the family’s shared past, as well as insights into the main character of each story. And Dianna from Anne of Green Gables. I love the stability she offers Anne, and the way she shows Anne genuine friendship, something she’s never had before.
Mr. Collins. Yes! The 1939 movie version and 1979 Masterpiece Theatre version got him right as a kind-hearted but not intelligent man. The more recent dramatizations all make him mean, a twisted reinterpretation that I don’t like.
Carol, you’re so right!
* I wonder if trends like that play to the perceived benefit from a ‘catharsis of hatred’? That we seek out entertainment that will engage – and in a way, satisfy – our emotion?
* If so, it’s not a good thing. In the 1970s, veterans of the Viet Nam war who sought counseling were told to ‘let it out’…which led to an increase in suicides.
* I’ve got no problem with negative characters, but setting up a straw man to hate, to fulfill that darkly glowing desire…that’s what I think we’ve got to avoid.
Mr. Collins … he was so ridiculous!! 😉 Hee hee! I’m so impatient. Move over, Mr. Collins. 🙂
Excellent examples, Jeanne.
Great post, Mary. I’m a huge fan of Downton Abbey and hate to see it come to an end. It’s the perfect example of secondary characters. When I first started watching, I expected it to be all about the “upstairs” family, though found myself invested in the “downstairs” folks so quickly.
In my own writing, I have loved writing a few particular secondary characters. My favorite, so far, has been the adorable older aunt of my hero. She’s funny, charming, and calls everyone “honey.” In the manuscript, she helps round out the “southern” setting I want to portray. She becomes a fixture of the place and represents hospitality, friendliness, and even hope for a budding romance. So fun! Thanks for helping me think about secondary characters more directly. Will help with my current WIP!
I can’t wait to read that!! 🙂 She sounds fun. I have an older couple in my last MS that I want for family!! In real life. 😉
Isn’t it neat how we get to know our characters and really either love or despise them? Hoping my readers one day have the same reaction. 🙂
Teresa, readers will be drawn to the “adorable older aunt” in your book. Stories that contain a secondary character who is consistently good, loving, and wise are among my favorites to read, and I don’t think I’m alone in this. My sense is there is a hunger for an anchor figure who is honorable and good. Often that can be reflected in a more appealing way, i.e., less preachy, by a secondary character.
I LOVE Carson. Oh, as it’s pronounced, “Cahhh-sin”.
He’s just so proper and stiff. Yet, not rigid. Which is sweet. He and Anna truly do see Lady Mary’s tender side. But, ohhhhh, she’s SO MEAN to Edith!!! Poor Edith, will she EVER find a man with money and a spine? (I’ve seen all of season 6…muahahaha!)
In my first MS, the antagonist is the father of the heroine. He’s also the foil to thousands of people. He’s an unrepentant bigot and as foul a man who’s ever lived. But…in his most isolated and lonely hour, he becomes the catalyst to saving the MC. So he goes from a life of being second best and second choice, to being the last hope of one who is rapidly losing every shred of his own dying hope.
One tertiary character in MS#2&3, who is the Guy Who Smuggles Telegrams AND Owns The Livery, will be revealed to be a man who is a LOT more than what he lets on. As in, can do surgery. Oops, no one saw that coming, what with all the blood and cut-off fingers flying around.
Hello Louisiana history/Northern spies/running for their lives/the guy’s a doctor.
(Makes a note to mention this to her agent 🙂 )
A roadblock who strips another layer off the MC in MS #1, is a source of familial glue in MS#2.
I love using the same character to both bring healing and ruination, depending on who it is that he’s dealing with.
Again, MUAHAHAHA!
Jennifer, readers will come away learning much as a result of your vile antagonist character. No one is unredeemable unless he or she makes that the final choice. Secondary characters sometimes make a lasting footprint.
Jennifer, I like your twisting complexity of simultaneous hero and villain toward different characters.My antagonist who plots to kill his older brother so he can inherit more is remembered by his little sister as the sweet brother who played board games with her and taught her to ride a pony. There are many parallels in real life.
Mary, I see secondary characters as context. Just as smells and architecture and sound enrich an unfolding story, secondary characters wrap my protagonist and antagonist in an atmosphere that sets the tone for the action. When I do my final proofs to ensure that I’ve included all the senses in each chapter, I also ensure that my secondary characters are contributing to the scene and not distracting from it. Thanks for another great post.
Excellent point. I so agree that an important purpose of secondary characters is to provide context. Using secondary characters “…to ensure that I’ve included all the senses in each chapter…” How better to get readers deeply involved in the story than to activate all six senses.
I must add myself to the list of those who wish Thomas would go away; I can not figure out what they are doing with his character ultimately and it drives me nuts. 🙂 But Anna and Bates were and remain one of my favorite secondary characters on the show. As far as literature, Carl-Joseph from “Just Beyond the Clouds” by Karen Kingsbury warmed my heart and I have never forgotten him in this year’s since I’ve read the book. I won’t attempt to explain, he needs to be experienced through the story itself.
– As for my own WIP, I use two of the secondary characters to show just how deep my main two characters can love others, and ultimately how much they are willing to sacrifice because of it. For all the flaws of my main characters, for there are many, the secondary characters bring out what is best in both of them.
– Thanks for a great post, Mary! There’s much for me to think on.
You’re welcome, Melinda. I’m happy to hear the examples provides you thought for brainstorming.
From the very first Harry Potter book, Prof. Snape was my favorite. He was just so mean and droll and fun. I was so pleased as JK Rowling developed his character. Strange, but in Brandon Mull’s Beyonder Trilogy, my favorite character was Ferrin, the deceitful trickster who has a chance to be a hero. I absolutely adore these characters. Is it because they grow to be more than they were or are revealed to be more than they were? Perhaps.
Quite possibly so, Kristen. Doesn’t Ferrin and his chance to be a hero affirm to us that we can aspire to more too?
I think so. A glimpse of growth and second chances, like the book of Jonah.
Jonah is also a cautionary tale. Jonah is angry at the end because Ninevah repented and was spared when he wanted the Assyrians wiped out. We never find out if he repented of the sin of unforgiveness that was corrupting his own soul. Even the Veggie Tale version presented the ending accurately. Jesus said more than once that we remain unforgiven if we refuse to forgive. It’s even in the Lord’s Prayer.
Themes of forgiveness and how hard it is make for powerful narratives.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no character by the name of “William Crawley”. Possibly you mean “Robert Crawley, Earl of Grantham.
Barb, you are correct. Thanks for catching that.
I love Carson. Sometimes when my wife asks me to get her something I’ll “Carson” it and mumble, “Your ladyship,” almost under my breath. This does not endear me to my wife, but it is an accurate portrayal of my role as a husband and my Carson impression is fairly spot on.