The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
Uncle Silas
J. Sheridan Le Fanu Collection
>
Uncle Silas:Week 3 - Ch. 15-21
I'm thinking that the inclusion of the Swedenborgian element into Uncle Silas is a brilliant touch on Le Fanu's behalf.He doesn't go into any detail about its teachings or beliefs, he not at all explicit in the way Austin and Dr Bryerly interpret and practice Swedenborg's teachings. In fact, the only thing he really says about it is allowing Monica and some of the other characters refer to it along the lines of an 'odd sect'.
But, however, as readers at the time would have their own assumptions of Swedenborg and his followers, the mere mention of him and his sect is enough to make their imagination go haywire with either salacious or prudish thoughts (as well as Gothic thoughts of the spirit world, of course).
Le Fanu, merely had to just reference Swedenborg and sit back and let the connotations do all the work for him. Any sexual inference would be entirely in the mind of the reader lol.
I don't know why, possibly due to the fact that Maud referred to herself as a girl, I thought that she was presented as slightly younger than she is. So I was amused by the followiing:Knowl was dark again--darker than ever. My father, gentle always to me, was now--perhaps it was contrast with his fitful return to something like the world's ways, during Lady Knollys' stay--more silent, sad, and isolated than before. Of Madame de la Rougierre I had nothing at first particular to remark. Only, reader, if you happen to be a rather nervous and very young girl, I ask you to conceive my fears and imaginings, and the kind of misery which I was suffering.
Particularly the last sentence: Only, reader, if you happen to be a rather nervous and very young girl, I ask you to conceive my fears and imaginings, and the kind of misery which I was suffering.
Thinking, considering what is to follow in this tale of Uncle Silas, what parent would allow a young girl to read such a book/memoir containing such explicit details of cruelty (and of Silas's historical deeds)? It just tickled me, because of the author's/character's knowledge of future events.
I rather think that there was many a young Victorian girl reading this book secretly in her bedroom by dimmed candlelight!
I think I should have posted this piece about Blake and Swedenborg here instead of in the earlier section, so I have now deleted it there and repost as follows:-I love this anecdote about William Blake, who was inspired by Swedenburg:
'In l893 Edwin Ellis and William Butler Yeats repeated the rumor, noting that "It is said
that Blake wished to add a concubine to his establishment in the Old Testament manner, but gave up the project because it made Mrs. Blake cry." They then chided Michael Rossetti for accepting the hearsay and piously discounted its probability:
"...there is the possibility that he entertained mentally some polygamous project, and justified it on some patriarchal theory. A project and a theory are one thing, however, and a woman is another; and though there is abundant suggestion of the project and theory, there is no evidence at all of the woman.'
'From the evidence of his drawings [see below], notebooks, and illuminated prophecies, it is clear that Blake maintained a life-long commitment to radical theories of sexuality. Indeed, Mrs. Blake had much to cry about, as she struggled first to comprehend and then to collaborate with his theory and praxis. Blake's own confidence in his sexual credo was possibly rooted in his early family life, for his father allegedly associated with Swedenborgians.'
Blake argued, a la Swedenburg, that "What are called vices in the natural world, are the highest sublimities in the spiritual world."
http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/vie...
Folks may find this extract from a book on 'Blake's Sexual Path to Spiritual Vision' pps 5-8, which references Swedenburg, amusing, especially the references to toes:-
http://www.freado.com/read/2900/willi...
Mod
I agree Madge. Similar to our flashlights under the blanket. Of course no candle under the blanket.
I agree too, but I am inclined to think that some - if not most - would rather prefer to read it and such fare in some secluded place during daylight hours rather than at night alone in their bedrooms. I know I would if a young child.
Malcolm wrote: "I agree too, but I am inclined to think that some - if not most - would rather prefer to read it and such fare in some secluded place during daylight hours rather than at night alone in their bedro..."Depends on the child. I loved scary things when I was a kid...and nighttime was the best time for it!
Of course, which was my point.
A few random thoughts:- I had wondered if Madame had something on Maud's father, but obviously not since he didn't hesitate to kick her out after he found out she used her key to open his desk and go through his documents. Doesn't answer, however, why he didn't take Maud's earlier complaints about Madame more seriously. Maud never caused problems; you would have thought he would have paid some attention to her fears regarding Madam. It might have just been that he was so distracted and centered on his illness and impending death that he was completely unaware of what was going on around him.
- Captain Oakley's name comes up again in Chapter 18. Maud's obviously smitten by him, but when we first met him earlier, she talks about his cruelty. Looking foward to seeing what happens with the both of them.
- There's been a couple of hints that Lady Knollys isn't to be completely trusted (and now of course I can't find them in the text), but since Maud as narrator is looking back, she always seems to paint cousin Monica in a favorable light. But at the end of our reading for this week, I was surprised to read Maud's comments about her. She said that she didn't quite like Lady Knollys' looks and that she had a "strange smile; was it satire--was it that indescribable smile with which a mystery which covers a long reach of years is sometimes approached?" Maybe cousin Monica knows more about Uncle Silas then she lets on? She certainly was annoyed when Maud accused her of thinking that Uncle Silas committed murder.
One last thought - in the first few chapters, I thought this was a light read. It is for the most part, but it is becoming more complex. And while I'm not overcome with fear ;) certain parts are a bit tense.
I was somewhat confused by Maud's father entrusting her with the awesome burden of saving her family name, yet never believing her about Madame (until Madame invaded on his personal property), keeping his impending death a secret, and refusing to give her any pertinent information about Uncle Silas (who I assume is the object of salvation). I realize it is all for the mystery of the story, but it is still a little difficult to swallow. This is my first Gothic novel (if you don't count Jane Eyre, which is much more realistic as far as the actions of characters are concerned), so maybe this is par for the course.I am really enjoying the book though. I am surprised how dark and frightening it is. Creepy and hard to put down.
I think we can safely assume that despite being a magistrate, Austin is not of sound judgement. It may become clear that some of the main characters conclude this following Austin's death.I think very early on when Maud was chronicling Austin's history subtle hints of this nature were given. I refer to his failure as a parliamentarian.
With regard to his defence of Silas, apparently his guilt was unproven, so any attack on Silas is an attack on the family name.
It is Austin's own good name and his charitable patronage, which protects Silas, whose reputation is considered widely as dirt.
Silas, who pleads himself innocent claims to have repented of his former ways, and his highly religious brother Austin has shown him Christian charity and forgiven him.
Austin considers that the world - including Cousin Monica - holds unfairly a prejudiced and jaundiced opinion of Silas.
He considers Maud to be too young to be told of Silas' past as a rake, and need not be told about the accusation against Silas as it is unproven and possibly false. Why prejudice unnecessarily Maud's opinion of Silas? When she is old enough to meet him she can judge for herself (this is supposing that Austin would be alive at the time when Maud and Silas first meet). Austin's own good faith in his brother ought to be enough for Maud to have faith in her father's judgement and conviction of his own brother.
With regard to his apparent indifference towards madam's relationship with Maud. It is most likely that Austin dismisses Maud's dislike of Madam as the whims of girlish fancies - Maud thinks that she may be a witch; that madame makes Maud nervous; and other petulant and childish reasons not worth considering.
Besides, madame is an adult and she too has Austin's ear regardless of whether or not Maud has her father's heart.
Not even in this day and age do parents pander to their children's every 'whim' and 'fancy'. And what is a child's judgement compared to that of a parent, when father knows best regardless whether Maud knows better or otherwise?
I think Maud's reference to cruelty alludes to Captain Oakley being a professional soldier, where killing is an occupational duty.
I think in next week's discussion I can expand upon the reason why I think that Austin may be of unsound mind. However, others may have already came to the same conclusion and mention it before I do.
Has anyone determined Austin's status? I've been under the impression that he is a commoner. Does anyone think that he is a peer?
Please be careful of Spoilers folks! Does anyone think that he is a peer?
In chapter 1 Maud wrote:
'The only other person in the room--the only person in the house related to me--was my father. He was Mr. Ruthyn, of Knowl, so called in his county, but he had many other places, was of a very ancient lineage, who had refused a baronetage often, and it was said even a viscounty, being of a proud and defiant spirit, and thinking themselves higher in station and purer of blood than two-thirds of the nobility into whose ranks, it was said, they had been invited to enter. Of all this family lore I knew but little and vaguely; only what is to be gathered from the fireside talk of old retainers in the nursery.'
The gentry are commoners. The children of peers are commoners. The eldest child (or eldest son) merely holds a courtesy title. Daughter of an earl, lady Diana Spencer was a commoner when she accepted Prince Charles' marriage proposal. The same distinction applied to lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, (who later became Queen Consort, before become the (Dowager) Queen Mother - technically, she was a commoner who married into royalty). However, the children of peers naturally are aristocrats. So are we all agreed then that Austin is not a peer, only a rather rich member of the gentry?I was taking that first chapter into consideration Madge. But it was Maud referral to herself as an heiress which was causing some confusion in my mind (plus the fact that Maud/Margaret is a countess in the original short story). So Maud is an heiress due to the fact that she is an only child and will eventually inherit her father's vast fortune and estates seeing that their is no male heir for it to devolve upon.
And of course there was Maud's rather casual put-down that being French madam was impressed by titles when the governess was pretending wanting to have an introduction to lady Knollys, which seemed to confirm in my mind that Austin was a commoner because he held no 'impressive' title.
The 'Landed Gentry' are/were a specific class:'Landed gentry is a traditional British social class, consisting of land owners who could live entirely off rental income.'
'The primary meaning of "landed gentry" encompassed those members of the landowning classes who were not members of the peerage. It was an informal designation: one belonged to the landed gentry if other members of the class accepted that one did so.'
'In Great Britain and Ireland, and especially in England, gentry was a term used from the late 16th century onwards. The phrase landed gentry referred in particular to the untitled members of the landowning upper class.' (from Wikipedia.)
I think Austin Ruthyn qualifies as landed gentry although we do not know whether he was accepted as such.
Being an heiress is nothing to do with being a peer. anyone can become an heir/heiress. The reference to Maud being an heiress could just mean that she is heir to a sum of money or that she will inherit a title, which would probably come with a manor and land.
In the UK we have Life Peers and Hereditary Peers. Hereditary Peers constitute the nobility and consist of Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons. Baronets/Baronesses, Knights and Dames are not peers.
Life Peers are recommended by the Government for various 'services to the Crown'. The Queen then 'honours' them and they keep the honour only for their lifetime. Margaret Thatcher, for instance, is now Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven until she dies. (Politicians often include part of their former constituency in their title, hence Kesteven.) She is also referred to as Lady Thatcher.
Those who use the style Lord or Lady are not necessarily peers. Children of hereditary peers use special titles called courtesy titles. The heir apparent of a duke, a marquess, or an earl generally uses his father's highest lesser peerage dignity as his own. Hence, the Duke of Devonshire's son is called Marquess of Hartington. Such an heir apparent is called a courtesy peer, but is a commoner until such time as he inherits (unless summoned by a writ in acceleration).
Younger sons of dukes and marquesses prefix Lord to their first names as courtesy titles while daughters of dukes, marquesses and earls use Lady. Younger sons of earls and children of viscounts, barons and lords of Parliament use The Honourable.
It is very complicated and very archaic!
Yeh, I was aware of Maud's status as an heiress being an only child, but it would be doubtful that she would inherit a title upon her father's death if he were a peer, it would pass to his younger brother if he had one, or Maud would be able to apply for a special reminder to allow her to inherit. If, however, her mother had been a countess or baroness in her own right, then naturally the title would pass down to Maud and the heirs of her body. As you observe, complicated and archaic!
Mod
'Landed gentry is a traditional British social class, consisting of land owners who could live entirely off rental income.'
'The primary meaning of..."
Yes very complex. Makes me grateful that here in the U.S. we have citizens and nothing more official. I'm sure I couldn't keep any of that straight.
Mod
I agree with BunWat that the family holds a social position because otherwise the family name would be less important to protect, and Uncle Silas great supposed debacle would not have had significant impact.
I loved how the chapter where Maud's father dies calls it starting his journey. I'm sure that relates to his religious beliefs, but I felt it was so appropriate because it didn't give anything away on the table of contents.
Madame appears very sinister to me, and I think Maud's possible uneasiness regarding Cousin Monica could stem from her general nervousness. Maud is not sure, since Cousin Monica is new to her and has previously been withheld from her, of Monica's trustworthiness.
It was weird for me that her father entrusted her to better the family name when this whole time he has protected her from any information about what's going on.
I wouldn't read too much into that 'specific class', it simply means that they are landowners rather than farmers. The gentry are basically well-to-do commoners who did not buy themselves a baronetage which at £1,090 or something like that, allowed them the inherited privilege of titling themselves 'Sir', along with manorial titles if their lands entitled them to it, and the right to have their sons knighted at the age of 21, if so desired. Basically, James I wanted money for his campaign to settle Ireland, and one of his ministers suggested re-introducing baronets as a way of raising the cash. As long as you had land worth a particular amount and you were prepared to cough up for the privilege you could become a baronet. It avoided the measure of raising taxes too high for funds for the Ireland campaign.
Burke's Gentry was/is merely a directory to flatter this 'class', for want of a better word, of people, who were jealous of those who were listed in Burke's Peerage.
Deborah, the peerage is easy to understand, it's only the technicalities of marriage and death which causes confusion.
but it would be doubtful that she would inherit a title upon her father's death if he were a peerI was thinking of her inheriting a title from an uncle other relative because other male heirs were dead.
Bynwat wrote: It directly affects whether members of the family will be seriously considered for the positions of local power and influence which are controlled by the county gentry.It would also affect the marriage chances of Maud and any other members of the family, male and female.
The peerage system dates back to 1066 when William the Conqueror divided lands into manors, the owners of which came to be barons - many manors Greater Barons, less manors, Lesser Barons. The first peer was made by Richard II in 1377. Dukes and Marquises were introduced in the 14C and Viscounts in the 15C. Barons and Earls date back to feudal times.
Quite a few Kings created Peerages for political and/or financial advantage. Queen Anne, under the influence of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire) created twelve peers in one day to secure a majority for the court party! Some of these were life peers but it was not until the 20C that life peers began to be regularly created by government and not the crown. These are always barons.
I had forgotten to say that since 2000 we have also had 'People's Peers'(!!) who are nominated by the people from amongst those who 'do good' and approved by the Prime Minister on a supposedly non-partisan basis. theoretically you can nominate your aunty if she is a do-gooder:D. However, that has also been hijacked by the existing Lords:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/stat...
It is rare now for the Queen to create an hereditary peer and it is to be hoped that in the near future all of them will have to be elected and the House of Lords will become a Senate, thus improving our antiquated democracy where we are still subjects of the Queen and not citizens.
MadgeUK wrote: "but it would be doubtful that she would inherit a title upon her father's death if he were a peerI was think of her inheriting a title from an uncle other relative because other male heirs were d..."
Even that would be doubtful Madge, due to the laws of primogeniture, and Maud not being royalty where laws of matrilinial promogeniture may apply depending upon the country. This is why Victoria only inherited the British throne and not that of Hanover, due to Salic law.
And anyway, as younger brother, if Austin had died childless, his estates and title if he had one would pass down to Silas.
Perhaps you can imagine what a perilous position this would place Maud in, seeing that Austin had an heir who would pass on her estate at the point of marriage, unless their was a remainder or fee entail or whatever the terms are.
Ah yes primogeniture. Here is a nice little article on primogeniture in the British royal Family:-http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...
MadgeUK wrote: "Ah yes primogeniture. Here is a nice little article on primogeniture in the British royal Family:-http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr..."
That's a wittily written explanation of things.
BunWat wrote: "Malcolm wrote: "I wouldn't read too much into that 'specific class', it simply means that they are landowners rather than farmers. The gentry are basically well-to-do commoners who did not buy the..."Perhaps you may have to be British to comprehend the distinctions. Gentry or landed gentry is hardly a legal status.
I didn't bother looking it up. Just trying to convey the general gist of things in relation to Maud's position. Anyway, back to Uncle Silas. *Yawnz*
Madge, Brits are not subjects of the Queen anymore. We are now citizens, as per the British Nationality Act 1981. (The only 'subjects' are a category of people linked to Republic of Ireland prior to 1949, (I think thats the date) )
That's not strictly accurate with regards to the house of commons. A landowner could send a representative into the house of commons on his behalf, and many did so, who may not have the political acumen and oratory skills required for a political career. A form of political patronage.Austin refused his title after his political career had failed. The title would have been compensation for allowing Silas to be banished following his alleged crime.
A few hypothetical questions.Why do you all think Lady Knlly leave Maude after the arguement she had with Austin? She was worried about Maude's safety but yet she leaves Maude. It seems strange to me that after warning Maude to be on her guard, to think of Madame as an ememy, and not to let Madame meddle with her food, Lady Knolly would leave Maude. I also wonder what Lady Knolly knows about Madame that the narrator is not sharing with us.
The attempted walk to Church Scarsdale-- this was the first time I saw Maude's strength. She is scared of both Madame, and also of Church Scarsdale, but yet she completely refuses to walk to the Church with Maude. I believe this is the first time we have seen Maude stand up for herself. Up to this point, I have thought of Maude as a child, but after this scene, and her talking to her father, I see her as almost a woman.
Do you all think Madame knew what was going to happen in the field with Sir Lollypop? To me, it seems as if Madame was keeping Maude from running away. I wonder what would have happened to Maude if the gamekeeper did not intercede.
My guess is yes, she did know. I actually found that scene quite threatening for Maud as a woman - Sir Lollipop? It sounds like a sick joke name for a paedophile...
The book does say Austin refused a title. When he was trying to clear Silas's name they suggested giving Silas some colonial posting (i.e. get him out of the country as a form of banishment) and to compensate this they offered Austin a peerage, which it would seem Austin regarded as an insult.
I certainly feel that madame was in on it and that it was an abduction attempt. Lord Lollipop and Simon Sugarstick are definitely sexual innuendos. It's to show that those characters are vulgar types that attend music halls and the like where such humour would be common.
Mod
Why do you all think Lady Knlly leave Maude after the arguement she had with Austin? She was worried about Maude's safety but yet she leaves Maude. It seems strange t..."
Christyb - I think Lady Knolly leaves Maude because she was asked by Austin to leave. I do think Madame knew what was going to happen with Lollipop and I agree that it sounds like a sick pedophile.
Malcolm wrote: "I think Maud's reference to cruelty alludes to Captain Oakley being a professional soldier, where killing is an occupational duty."Is this a spoiler? I don't see anything so far that would suggest that Maud thinks that he is cruel because he's a professional soldier. At this point, she is quite smitten by him.
Please don't give away the rest of the book.
No, it's not a spoiler. It occurs when she first meets him. It's a logical conclusion with a soldier that the job entails a certain amount of cruelty - the cruelty of war.Handsome, elegant, with features almost feminine, and soft, wavy, black hair, whiskers and moustache, he was altogether such a knight as I had never beheld, or even fancied, at Knowl--a hero of another species, and from the region of the demigods. I did not then perceive that coldness of the eye, and cruel curl of the voluptuous lip--only a suspicion, yet enough to indicate the profligate man, and savouring of death unto death.
A romantic description of a war hero.
From what we have seen of the captain so far, I can see no other reason why Maud should describe him as cruel.
I haven't read the novel for years. And it is vastly different from the short story. In the short story only at the end does a nameless (I think) soldier stationed at a nearby barracks appears. I've only read up to the end of Volume I. I have forgotten entirely the intricate details of what happens in the novel. I have no idea if the Captain reappears in the novel in either Volume II or Volume III. I can only recall the central characters of the story. I had quite forgotten about the Captain, he being such an incidental by comparison to the other characters.
Thanks to Madge and BunWat for all the information on the landed gentry. I did my Master's thesis on class in 18th century literature, and even after reading book after book on the subject, I still was confused.As Deborah said, it made me very glad that we never had that in the U.S.
Malcolm wrote: "I had quite forgotten about the Captain, he being such an incidental by comparison to the other characters. "Since we haven't read the entire book yet, we don't know if he will stay incidental or will move to the forefront.
I like to look at characters others ignore.
True we don't know if he will remain incidental. But until this re-read I had forgotten that he existed in the novel version. My observation at comment 14, was in reply to your observation in comment 10:"Captain Oakley's name comes up again in Chapter 18. Maud's obviously smitten by him, but when we first met him earlier, she talks about his cruelty."
I was explaining why she used the word 'cruel' in her description of the army captain. It wasn't a spoiler. As I said, it was well over a decade since I read the novel last, and apart from the main characters (Maud and Silas's household) and main storyline I have forgotten entirely what happens. Even Cousin Monica I'd forgotten about.
All the events in the first volume (first 25 chapters) occur nowhere in the short story version, this is how radically different the novel is from the original version. There's even no mention of Swedenborg anywhere in the original version.
SusannaW wrote: "Madge, Brits are not subjects of the Queen anymore. We are now citizens, as per the British Nationality Act 1981. (The only 'subjects' are a category of people linked to Republic of Ireland prior..."Legally we are still subjects SusannaW. Here are a couple of interesting pieces on the issue:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4...
'Burke's Landed Gentry used to limit itself to owners of domains that could properly be called "stately" (i.e., more than 500 acres). Now it has lowered the property qualification to 200 acres (0.81 km2) for all British families whose pedigrees have been "notable" for three generations. In the 21st century, the term "landed gentry" is still used to some degree, as the landowning class still exists in a diminished form, but it increasingly refers more to historic than to current landed wealth or property in a family.' It was once a very popular and necessary book and if you weren't listed, you would not be accorded the correct status by society, would not be invited to certain state and royal functions, could not become a magistrate etc.You are right Bunyat about the owning a land being a prequisite for voting and being an MP, prior to the Reform Acts of 1832. From the 15C all male owners of freehold property or land worth at least forty shillings in a particular county were entitled to vote in that county. Those who owned property in multiple constituencies could vote multiple times; there was normally no requirement for an individual to actually inhabit a constituency in order to vote there. Electors were frequently bribed to vote for their landlord or his candidates and Catholics and Jews could not vote at all. Even after the 1832 Reform Acts a man had to have property worth at least £10 to be able to vote. It wasn't until the Reform Acts of 1867, 1884 and 1918 that a reasonable form of representative democracy was sorted out and even then we still had - and have- the unelected House of Lords:(.
Austin Ruthyn was said to be of 'ancient lineage', owned property, did not appear to work and was a magistrate so he certainly qualified as historic 'landed gentry'. As you explain, Maud could inherit via primogeniture if all the male heirs were non-existent or dead.
I agree with you about the family being more proud of its 'ancient lineage' than having a title. There are quite a few members of the historic landed gentry in the UK who can trace their family lineage back to William the Conqueror (1066) or to the House of Wessex before that but who are without a title and they regard themselves as being the creme de la creme. Titles are for parvenus's, like the Royal Family! :D
It has always been ownership of land which 'made' you in the UK, not just wealth. Which is why wealthy Victorian businessmen bought up stately homes, and even titles, from the impoverished nobility when the Industrial Revolution brought about a decline in land prices and an increase in non-land related wealth. This gave them an entry into society, as we see in Trollope's novels. Today this is reflected in the prejudice in favour of those who own their homes (or who have mortgages) in the UK, as against those who just rent. The latest form of class distinction:(.
Mod
Since we haven't read the entire book yet, we don't know if he will ..."
Lynm - Quick question. Are you a mystery reader? I always keep an eye on characters others ignore because I'm a mystery reader. A weak writer (no offense intended to anybody) will use that ignored character.
One thing to remember about Burke's Landed Gentry is that it was unverified. The compiler took as gospel what he was told so if someone claimed an ancient lineage he accepted it without question.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burke%27...
Also, my distinction between landed gentry and farmers stems from the 18th century and George III. He took up farming as a hobby, which inspired others to do likewise. The king's was known as 'Farmer George'.
The landed gentry called themselves 'Gentlemen farmers' to distinguish themselves from 'tenant farmers' - those who rented their lands and made their livings from farming.
It's worth bearing in mind that Maud's account of her family lineage may not be entirely accurate. It could possibly be part family legend. They could just as easily came into wealth and risen from obscurity in the time of the Tudors, for example.
One line of Diana, Princess of Wales' ancestors were originally sheep farmers.
Deborah wrote: "Lynnm wrote: "Lynm - Quick question. Are you a mystery reader? I always keep an eye on characters others ignore because I'm a mystery reader. A weak writer (no offense intended to anybody) will use that ignored character. "I read some mysteries, although not too much.
I'm not sure why I tend to look at the characters others ignore. It might merely be that the main characters are generally easier to analyze because there is so much information. Plus, there is less to imagine about them - they are usually fully constructed. But I can use my imagination with minor characters. Speculate if the author is using them to foreshadow future events, or will let them fade away.
And I'm not sure if minor characters are the product of a weak writer. I'll have to think about that. :-)
Mod
Lynm - With regard to the minor characters, I was referring to the mystery genre only. Some writers take the easy out IMO by having a minor character be mentioned, ignored, and then they are the who did it. I think it would be much harder to write a mystery where one followed the character yet didn't know he/she was the guilty party.
Mod
XVI. DOCTOR BRYERLY LOOKS IN
XVII. AN ADVENTURE
XVIII. A MIDNIGHT VISITOR
XIX. AU REVOIR
XX. AUSTIN RUTHYN SETS OUT ON HIS JOURNEY
XXI. ARRIVALS