As someone who is new and still learning the craft of writing I wanted to share this statement someone made today because I don't think I agree with it 100%. It was no one on here. He said:
"Characters exist to further the plot. They are devised to fit the story. They are created for the sole purpose of inhabiting the created universe the author crafts."
I saw it mostly as a tied thing. But maybe I'm wrong. Just wanted to know other people's opinions.
I suppose I sort of agree in the sense that I did populate and de-populate my story world in order to give the story the right degree of realism.
EX:
An early version of a hospital scene was written with three nurses and a doctor. (And the patient.) Critique partners did not like so many people in the scene, even though it seemed closest to 'real' to me. So the doctor and one nurse were deleted, and another nurse remained but is no longer named. I was also advised that the named nurse 'needed to be in the story later' in order to make 'learning her name worthwhile.' I found that odd, but wrote a second scene for her later and I agree it is nice to have the re-appearance of the character later in the story.
EX:
The opposite happened in a different part of the novel. In the scene, I had no extraneous characters and critique partners felt the scene was too devoid of people. So, I added a man and his dog, and it works better.
...
I suppose a person could argue that setting, like character, only exists to further the plot. Or voice, or whatever. It seems like a silly thing to get too worried about, and generally I agree with you that they are balanced.
A person could argue that salt only exists to bring out the flavors of food. Maybe. But equally a person could argue that everything in a meal should be nicely balanced.