Dameon Who?

I mean, a classic example would be the wizard in The Wizard of Oz. No one could say his reality matches the build-up. And, yes, one can say that even though he was ultimately very different, he served an intricate/essential part of the story

The comparison to The Wizard of Oz doesn't work for me, because although the Wizard turned out not to match his build-up, it made for an interesting plot twist when he didn't.  (Note: I'm talking about the movie.  I can't remember the wizard in the book.)  Dameon Edwards and Claude North didn't deliver interesting plot twists.  They just fizzled.  Or have I forgotten something else?

I guess I'm confused.    How can a character who helped bring about the destruction of the central character in a story be considered to have been a character who just fizzled?    That would certainly seem to be a character who served a major purpose. 

Imagine, if you will: a nameless character turns up and stumbles upon Barnabas's coffin during the day.  Without fuss or fanfare, he stakes Barnabas, notifies the authorities, and leaves, never to be seen again.  All in one episode.  Would you or would you not say that that character had fizzled?

I wouldn't. The length of their stay is far less significant compared to what that character accomplished. And if they killed off Barnabas, their involvement, no matter how short, would be a hugely significant contribution to the storyline.

OK, so we're looking at the same thing, and each of us sees something different.  Cool!

I think a character can perform some significant and pivotal act, but still be disappointing in that his/her personality isn't developed, or developed in a satisfying way.   Plot isn't everything.

Back in 1981, on General Hospital, Helena Cassidine (played by Elizabeth Taylor) aooeared in about three episodes and her presence was felt for a few years as she put a curse on Luke & Laura causing them a lot of heartache for a long time.

In the book Wizard of Oz, the Wizard is gone about a little more then half the way through and is never mentioned again.  Though his part is similar to the movie version.  The movie omitted the last 1/3 of the original story.

I think a character can perform some significant and pivotal act, but still be disappointing in that his/her personality isn't developed, or developed in a satisfying way.   Plot isn't everything.

That's very true - especially if one is speaking in terms of long term or even significantly recurring characters (meaning ones that appear in a goodly amount of episodes but aren't necessarily in for the long haul or meant to be the prime focus (like a Jenny Collins, Flora Collins, Mrs. Johnson, etc.) - characters that generally serve a purpose beyond forwarding/illuminating the story). But when it comes to minor characters (meaning those who by most soap definitions have been solely designed to appear in five or less episodes) that becomes much harder for writers to accomplish - and almost by virtue of their extremely short existences, they're there simply to advance the plot or shine a spotlight on some aspect of the plot or of another character.

When it comes to Claude, along with falling into the minor character category, he was meant to be a man of mystery, so it's not all that surprising that everything about him wasn't spelled out. Claude was a character who held the potential to answer questions about Roxanne and her relationship to Angelique and Tim Stokes - and in that respect he totally served his purpose. That he was instrumental in destroying Angelique was simply icing on the cake in terms of plot, but also very satisfying in terms of his character's albeit short personal journey, given his deep regret for what he allowed to happen to Roxanne. Maybe one might have wished to have seen and learned more about him, but the fact that we didn't doesn't in any way mean that he fizzled. Fizzled carries the connotation that a character appeared, had little impact, made little impression, and/or offered little information, and then disappeared, especially failing to manage anything of any significance. Claude was definitely not that type of character. And in fact, if one was intrigued by Claude enough to want to know more about him, apparently some part of him was quite captivating.

As for Dameon, one of his purposes was to be the first to tarnish the Great Myth of Angelique - the notion that seemingly every character up to that point had voiced that she was perfection personified as everything from Mistress of Collinwood to wife. But that facade cracked under the weight of the reality Dameon's appearance illuminated that Angelique had multiple affairs and wasn't even above instigating murder to dispose of admirers of whom she grew weary. And a second purpose of Dameon was to create suspense that he just might have possibly gotten through to Quentin that 1) Angelique was indeed back at Collinwood, and that 2) his life was in jeopardy (as one might recall that Angelique initially wanted Quentin destroyed because she blamed him for her death). Dameon follows through on both those purposes quite successfully - and particularly when it comes to the first purpose I cited, no one can say he had little impact. In fact, his involvement radically shifted the audience's impression of Angelique from that point onward.

Claude and Dameon are but two in a list of minor characters (i.e. Suki Forbes, Julianka, Garth Blackwood, etc.) who served their purposes, and served their purposes well...


Now, if anyone wants to talk about a character who may not have served much purpose - one who is quite possibly the ultimate DS fizzled character completely irrespective to length of stay because he had little impact, made little impression, offered little information, and then disappeared, especially failing to manage anything of any significance - then one should look no further than starting a discussion about Harry Johnson.    But then, we can thank Norma Curtis' infatuation with Craig Slocum for him.    (Apparently the Curtises had questionable taste when it came to the sort of actors who appealed to them enough to want to see characters created for them.  )

Well, okay.   "Fizzled" is vague and hard to rebut.   It could mean anything.    Everything you say makes sense, though.    As for me, I didn't know he was going to turn out to be a minor character, because they kept building up our expectations.     And when men of mystery appear on TV shows, or in books, etc., eventually the mysteries are solved by the end, usually anyway.   That's why we stay tuned.    Plot mysteries were solved, but as for CN's personal backstory, he disappears in a puff of smoke (not literally... I forget his end) and that's it.

If he'd just been some guy, it wouldn't have mattered, but they drew us in with the frequent mantions of the name with that air of importance, and he had this "presence" and delivery...

I didn't know he was going to turn out to be a minor character

It's certainly true that we didn't know exactly when it was going to happen, but as the body count of major characters began to pile up during Claude's time, it was increasingly apparent to those familiar with the way DS operated that 1970PT was racing toward its conclusion. 

And when men of mystery appear on TV shows, or in books, etc., eventually the mysteries are solved by the end, usually anyway.   That's why we stay tuned.

Well, Claude's history is revealed reasonably enough, at least as far as it pertains to the events of 1970PT:

[spoiler]He apparently knew enough about the Occult to harness some of its powers, he apparently thought nothing of using them on and/or in conjuction with his psychic girlfriend Roxanne, but at the same time he was willing to hand her over to Stokes in exchange for money. On that last point all I have to say is, "What a winner!"  [/spoiler]

CN's personal backstory

Sadly there wasn't enough time for that. What might have been really interesting may have been if he'd arrived sooner, like, say, shortly after Roxanne was discovered. But alas...

he disappears in a puff of smoke (not literally... I forget his end) and that's it.

[spoiler]Tim Stokes killed Claude for his betrayal of making Roxanne speak and thus destroying Angelique.[/spoiler]

If he'd just been some guy, it wouldn't have mattered, but they drew us in with the frequent mantions of the name with that air of importance, and he had this "presence" and delivery...

Sometimes short term characters are built up specifically so that their deaths are that much more shocking - especially when there's no clue whatsoever within the story that they're going to be short term. It's a common writing device.
(And quite honestly, I still have yet to get over the death of Neal Keller Alcott (played by the beautiful and talented Mary Kay Adams) on ATWT all the way back in '93.    Longtime ATWT fans will know what I'm talking about...)

there are lots of very interesting and valid points and counterpoints being made here but i'll add this if i may.

suki forbes and julianka were indeed minor characters but for me they created something memorable and unique during their brief stays on the show.

claude and demeon not so much...

true were both pivotal to the plot of the parallel-time storyline but for they they didn't create a lasting impression given the big buildup they both got(again all i can recall about demeon is that leisure suit).

for such a short storyline most of the actors involved really created something unique with the parts they were given...hoffman,angelique/alexis,carolyn,willie,roger,buffie,stokes and even the silent,slab-bound roxanne were all much more successful as characters for me.

suki forbes and julianka were indeed minor characters but for me they created something memorable and unique during their brief stays on the show.

claude and demeon not so much...

true were both pivotal to the plot of the parallel-time storyline but for they they didn't create a lasting impression given the big buildup they both got(again all i can recall about demeon is that leisure suit).

Oh, even though the importance that Claude and Dameon played in terms of the 1970PT storyline is irrefutable, I completely agree Suki and Julianka were more memorable. Both were lucky enough to be featured in some of DS most classic moments. Though, interestingly enough, their portrayers have their many detractors in fandom (Diana Divila in particular). Go Figure. And as far as Claude North's Brian Sturdivant, there's a whole cult in DS fandom that practically worships him almost purely based on Claude and to a lesser degree the bellboy in Leviathans. Fandom is truly a diverse group, and apparently the show provided something for everyone. 

However, how about Claude and Dameon up against Constable Carter - or Richard Garner - or Laszlo? 

Or how about the all important question: How about Claude and Dameon up against Harry Johnson (who, almost too hard to be believed, was in more than double the episodes of Claude and Dameon added together)? Save for one moment [spoiler]pouring the poison in Joe's medicine[/spoiler] to my mind he could be edited out of every episode he appeared in and it wouldn't change the storylines one iota. [spoiler]Though with some creative editing the fact that Joe's medicine had been poisoned could probably be conveyed quite clearly without ever referring to how it actually got there.[/spoiler]However, again, some certainly see something in Harry because Craig Slocum is also someone who has a DS cult that practically worships him - and worships him based mostly on Harry - not Noah, who might be more understandable given his place in the 1795/96 storyline. But again, there's obviously something for everyone...

I wonder just what causes the characters of Dameon and Claude to be so forgettable - meaning forgetting their whole purposes.  Obviously, most everyone knows who they were, but several of us just could not recall, even after seeing the storylines several times (and the reasons for their existences discussed here previously but even that was forgotten), what they were all about.  In my case, I think it has to do with - at least to me - both of them being so unlikeable.  Many of the other minor characters, from Suki to Julianka to Garth, et. al., had something about them that made them likeable to some degree.  Even annoying Harry Johnson came off as a misplaced Gilligan which can be rather enjoyable.  Dameon simply bugged me and as for Claude - well, I'm surprised that his girlfriend didn't take care of his business before you-know-who did - he was just so gull darn aggravating.  It would've been wonderful if some character had brusquely told him to shut up.

Gerard

CN's name sounded too strange and awkward coming out of Barnabas's mouth, and he said it a lot.   Maybe I, like WC Fields, just dislike the name "Claude".   Death's bellboy eh?  Have to watch for that.   

I like hearing about these improbable cults within the DS cult, for individual actors.    I want there to be one for the guy Tate sketched into being who never spoke and lasted a few hours only, I think.    Or maybe the ghost whose hand was used as the counterfeit Petofi hand to fool the gypsies.   Or PT Gerard.    I have it-- Gordon Russell as the second coachman in the last episode!

Julianka I like, but I'm in the minority.

Dameon Edwards is a character who almost seems to be a placeholder, there simply to keep the show going while the A team is off doing the movie. It would have been interesting to see how his relationship with Angelique evolved and why she felt it necessary to have him killed.

Claude North is given a major buildup. We're led to believe that this character is a powerful magus, much like Nicholas Blair or Count Petofi. Which is not what we saw on screen. Sturdivant is miscast and does not come across as an antagonist worthy of Barnabas or Stokes. Roxanne should have been able to take him on!

It's probably for the best that the story was ended so quickly.