I am going to pick at the edges of what you just said above.
"Author avatar" I hear you brother. This is how I approach clamping my worldview onto the poor reader without having a main character finger wag at them. (which is valid - it is my story after all, and I would prefer you to think and disagree with me than not think at all) Hang with me - this is long.
Themes:
Many organisations have mission statement (which isn't quite a corporate goal.)
Mission: Ridding the world of the influence of Chaos, one neck at a time.
Goal: To chop 20% more heads off during this financial year.
A poorly selected mission statement is useless. The above example might be for a company that produces neck ties. The dream and the company capacity are mismatched. In this case, they would have been better saying "making daemons look more businesslike and less, you know, chaotic, one neck at a time."
A mission statement hangs on the wall until... there is a fork in the road decision. Even if it is a wrong and stupid mission statement, if everyone in the organisation applies the same model they can make wrong and stupid decisions together and discuss them in a kind of shared contextual language. Of course, if you do this and then lose your job then the mission was a crock and the suits were lying to you all along about blame free culture. But hey, you will still have the moral high ground when you tell the buddies you share your dumpster with about it.
A story theme is a mission statement. At any characterization / narrative fork in the road it is time to review the theme/themes again.
I don't always do it consciously, but I deal with BIG themes in my writing. Some might peter out over a chapter or three but others are the whole point. I just posted a chapter which is really just the beginning of a 2 book long thought bubble about what makes someone my "brother". Genetics? A common belief? A mutual need for community? A common enemy? If you are / become my brother, does it even matter how it came to be? (I like my themes to be open questions, not sledgehammer between the eyes pronouncements)
I am so sensitive to themes that poor Daughter of Bob had to sit in the car for 20 minutes today while I dissected the deeper meaning out of a half page passage that I had written for laughs anyway. See if you think there are deep messages when it gets posted in a day or two (the part will start with the words irretrievably domesticated)
Anyhow. To my eye, the characters give the plot relevance, the plot carries the readers interest along to the conclusion, but the plot is the vehicle which carries the theme. I care as much about the theme as the plot because my main interest lies in ideas.
The reason they made us study classics like "the Great Gatsby" and "The Bridge to Terebithia" at school was because they have straight forward, definable themes which make the stories internal consistent. The reason they are classics is because have straight forward, definable themes which make the stories internal consistent. I didn't really enjoy either story, but thirty years later I could still talk about the themes long after the character names and plot have faded from my memory.
I believe (in the usual "this is what Bob thinks, but you go your own way" way) that if you can step back and say that this story is about x in a thematic sense, then no single character needs to do all the heavy lifting to push the point. The anti thematic enemy fails (even if it is a non sentient force like ignorance or fear), the protagonists are put in situations where they can choose / not choose a theme supporting path and reap the consequences. The theme can be silent but still be promoted by having a "bad" character who prominently advertises the evils of being antithematic (eg an obviously "wrong" bigot is an advertisement for the benefits of inclusiveness). Suddenly you have a lot more tools in the toolkit, and it doesn't matter if your hero makes the speech, or hears it, or just feels uncomfortable with the answers they receive when they ask questions. The big idea gets expressed and the characters embrace it or fight it.
Here are some themes I am conscious of in my stuff.
God believes in atheists.
I can trust my brother, but I can't vouch for the number of fingers he might have.
Faith means you do what you hope is right, not that you sit on your hands and hope someone else tells you what to do - unless there is a twin tailed comet which is could possibly be construed as a sign.
Monsters are as monsters do (and its corollary)
The urge to conform / the risks of being your true self.
In Scalenex's work:
Here comes the destiny bus. In 30 seconds time you will be aboard it or under it. No, you don't get to choose which.
Massive endeavor alters the status quo by not a lot. Small people and small actions can change the world. Dammit. Now I need to pay attention to everything.
My life is s**t. Dang, so is my unlife.
In Lord Xhaltan:
I can see the plot rolling out quite nicely, but so far I haven't got a clear major theme yet.
There is likely to be some "Luke! Trust your feelings, Luke." and a lot more of "reality is not what it used to be."
TL;DR summary. Bob is silly enough to think mission statements are useful. Themes are the story equivalent. You don't need one (or several) but they can help give a point to the plot and serve as a tool to drive the author's conception of characters and narrative forward in a focused way.
Character voices (which I shall conflate with character types, because I don't have a clear conception of that yet.):
I recall a characterization discussion I had with Scalenex some time ago - he wanted to introduce another well educated and informed character into a already well populated narrative and he had already used up (these are my terms, not necessarily recognized ones) the absent minded professor, the unimaginative functionary, the religious zealot, the bored aristocrat, and Chekov's visiting scholar. As far as I could tell, his further options were limited to the short sighted librarian and the streetwise hooker.
For the record I don't know if he made a choice or just gave the lines to someone else. I hold out only faint hope that there will be a future chapter entitled "Candi takes one for the Empire."
Bobble heads:
I would take bobble heads to mean back ground characters without lines. It is not unusual to have 8 (or 80) characters in a room while an important piece of dialogue occurs. If everyone speaks it will be chaos to write and read. I think "audience reaction" to the words spoken is probably good to show the importance of the words, but throwing the spotlight on a non speaking third character might be clutter unless the story is about the third character and their reactions.
Compare:
"There will be blood on the streets tonight."
As Dictator-for-Life Calvin finished his rousing speech, the general mood in the secret clubhouse changed from unfocused anger to murderous intent.
Vs
"There will be blood on the streets tonight."
As Dictator-for-Life Calvin finished his rousing speech, President-and-First-Tiger Hobbes nodded vigorously and bared his long white teeth.
Option A - a valid general response. All individual tigers are assumed to be fully on board.
Option B - a valid tigercentric response. General response in the room is unknown but irrelevant.
or
Option B - a terrible indicator of general response. Irrelevant tigercentric focus detracts from overall understanding of the effect of the speech on the entire membership of G.R.O.S.S. Or not.
SoB comment: I have recently wrestled with a scene where all of the really important characters are in hiding and in a situation where they are being brought up to speed by other individuals who have witnessed recent events.
I decided to set the scene so the reader knows who is in the room and what they are doing (some are just listening, others have quiet background tasks) and then trust that the reader won't forget that they are all there. No one spoke or reacted unless I specifically required their unique perspective on the topics under discussion (the topics were Fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles. There were no R.O.U.S.s) One character gets just one piece of non verbal input. We don't even see his face, but it is critical to sealing the deal on a gag AND developing the universality of a major story theme.
The section was hard work and probably sucks, but the alternative was to spend 3 chapters describing the recent events which actually have no relevance to the story beyond the observation that "they were events that recently happened" and I would still have to have someone bring the main characters up to speed because they could not possibly have witnessed or known about the recent events themselves. In addition, there would be no opportunity to develop the relationship between the main characters and the newly introduced locals. The worst part of the "show don't tell" approach would be that the reader would never get to ask themselves "what the hell happened here?" and have an opportunity to be as surprised by the answer as the main characters were.
General apology:
I think by talking or by really slow inaccurate typing. Daughter of Bob had already reached her threshold today. You have all been very patient.
