essay on the perception of OOC
Rahirah
Whether or not we see someone else's interpretation of that character as believable will depend upon the degree to which their trait assignment agrees with our own, the degree to which the traits their core traits agree with our own, and the degree of flexibility we're willing to allow in-context.
No particular spoilers.
Archivist's Notes: in any fandom, there is a perpetual kerfluffle over what constitutes “proper” characterization and what makes something OOC (out of character). I think this is a very astute viewpoint of why those kerfluffles happen.
Characterization! I've been thinking about this in connection with not just the recent kerfuffle, but several other unrelated conversations all over the place. I'm reasonably flexible when it comes to characterization. I've always felt that for any given character in any given situation, there are a range of actions which are 'in character.' Some are more plausible than others, depending upon the circumstances and the events which led up to those circumstances. It's the writer's job to convince the reader that the action they chose is the most plausible in that situation, under that set of circumstances.
After a certain point, though, the matter is out of the writer's hands. I'm not talking about 'correct' characterization here, but rather how people perceive character.
Most of us have an image of the characters in our heads, based upon both the bare facts of canon ("Buffy wears what appear to be designer clothes") the inferences, logical or otherwise, we draw from those facts ("Buffy must spend a fortune on those/Buffy must be buying knockoffs on deep discount") and the interpretation we impose upon both facts and inferences ("Buffy is a canny shopper/Buffy is a spendthrift.")
For each of us, characters are a collection of traits derived from the process above. Some of these traits are seen as more essential than others in defining the character - core traits. Setting aside the question of where fact leaves off and inference and interpretation begin (which deserves an essay of its own) whether or not we see someone else's interpretation of that character as believable will depend upon the degree to which the entire collection of traits they assign to the character agrees with our own, the degree to which the traits they designate as core traits agree with our own, and the degree of flexibility we're willing to allow in assigning given actions plausibility in the context of that collection of traits.
If a reader's core traits for Buffy are "has blonde hair," "quips a lot," and "likes shoes," then their criteria for whether or not a story portrays her in character is going to be quite different from someone whose core traits are "is a vampire slayer," "is estranged from her father," and "has difficulty connecting to people." We've all had the experience of reading happily along and running into something that makes us think "Buffy would never wear white shoes after Labor Day!" Sometimes it's a dealbreaker, if it violates what we perceive as one of the character's core traits. In most cases, though, after the initial bump, we're able to submerge ourselves successfully in the story once more.
This means that for most of us, writers fall into several categories:
1. Those who write an interpretation of the characters which corresponds very closely to our own. (Very seldom does one find a writer whose interpretation is identical to one's own.)
2. Those who write versions of the characters which may not correspond exactly to our own, but which are close enough to register as, if not our Buffy, a Buffy.
3. Those who write versions of the characters which are incompatible with our own in some major way.
4. DO NOT WANT.
I'm not taking the quality of writing into account here, simply the extent to which the reader's view of the character corresponds with that of the author. A better writer may be able to make an incompatible reading of a character more palatable, but it will remain an incompatible reading to some degree. Additional complications come into play when a writer is deliberately having a character do something that they believe is 'out of character' to advance the plot. (And many misunderstandings arise when a reader assumes that this is what a writer must be doing, when in fact the writer believes that the character is behaving completely in character.)
If the traits that you perceive as essential to the character don't correspond with those accepted by the majority of your fandom as essential, or if you have particularly stringent criteria for plausible actions for a character, you may have a rough time of it, ficwise. The majority of stories may fall short for you, regardless of how well or poorly they are written otherwise. One can, of course, promote a minority interpretation of the character through fic, meta, or other methods (I favor orbital mind control rays myself) but this takes time and is not guaranteed to be successful. (Just go put on this tinfoil hat, please...)
On the other hand, it's better than doing nothing.
Enjoy this essay?
Leave the author a comment on Livejournal
Plagiarizing fanfiction or reposting without permission is bad. No, really.