OOC

[shipperx]

Can TV and/or comic characters be written "out of character"? The question has come up a number of times in my years in the BtVS/AtS fandom. And, of course, the question of characterization comes up all the time in regards to fanfic. Yesterday, woman_of_ created a poll about characterization in the BtVS/AtS comics and there has been some discussion in her comments about whether or not characters can be written 'out of character' in canon(or quasi-canon). I have some thoughts on the subject (along with thoughts about how soap operas have ruined me) that I want to post, but I don't have time to do so at the moment. That being the case, I thought I'd post a generalized poll of my own until I have time to post some musings on the subject.

[Poll #1126751]

Comments

[pfeifferpack.livejournal.com]

My reason for saying yes is because the show and comics are a collaborative effort with so many "authors" who inject their on slant on the character, not always meshing with others.

In a standard book or play with ONE author there could not be an OOC for a character they create.

I think that is the difference (and the root of so many things that cause the viewer/reader to have those WTF moments in our verse).

Kathleen

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I agree that the fact that TV scripts and comic series having multiple authors is one of the reasons that the question can be reasonably asked. When it's something like a novel which is a complete work unto itself, usually done by one author it's such a singular thing that it's difficult to argue that something can be "out of character". When talking about something which has been built by multiple people over an extended period of time, I think it can become a legitimate question to ask.

[ladypeyton.livejournal.com]

The reason I said no is that people randomly act out of character all the time and fictional characters, who are just lampooning real people, should obviously be able to do the same.

Out of Character is often used as shorthand for "X would never DO that" but there is never really any telling WHAT any of us would do in any given situation.

[jerrymcl89.livejournal.com]

By definition, real people never do something they would never do. But they frequently do things you would think they would never do, because it turns out you don't know them as well as you thought. The same can certainly be true of fictional characters (especially in TV or comics, rather than in novels which may put you inside of their heads).

That being said, fictional characters, unlike real people, do tend to have a few defining characteristics that they really should never get away from. In six seasons, I've never seen Jack Bauer say a single intentionally funny thing. If he were suddenly written (during yet another national security crisis) as a quippy Whedon character, I would have to consider that OOC.

[ladypeyton.livejournal.com]

We're going to have to disagree.

[sueworld2003.livejournal.com]

Yep, I go with your take on that 100%

[typographer.livejournal.com]

When I say out of character, what I mean is "the author failed to convince me that the character would behave that way in that circumstance, bouncing me out of the story."

Characterization is part of the craft of writing. An author can screw up any part of the craft. It is their character and their story, and they have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean that everything they do is right, or well-done.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

This I do believe. I like to remember Douglas Marland's point that if an audience says that something is out of character, that the writer has failed. Not necessarily because of a character character took a specific action or went from A to B, but because the author didn't show a convincing argument for how and/or why a character went from A to B. It's possible to push any character to do most anything, but sometimes it takes an explanation as to how a character came to the point of taking such an action.

[rahirah]

Yes, exactly.

But technically speaking, in the case of TV shows et al. whatever's on-screen is what they did, so it de facto becomes a part of their character. If the writer screws up too often, then the character loses cohesion and becomes someone no one can understand, identify with, or care about. e.g. Cameron on House is, for me, a character who's been written so inconsistently that I honestly don't know who she is or what motivates her most of the time. But I can't really say that any particular action of hers is out of character, because, well, she did it.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I don't know though. Are canon and characterization the same thing? If a character does something, that is canon, but does that make it good characterization?

[typographer.livejournal.com]

And how is that different than what is on paper when one is reading a book? That's still how the character did it whether it is book or media.

I agree that if a character continues to be written/portrayed inconsistently, the problem becomes something other than strictly out-of-character behavior, but it isn't suddenly "in character." It's a worse form of bad characterization. Depending on how central said character is to the storyline (which is often a subjective call), what this sometimes does is drive me from the series--whether that series is television, movies, books, or short stories. "I stopped watching X after Y."

[thedabara-cds.livejournal.com]

I voted "other", thinking yeah, TV & comic characters can be written out of character in fanfic and still be believable, as long as they are written very well.

I only realized after I voted that you meant can they be written OOC in the TV show or comic. Doh! So I'd like to change my answer to definately yes.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

It's sort of a generalized question. Yeah, I posed it as "within canon or quasi-canon" but I'm not excluding fanfic as part of the discussion.

[zanthinegirl.livejournal.com]

Yes they can. Though sometimes that "OOC" could be defined as "acting in a way not consistent with prior behavior for no apparent reason". I think that's usually due to sloppy writing, but sometimes it's probably just that I don't like the direction the writers are taking the character...

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Though sometimes that "OOC" could be defined as "acting in a way not consistent with prior behavior for no apparent reason

I think that's a big part of it.

tired babbling

[tnmisery.livejournal.com]

They absolutely can be written OOC, especially if we have years of a character behaving x way, as in BtVS.

I'm not talking about a character gradually progressing, but suddenly acting like a pod character. Rarely do I like this.

I agree with the sloppy writing theory. If a writer needs x to happen to get to situation y, causing a character to behave in a completely OOC way is a poor solution for plot movement, IMO.

Now, OOC fic can be enjoyable, especially if Buffy isn't act like a raving bitch and Spike isn't being a damn doormat, which would, IMO, be OOC. ;)
I wouldn't be as forgiving of the comics, as they're an "official" extension of Joss's grand fucking vision, but I haven't bothered to read those. I have no knowledge if OOC-ness is occurring. But, if it is, then no, wouldn't care for it.