OOC vs. uncharacteristic

[tielan]

Can a character ever be 'out of character' in canon - or only do things that are 'uncharacteristic' of them?

Surely, if the character has canonically done something, then - barring possession or another controlling influence - it's not "out of character" for them, since a person cannot be 'out of character' in and of themselves. If they perform an act, then no matter how outlandish that act is, they must have had it in them to do - given character development and circumstance, of course. But people grow and change - much as we don't want them to. Is it so hard for us to accept that characters do the same?

Anyone see what I'm getting at or have I made no sense?

In short, out-of-character suggests that there is a circle drawn in the sand: anything within that circle is 'in character', anything that is outside that circle is 'out of character'.

By comparison, uncharacteristic means that there's a kind of scale of behaviours, with behaviours and characteristics exhibited by the person being clustered together in the same area. A behaviour that is in an area far-distant from the behaviour cluster of the person/character is 'uncharacteristic' of them.

If I have made sense, does anyone have thoughts on this matter?

--

*waves to purple_cube and carolyn_claire*

Good to see you! (In purple_cube's case: Welcome back!)

Comments

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

It makes sense, don't worry. :)

I think a lot of the time we just don't make the distinction. Possibly because we haven't thought about it that much.

You have a valid point though.

[tielan]

*wipes brow*

Phew!

Yes, I think about these things...

[missyvortexdv.livejournal.com]

I think people tend to use the term OOC instead of uncharacteristic, not thinking about the distinction between the two, but I do believe a character can do something actually OOC, when it's uncharacteristic to such a degree it simply does not fit with all that has been provided. Of course, there's a danger of using that term when perhaps we can't see all the factors, but that would depend on how clear cut the character is written.

I reckon OOC is best used for when an action is either written because of possession etc OR when it's transparently the writers using it to make things so without showing us so. It's a trick I don't like writers doing and I cringe when I occasionally see it on a favourite show, usually however it's excusable for the lack of time but sometimes it backfires and just comes off as blatantly OOC because we have no reason to believe what is suddenly canon. Even so it's obviously a matter of opinion.

It's hard to discuss this without an example, though the best one I can think of is for The 4400 and I've no clue if you even watch that.

[tielan]

Of course, there's a danger of using that term when perhaps we can't see all the factors

I guess that's the question, though - do we ever - in life or fiction - see all the factors?

[missyvortexdv.livejournal.com]

In life, I'm betting not, we probably don't even fully understand our own motivations half the time or more. In fiction it depends on if we've got the writing saying yes, we've shown you everything necessary or if the character is written so clear cut that all factors are meant to be evident. But yes, even in fiction it's hard to say what's motivating a character because we're missing a lot of data, so to speak, about their life.

Generally speaking, unless it's written as a mystery or something held back for later, it's fair to assume a certain set of behaviours and motivations as characteristic by which you can judge what's uncharacteristic, or seemingly so. And I still think after a certain degree, uncharacteristic does become OOC. It's just further muddled by viewers/fans perceptions of what makes a character. Maybe things only look OOC sometimes because writers forget we don't know everything they intend to suggest about a character that is a driving motivation.

If we simply accept never being able to know all factors then we could never say anything was OOC, or even what was characteristic, so it really does have to be based on what you can currently reasonably deduce makes a character (with leeway for differing interpretations) and how much the behaviour differs, and if it can be explained logically as an extension of old behaviours with an unknown cause. And now I'm wondering if that last bit makes sense... if not sorry, though there is something I'm trying to work my head around there if you get it at all.

[rhianona]

I agree with your delineation of the two; they are distinct and separate. To go with a SGA example, I think you can say that Elizabeth and John were acting "out of character" when they were possessed in The Long Goodbye (or whatever that episode was when the download the alien consciences). OTOH, I would say that when John was evolving into the bug, he was acting uncharacteristic to his normal behavior. I think it's difficult to see in fic though, because, and this is especially true in SGA and SG1, we don't really have a full rendition of the characters. It's all based on our perception.

[tielan]

It's all based on our perception.

Which then prompts the question of the degree to which our perceptions meld with reality and how accurate that reality is.

[rhianona]

What is reality? When we watch a show, we're bringing in our own perceptions and life experiences. I try to write as much as possible in canon - but even then, I'm bringing in my own thoughts on why a character acts the way they do. Especially in a show like the Stargates where they grudgingly give us a tiny bit of information on the background of a character that might just explain why they act the way they do, what do we really know about the characters beyond what we see in an episode? I think its why its so easy to create fanon around these characters, because we don't really have very much. But even in a show like BSG, where we knew almost from day 1 some of the interpersonal problem and backgrounds of the characters, it's easy to have different perceptions of characters.
Maybe what it comes down to is how much the source material gives us will depend on how accurate the reality is.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't think the term OOC would even apply to canon -- do people use it that way? I may be misunderstanding what you mean, though. In canon, I'd be more likely to say "inconsistent characterization", and I've definitely seen examples of that. LOST is perhaps the worst offender I can think of, among the shows I'm currently watching, where it isn't so much that the characters show different facets of themselves, as the writers seem to change their idea of who they want the characters to be from week to week. Either 90% of the characters on that show are total sociopaths, or the writers just don't understand how to do complex characterization. Or else the writers think that beating a pregnant woman to within an inch of her life, drugging and lying to your spouse, or torturing people is perfectly acceptable behavior for a normal well-adjusted individual...

But it's kind of nonsensical to say that a character is genuinely "out of character" in canon even when they're acting counter to previously-established characterization, since canon by definition *creates* the character and their personality.

In fic, on the other hand, a character could be genuinely "out of" character when the writer takes them far outside anything that canon has presented as possible for them. Of course, characterization in an ongoing show is slippery and fluid and subject to change. Back in season 2, I would have said that Ronon hugging anybody would be OOC for him, and now look at him in S3.

[tielan]

But it's kind of nonsensical to say that a character is genuinely "out of character" in canon even when they're acting counter to previously-established characterization, since canon by definition *creates* the character and their personality.

Yeah, that's my take on it as well. I was just caught by a random comment from someone about how a favourite character of theirs was acting 'out of character' in a show. At which point I did a little headscratching about their definition of 'canon'.

I don't watch LOST, so I can't say, but from what I've heard, it's pretty whacked.

However, I fully agree with your take on OOC in fic, and the fluidity of character development.

[purple-cube.livejournal.com]

*waves back*

I have to admit that I've never made the distinction, but what you've written does make sense. Though I agree with missyvortexdv's comment about out-of-character plot lines - for example, I'd describe Teyla, Elizabeth et al as being OOC in Irresistible, but Rodney as being uncharacteristically considerate towards Teyla and Ronon in Tao of Rodney.

And completely off-topic but I may as well ask while I'm here: about the Isis awards. Is the maximum three nominations per subcategory irrespective of pairing, or is it three per subcategory per pairing?

[tielan]

Three nominations per subcategory per pairing.

So you may nominate three John/Teyla drama, three Teyla/Rodney drama, three Cadman/Ronon drama.

As I understand it, we just want to stop people from nominating a dozen John/Teyla fics in the drama section.

Incidentally, if you could see your way clear to promoting nominations for the Isis Awards? Quite a few people have fallen off my f-list of late, so I don't think they're going to get the notices.

I am planning a fic rec post at some stage...

[missyvortexdv.livejournal.com]

I'm actually glad someone asked about that because I and most people I know were thinking it was three per subcategory, regardless of pairings.

[agriope23.livejournal.com]

Let’s see…

To re-use your metaphor about a character being OOC, the line in the sand is definite and determined by the show. Meaning, for me, everything the character does on air is “in-character”, as weird or out there as I might think it. Deciding that a character’s doing something OOC is just not accepting what he’s doing or who he is and that’s probably what starts most arguments in fandom.

I also think the best shows are the ones where the line moves easily: a psychology is built, the characters grow and change almost without you noticing. Best example of that: Scully.

Uncharacteristic on the other hand is much more relative. I have had enough discussions with my sisters over the years to know we don’t all sum up a character on a show the same way, despite having seen the same episodes from the same couch. I think Teyla’s a perfect example: I have read so many fics where she’s either a prude or a liberated woman. Either could be true and we won’t know till the show stipulates. That’s where the room for debate is… and for fanfic.

[tielan]

Teyla's definitely an enigma! And I think a large part of that is the disconnect between who we visually interpret her to be, and who the character is shown to be in her actions/behaviour.

A lot of people seem content to write her off as "the boobs" of the outfit - judging her solely on her clothing. The irony in this is that they're judging someone else's standards by their own standards when the two have no corollary.

It's like preaching that homosexuality is evil to a gay person. The gay person doesn't see the proselytiser's POV (or don't subscribe to it), and the proselytiser is judging the other person's lifestyle according to their own value set.

Teyla might dress in a manner that suggests she's just the 'sex interest' but of all the characters, she's been one of the least sexual in behaviour. Elizabeth has the flirty behaviour, John has kissed just about every female guest on the show (as well as the two regulars), Rodney makes references to his 'affections' for Sam Carter in rather earthy terms, even Ronon was shown making love to his wife in Sateda.

And I think that confuses the majority of women. Because we're used to the corollary of visually-sexual = sexual in nature. A vamp dresses like a vamp. A 'nice girl' dresses like a 'nice girl'.

Teyla's a nice girl, dressing sexy...but being treated like a nice girl by the boys.

I wonder if that doesn't get under the skin of some fans.

Sorry, this digressed! Just a little. *looks embarrassed*

[(Anonymous)]

Unfortunately, the show makes it too easy to dismiss Teyla, or Ronon for that matter as "the boobs" or "the muscle". Ronon at least got Sateda but Teyla is sorely in need of her own ep. One that'll add more actual depth instead than the grey spaces we feed on.

I do think a lot of women stop at the obvious things about her and don’t look any further. Her people live in tents, she wore the funny clothes and was a victim of the Wraith who needed to be saved.

But I think she’s even more impressive than even Sam. I love Sam but she’s a geeky subordinate. Teyla is from a less developed civilization but she’s a leader, she kicks ass and she always speaks her mind. At the same time she’s patient, reasonable and discreetly smart. A “nice girl” who doesn’t look the part and doesn’t apologize for it. There’s a whole physical aspect to her (sex appeal and strength) that neither Sam nor Elizabeth have.

She is so complex and leaves room for so much interpretation that I think a lot of people just don’t bother with her, or even fear that those interpretations might mess with their vision of the show.

Does that make sense? What I mean is that John, Rodney and even Elizabeth are very set characters. You can imagine situations, feelings but in the end there’s so much canon on these characters that you can only go so far with them, only get so much “artistic freedom” in writing them.

A lot of fics centering on them end up being more of a way to re-live what the authors like about the show than anything else: the trademark John/Rodney banter, the Shweir flirting. To these people Teyla’s a false note, too much uncertainty or mystery. A good look at her might mean seeing Elizabeth or Rodney or God forbid John differently…

Did I digress? Must be contagious.

[agriope23.livejournal.com]

Sorry. Not anonymous, just tired.

[tielan]

Yes, that makes sense - at least to me.

And yes, most fanfic is just reiteration of more of what people want to see about the show - usually a special relationship between two characters.

I always thought that there was considerably more room to move on Teyla, Ronon, Carson, and even Elizabeth, than John or Rodney, both of whom are heavily burdened by set expectations of their characters. John is the Heroic character, Rodney is the Technical Sidekick - everything about the show becomes subservient to that, and everyone else becomes Victim, Exposition Person, or Helpful Assistant along the way.

With Teyla and Ronon, at least, the other characters become useful parts of a whole, not sidelines. Unfortunately, people don't really want new and varied things - they want the same old, familiar stuff. And the writers are unable to come up with a solution that isn't technical - or even a technical solution which someone other than Rodney or John suggests.

Which, unfortunately for us, means the John-and-Rodney show.

But, yes, I think you're right about both the uncertainty, and the unwillingness to write in uncertain ground - both on the parts of the writers and on the part of the fans. They're both guilty of senseless fear.

[eisenkreis.livejournal.com]

Without a doubt, there's a gigantic line drawn in the sand between 'out of character' and 'uncharacteristic.' The line only tends to shift when it comes to character interpretations, but I think, past all of the back-and-forth meta between fans, there ARE interpretations that are widely agreed upon as canon when all the 'fic-or-otherwise inserted fluff is pushed aside (re: what the show actually presents vs. audience interpretation).

As an example, Battlestar Galactica has, in its recent season, had moments where people have had a strong response of 'That is completely out of character' and the departure from the norm isn't really explained. It's usually where it seems like the writers are rushed and need to use a character to make a quick point about the overarcing plot-- in these instances, it's come off as hamhanded and confusing. When the characters have been uncharacteristic, the plots have been a lot more freeflowing, as, you come to find out, 'uncharacteristic' is a trait that's been exhibited but hasn't been front-and-center (thus, when you backtrack, you can see that the trait is there, just more dormant) but still makes sense in congruence to canon personality.

Rodney vs. Cadman in Duet, for example-- obviously, Cadman's behaviour through Rodney was completely out of character, but she provided context for it. Without context, OOCing a character isn't really writing a character at all-- it's writing a new personality in place of what's been established, which makes the exercise rather pointless. It's one of the reasons I strayed from fanfiction after a while-- the crack!fics were so out of character that I figured I may as well be reading amateur fiction about original characters. Makes it un-fun.

I hope that's a proper answer. c_c

[tielan]

It's a great answer - thanks! :)

what the show actually presents vs. audience interpretation

Always an interesting dichotomy for discussion!

I haven't been watching BSG of late - I have the eps downloaded, I just haven't watched them. (I'm a serial downloader, actually.)

Your comment about the crack!fics is intriguing. Lately, I've had a bad habit of writing crack!fic, and have wondered more or less the same thing from the author point of view. If I'm writing scenarios that bear so little resemblance to what makes the characters who they are, then shouldn't I just write original fiction and have done with?

[eisenkreis.livejournal.com]

Well, see, here's the thing-- AU and crackfic stuff can still be relevant to the original material without straying too much. It's all about finding the connections, and how said crack is presented. ;3 For instance...

If I can't see a pairing and think it's crack-like-- or it IS super crack-like-- that doesn't mean I won't read the 'fic attached if I like one of the characters. What tends to happen in some of those is that the author is particularly adept at finding the correct context in which something like that could work, where they don't have to manipulate too much of the surroundings/etc. What I don't like is when those pairings have no justification or even a lick of context whatsoever.

Though, I suppose it depends on one's definition of crack!

One of the things I have noted about your writings, and what ultimately lead me to add you on my f-list without any real expectation of being added back, is that you manage to surpass a lot of people in characterization. I admit that I haven't been keeping up as my life is pretty hectic, but what I have read from you, I've never seen as straying from the concept of a cahracter's personality. Then again, they've all been within the context of the series itself.

That said, if you'd like a picky characterization-whore's review of a crackpiece and I happen to know the source material or the fandom behind it, I'd be happy to once-over and give you a more critical review.

[tielan]

I might take you up on that.

One of my issues with a lot of crackfic I've seen is that...well, my perception is that most of it seems to be an excuse to put together an OTP in a different setting - without any relevance to who the characters are in the original universe, their background, or how they'd fit in.

Lately, it's been harder to write 'in series' characterisation, though - possibly because I haven't been watching the show that intensely, so my memory of the character 'voices' is fading somewhat. I may have to rewatch in marathon form, finishing off with episodes that I unequivocally love in order to get the voices back...

The difficulty with finding the correct 'voices' for the characters is probably what's driving me to crack!fic. Because I feel intensely bad about writing something that I know the character wouldn't do/say in canon and trying to pass it off as 'okay'. It's like condoning Mary Sue-ism or bad grammar or plot holes - at least in my head.

...but I'm not a perfectionist. Really!

[eisenkreis.livejournal.com]

You sound like me, actually. If I read through something I've written that comes off as heinously out of character, I get embarrassed and instantly take it offline. If I can remove any other instances of it without making waves, I usually take a stab at that as well. The only times I do post, I practically beg people to tear me a new one in concerns to characterization, since I'm pretty desperate to be able to write character voices fluently without too much self-insertion.

re: Finding the correct voices. Recently, I had to do a crack-like rare pairing for Babylon 5 (Lyta and Sheridan, in case you're familiar) and it'd been a long, looooong time since I'd seen the series. I'd totally needle-popped it when someone loaned it to me on DVD, so a lot of the details stayed, but finding the voices was really hard. It took writing some blurbs and snippets that were more like character studies than anything else, as well as viewing what little materials I still had in my possession. In the end-- WORK WORK WORK, alas! Muses get bitchy when you neglect them; sometimes you gotta prove to 'em you're still willing to go the full mile to show 'em all the love and attention only a 'fic writer can provide.

Drama queens, all've 'em.

One thing that does tend to loosen up the gears and provide an easy out for uncharacteristic behaviour is usually intoxicants of some kind, 'accidentally' taken-- or, alternatively, things like starvation or illness, as cruel as that sounds. Extreme situations wherein a character's personality is DRASTICALLY altered. Look up the psychological stages of starvation if you haven't before-- there's a lot people already know, but there's plenty of subtleties and alterations that would go a long way to pull a character out of their element.

... basically, do what the writers of a Stargate show would and just kinda... fuck with what you've got, to put it crudely. *laughs*

I'm way tired so I'll probably have a more articulate continuation of this that actually has a conclusion in the morning. z__o

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

Hello! *waves* I will explain myself. *g* I'm predominantly a slasher in practice, but I think of myself as bi-ficitional, having written a few het things. And I like to read good het, when I can find it, but I'm probably pickier in het than in gen because if have a big feminist chip on my shoulder about certain things, and reading something that pushes those buttons is particularly painful for me. But I'm always on the lookout for the good stuff, and, in SGA, the good stuff for me is Teyla/John, Elizabeth/Zelenka and Elizabeth/Ronon. I can also be tickled by some Laura/Rodney if it's done well. Anyway, I saw whoever that was (I've already forgotten) talking about your trials as a Teyla/John shipper (which I don't understand--okay, shipper wars, but, geez, it's RIGHT THERE, seriously, why the grief, people?), and I thought I'd friend you and offer whatever support/feedback/participation I could, because, yay, Teyla/John! I need to give my het side more room to run. So, here I am! Hello! *runs madly around your journal*

[tielan]

Heh. I come from the other side of the fence!

Predominantly shipper/genner, who's written a few slashy pieces, and (in Atlantis at least) is something of a multishipper. I have three pairings that I won't touch (mostly because of the fans), but the rest are open slather.

Yes, I saw saeva's post (she actually let me know that she was putting it up so I could have my name taken down if I was antsy about it). And, to be honest, the people who've given me grief over my pairings are mostly those who ship 'in opposition' to John/Teyla and seem to hold the (rather adolescent) view that "anything involving this pairing is crap, and all the people who write primarily for this pairing are crap writers...unless they're writing for a pairing that I approve of, in which case, well, I guess they're okay".

Welcome, and thanks for coming in!

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

That "won't touch it because of the fen" thing with pairings is sad. You don't see it as much in slashdom; some have said that maybe the friction is so high between 'opposing' shippers is because there's hope that their ship will be made canon, if none is, yet. I'm thinking, so what? The reason we write is to expand on canon, right? What does it matter who's getting shipped on the show? Slashers hardly ever get their pairings presented to them as canon, and they manage just fine. Maybe that's part of the difference in the way people interact. Hmm. But 'writing in opposition' to someone's pairing? I just...dude. Life's too short. *shakes head*

And I meant to say, re: in character vs. characteristic: good distinction, there. I remember back in XF fandom seeing people accuse the writers/CC of 'ruining' the characters, having them do things that were wrong, as if the fans of the character knew better than the writers who that character was. I was amazed. We receive the character from the writers, and then we play with them, dress them up, bend them to our will, whatever, but we remain receivers, not owners. Doesn't matter how much we love them or what we think we're 'owed' (I'm annoyed by entitlement thinking), canon is in the hands of the writers, and we work with what we're dealt. That's part of the fun of fanfic, I thought. And if someone can make a good, solid argument for why their alternate characterization could come from what we've seen in canon, then, fine, I'll go there. And sometimes I'll just go there because it turns me on. *g*

[tielan]

Let's rephrase this.

I don't write John/Teyla in opposition to any other pairings - I always liked John/Teyla better, or was intrigued by Teyla/Lorne or Ronon/Rodney or...whatever.

Mostly, though, the three pairings I won't write are ones that I wasn't inclined to write in the first place and the behaviours of the fans haven't changed my opinion on that score.

I'll happily write interaction between them - friends and only friends - but a romantic relationship is out for those three interactions.

*shrugs*

canon is in the hands of the writers, and we work with what we're dealt.

Exactly. And if we're dealt a bum hand, we do the best with what we've got. As a Teyla-fan, I can attest to that.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean that I think you do the writing in opposition thing--I hope it didn't seem like I did. I'm with you as far as finding Teyla/John the more compelling pairing, and I can't imagine writing a pairing for any other reason. That anyone would write with an eye to dissing anyone else's pairing--and, yeah, I did see that, now that I think of it, back in SG1, slashers bashing Sam and shippers making Jack just as straight as straight could possibly be, with protestations of straightness and all. I guess I do get it, but I wish it didn't happen. Still, like anything else in fandom, if wishes were plane tickets we'd all be sitting in our BSO's laps. Or in jail, more likely. *g* I have definite ideas about why I want to see Elizabeth with Ronon or Radek or Teyla or Kate and not John or Rodney, and I have a hard time seeing where those who ship her with either of those guys are getting their inspiration, but there are so many personal variables that go into our ideas of who works well with whom that I can't imagine having anything but a live and let live attitude about it. But I know that some folks don't, and that's sad. There ought to be plenty of room in cyberspace for everybody.

Some think that, because we've been given so little insight into John's past, we have more freedom to be creative, there, making it more fun. I think I look at the writers' treatment of Teyla that way, too--I have more latitude to play with who I think she is because the writers have done less with her. A rich mental backstory makes watching her more fun. *g* Writing from a woman's POV is harder for me, I think, because I have a fear of inserting myself and my issues. I would like to explore her more, though, so I should stop being a fraidy-cat and just do it. *g*

[tielan]

Ah. Sorry - misinterpreted there. After assorted accusations of being 'shallow' and 'clearly of inferior intelligence' for shipping John/Teyla - plus some recent comments that take the Stargate Atlantis Stupid Fan Awards, I've got thin skin about certain aspects of shipping. :-/

I would like to explore her more, though, so I should stop being a fraidy-cat and just do it. *g*

Yes. Yes, you should! *g*

It seems a lot of people find Teyla hard, but rather than start small and work up to the big stuff, they just dump her in the too-hard basket. I've seen some very good authors just 'give up' on Teyla because they couldn't be assed trying to stretch their skills and get into her headspace.

Which is a pity - both for Teyla as a character and for the writer as someone who wants to improve their craft. Assuming they want to improve their craft.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

That was probably me not being clear enough--sorry about that. As a purveyor of unpopular fannish opinions, myself, I get the potential for sensitivity. *rueful grin*

Teyla is such an amazing person, in my mind, that I'm afraid of not doing right by her, I think. I don't want to be the person who made Teyla suck! Er, you know what I mean. *g* I have fewer issues writing for men, I think, because.... I, uh, don't know how to finish that sentence without saying something insulting about men. Heh. I feel that there's more at stake, for me, when writing women, that it's more important to me that I get it right. It's much more personal to me, and much harder for me to separate myself from the character than it is when it's a man, because I'm not a man and they're very much the other, for me. So I flail, a lot. And, yet, I think I could do a decent job of it if I'd unfreeze and try, so. I have a story idea (stolen from a friend, heh) that I've been rolling around, one that I think would be fun (and that's what it's all about) that I'm going to give some time to. You've convinced me. :)