On Original Characters, Version 87
Oct. 18th, 2009 01:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
author_by_nightComing across a blatant Mary Sue made me think OC thoughts yet again. As did reading a question from a new writer a few weeks ago about how to avoid them. Besides, it's been a while since my last OC rant, no? ;)
The most important thing to me about an OC is that you have to realize the position you've put your character in. The book the readers have read has an established universe with established characters; you're adding in a newcomer, and the closer the newcomer comes to your characters, the more lines they are crossing.
I've always felt that the best OCs often did not affect the main characters, and worked within an established timeline. For instance, one Harry Potter fanficcer wrote a piece about one of his mentors as a young boy and a young man. This particular mentor was a werewolf, and in the author's story, she explored the werewolf who bit him. (This was before readers knew who bit the mentor in canon.) Harry's story was not at all affected by this woman's presence, and in general, nothing had to be altered. There were a few small things one could argue if they really wanted to dispute OCs even existing, but that's another argument. Stay tuned. ;)
It also worked because it involved someone who, in a way, already existed. For this character to have become a werewolf (I'm being vague because we find out he's a werewolf through a really cool twist, so I don't want to spoil anyone), another person had to have been present. At the time the fanfic was written, we did not know who, how, or even why. We just knew that at some point in this man's young life, innocent carelessness took a horrible, horrible turn because of another werewolf.
I think that OCs can affect the main characters and still be plausible. There are some other ground rules, however. Your character needs flaws. Not fake flaws, like clumsyness or having a fear of spiders. Real flaws that actually affect that character's personality, how they react to others, and frankly, how others react to them.
And then there's the fact that the problem with a lot of OCs, whether they affect minor, major, or main characters, is that they sometimes seem to exist to break established dynamics. For instance, the problem with a lot of Harry-has-a-long-lost-sibling fanfics is that we know who Harry's "real family" is: his friends. While he never states it quite like that, although he does at one point say he loves Hermione like a sister, it's how the books are set up. You have to respect established relationships and dynamics.
An OC also shouldn't render everyone so OOC, the entire story may as well be your own. If you don't like how the characters act at all and want to completely alter them... write your own story.
That said, I think that in the defense of OC writers, some things need to be kept in mind.
First, as much as I hate it when butthurt authors go "OMG, DON'T LIKE DON'T READ", there are times when they actually have a point. I absolutely cannot understand certain ships, but unless I feel the fic renders the characters OOC, I don't say anything. I will say something if it's one of those fics that makes a canon character abusive so the other character runs into the arms of the "better man", but otherwise, I let those writers write what they want. The same applies to OCs - if you don't like them all... well, either don't read the fic, or try and be neutral when reviewing. Never go looking for a fight.
I also feel like a lot of the "advice for OC writers" and Mary Sue Litmust Tests I've seen are possibly written by people who do not like OCs, maybe even by people who don't write. Even if that's not the case, they're often taken for gospel truth.I think that writers need to be careful, because honestly, your story idea is your story idea. If you want to be technical, most main characters are borderline Mary Sues and Gary Stus anyway. They have to be, because they are the main characters. Yes, Sherlock Holmes does solve every mystery he comes across - otherwise, the books wouldn't be about him.
One argument I really hate that is often used in OC essays and litmus tests is this: "Don't make your OC like you." Now, in some ways, I completely agree. The OC I came across today was named after the author, and this perfect version of her, apparently. That's annoying. But a character is likely to have aspects of yourself; after all, we write what you know. Even people who write canon characters will often choose the ones they can relate to, or give some of their characteristics to that character. The key word is "some", of course... a character who is 100% you is not a strong character unless you are writing non-fiction.
Last point, if slightly OT (in regards to the Harry Potter fandom): It interests me that people complain about "transfer student" fics not being canon, because while they're normally not very good, and the transfer thing itself is not canon... we do know that students may not attend the school in their "region." Draco almost went to Durmstrang.
I don't hate OCs as long as they're believable, and as long as I can accept them as a new part of a universe I presumably already love.
The most important thing to me about an OC is that you have to realize the position you've put your character in. The book the readers have read has an established universe with established characters; you're adding in a newcomer, and the closer the newcomer comes to your characters, the more lines they are crossing.
I've always felt that the best OCs often did not affect the main characters, and worked within an established timeline. For instance, one Harry Potter fanficcer wrote a piece about one of his mentors as a young boy and a young man. This particular mentor was a werewolf, and in the author's story, she explored the werewolf who bit him. (This was before readers knew who bit the mentor in canon.) Harry's story was not at all affected by this woman's presence, and in general, nothing had to be altered. There were a few small things one could argue if they really wanted to dispute OCs even existing, but that's another argument. Stay tuned. ;)
It also worked because it involved someone who, in a way, already existed. For this character to have become a werewolf (I'm being vague because we find out he's a werewolf through a really cool twist, so I don't want to spoil anyone), another person had to have been present. At the time the fanfic was written, we did not know who, how, or even why. We just knew that at some point in this man's young life, innocent carelessness took a horrible, horrible turn because of another werewolf.
I think that OCs can affect the main characters and still be plausible. There are some other ground rules, however. Your character needs flaws. Not fake flaws, like clumsyness or having a fear of spiders. Real flaws that actually affect that character's personality, how they react to others, and frankly, how others react to them.
And then there's the fact that the problem with a lot of OCs, whether they affect minor, major, or main characters, is that they sometimes seem to exist to break established dynamics. For instance, the problem with a lot of Harry-has-a-long-lost-sibling fanfics is that we know who Harry's "real family" is: his friends. While he never states it quite like that, although he does at one point say he loves Hermione like a sister, it's how the books are set up. You have to respect established relationships and dynamics.
An OC also shouldn't render everyone so OOC, the entire story may as well be your own. If you don't like how the characters act at all and want to completely alter them... write your own story.
That said, I think that in the defense of OC writers, some things need to be kept in mind.
First, as much as I hate it when butthurt authors go "OMG, DON'T LIKE DON'T READ", there are times when they actually have a point. I absolutely cannot understand certain ships, but unless I feel the fic renders the characters OOC, I don't say anything. I will say something if it's one of those fics that makes a canon character abusive so the other character runs into the arms of the "better man", but otherwise, I let those writers write what they want. The same applies to OCs - if you don't like them all... well, either don't read the fic, or try and be neutral when reviewing. Never go looking for a fight.
I also feel like a lot of the "advice for OC writers" and Mary Sue Litmust Tests I've seen are possibly written by people who do not like OCs, maybe even by people who don't write. Even if that's not the case, they're often taken for gospel truth.I think that writers need to be careful, because honestly, your story idea is your story idea. If you want to be technical, most main characters are borderline Mary Sues and Gary Stus anyway. They have to be, because they are the main characters. Yes, Sherlock Holmes does solve every mystery he comes across - otherwise, the books wouldn't be about him.
One argument I really hate that is often used in OC essays and litmus tests is this: "Don't make your OC like you." Now, in some ways, I completely agree. The OC I came across today was named after the author, and this perfect version of her, apparently. That's annoying. But a character is likely to have aspects of yourself; after all, we write what you know. Even people who write canon characters will often choose the ones they can relate to, or give some of their characteristics to that character. The key word is "some", of course... a character who is 100% you is not a strong character unless you are writing non-fiction.
Last point, if slightly OT (in regards to the Harry Potter fandom): It interests me that people complain about "transfer student" fics not being canon, because while they're normally not very good, and the transfer thing itself is not canon... we do know that students may not attend the school in their "region." Draco almost went to Durmstrang.
I don't hate OCs as long as they're believable, and as long as I can accept them as a new part of a universe I presumably already love.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 06:09 pm (UTC)A lot of Sues or Stus are meant to be adored by the reader sometimes more than the original fictional characters from canon. In other words, better than Harry or Hermione or whoever.
And they are not. They're obnoxious or worrying or nauseating or just kicking targets.
So that's weird and once again supports my idea that some fanfic works better as a window into the mind of the
typistwriter than as a story.Until I get to Twilight and realize that the real point may be I just don't like characters other people adore. :D
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 07:04 pm (UTC)Until I get to Twilight and realize that the real point may be I just don't like characters other people adore. :D
I feel like I see Bella as actually an extremely flawed character; the trouble is that that's not what SMeyer intends. But I won't go further than that.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 09:57 pm (UTC)I'm not really happy with 'the weird guy must fix the girl and that' plot anyway. I like a little reciprocity.
But authors sometimes don't see their characters as some readers see them. Katherine Kurtz was bad for that; she'd fall in love with her male lead, have him do things that made me scream "OHNOYOUDIDN'T" and justify it because...he's him and he's never wrong.
Wanted to choke someone.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-19 12:28 pm (UTC)I tried to imagine being in love with my male lead. It grossed me out beyond words.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-19 04:56 pm (UTC)She'd create these arrogant guys who thought they were omniscient (Adam Sinclair, Camber) lead characters and they'd do hideous things and she'd be all "Isn't he the ginchiest?" And I take the books to the used books place hoping they wouldn't notice I'd thrown them against the wall a couple of times.
It's almost as bad as when a historian sort of falls in love with her/his subject or a specific historical character and will hear nothing to contradict their own theories.
Or, shorthand, Anna Comnena and her dear dad. I felt so bad for her in between wanting to kick her.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 07:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-19 12:31 pm (UTC)Absolutely. You are who they come from.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 08:37 pm (UTC)You didn't even get into crossovers. Whole other set of complications (and fun), yeah?
no subject
Date: 2009-10-19 12:02 am (UTC)There are a lot of characters who are OCs in all but name. If I write a story about Neville at home and I write about Enid or Algie, then I am really writing OC's. If I write about Daphne Greengrass or Alice and Frank then I'm practically writing an OC.
A writer can make Ginny, Hermione into as big a mary-sue as any OC.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-19 12:43 pm (UTC)Agreed. And even minor canon characters like Tonks - we don't really know much about her. (And let me tell you, there's a lot of fics out there where Tonks is turned into a Mary Sue.)
A writer can make Ginny, Hermione into as big a mary-sue as any OC.
Oh gosh yes. And Hermione can be so obviously the author, not the Hermione we read about. I think some of that comes from the movies though... people tend to write about Steven Klove's Hermione, not JK Rowling's Hermione. Steven Kloves!Hermione is the sweet smart chick whose bossy tendencies were just a phase she quickly outgrew. I think a lot of fandomers think of themselves that way. Hermione of canon is not sweet, and she never outgrew her more blunt tendencies, although I think she softened a bit in TDH. But I doubt she softened that much.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-19 12:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-24 10:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-21 01:44 pm (UTC)I know I've strayed from this point myself - I haven't really given a thought to declaring Snuffles as one of my favorite characters, and anyone who knows me knows that I don't get into villains - but you have inspired me to do better. Thank you.
(Yes, Pottervirgins, "Snuffles" is an appropriately masked term.)