Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
OOCness—subjective?
Topic Started: Jul 25 2010, 02:57 PM (263 Views)
Allison
Member Avatar

Lame title, but I promise I have a point ... (Let's hope at least ;) )

Anyways, I've been thinking about this for a while now, but do any of you have one character where you're REALLY partial to your own characterization? Or maybe you're just protective of all of your characterizations of the gang in general?

I know I'm guilty of it to some degree—particularly with Darry and Soda. Also, I'm nearly 100% certain aero gets the same way with Dally, but anyways that's not really the point.

The point is I've been thinking about how all this relates to OOCness. I personally think what's out of character is really subjective, considering we're not S.E. Hinton and we're relying on our own perception of things (which can definitely make things fuzzy).

So ... does perceived OOCness result from authors being protective of their individual characterizations? I personally think it does to a large degree. Obviously, there are some things most authors would agree on as being OOC, but ... I also think what I'm saying has some merit.

Feel free to pose more question on the issue and/or disagree with me :).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatcoloristhesky
Member Avatar
Hey, Mr. Tambourine Man
I think it's going to be subjective no matter what. Like you said, we all have a different perspective, and we're not S.E. Hinton, so everyone's characterization is going to be different. But there's a basic sameness in each character that should keep them in character no matter how the author portrays them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Allison
Member Avatar

whatcoloristhesky
Jul 26 2010, 11:51 AM
I think it's going to be subjective no matter what. Like you said, we all have a different perspective, and we're not S.E. Hinton, so everyone's characterization is going to be different. But there's a basic sameness in each character that should keep them in character no matter how the author portrays them.
YES! That makes sense—more sense than what I was trying to say at least. Basic sameness is a great way to word it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
divine energy
Member Avatar
This Bird Has Flown
Agree with Mel. No matter how we perceive them, there are certain things that EVERYONE knows the character wouldn't say or do. So I think little things are just . . . there.

And you also have to consider that there's another side to some of the characters like Soda and Two-Bit. I suppose you can count it as OOC because it's not how they were described.

I'm quite partial to my characterization of Two-Bit and of Evie (even though it's sort of impossible to have her out of character) so yeah, it's different for everyone I guess.

I guess what you're saying Allison, and I agree. But I would find that any decent author knows where to draw the line, and yeah, some authors are protective of their characterizations to some degree, but also the OOCness is to a different level each time.

So yeah, I agree, but there's a lot of basic foundation to go on. I think it all relies on balancing their original characterizations and your own characterizatins. And maybe watching out on being toooooo protective.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatcoloristhesky
Member Avatar
Hey, Mr. Tambourine Man
divine energy
Jul 27 2010, 02:26 PM
And maybe watching out on being toooooo protective.
Yeah, I agree with that one. Since it's subjective, an open mind needs to be kept when reading stories.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Canons · Next Topic »
Add Reply