Characterisation and Canon

[quillori]

Further to a discussion elsewhere as to what counts as OOC, it struck me that there are a number of approaches to writing fanfic, each of which aims to a have a different relationship to canon, and that there is little point discussing appropriate characterisation without considering

Comments

[azdak]

I find myself thinking increasingly that there's no such thing as "in character" or "out of character", but rather that there are only well and poorly motivated characters. This is partly because I recognise that my interpretation of canon characters, as presented in canon, often differs widely from other people's; and partly because I will happily accept characters who seem to have used the canon character purely a as a jumping-off point, if the story they're in is well told and the characters convincing within that story.

I'm not even sure if there are certain fundamental characteristics that a character has to exhibit in order to count as "in character", since the way a person reacts in Situation A may be very different from Situation B, even if A and B have an awful lot in common. And all interesting characters have internal contradictions - and good writers will add contradictions if canon failed to provide any - so behaving inconsistently needn't automatically mean behaving out of character. They probably do need to have a kind of family resemblance (in the Wittgenstein sense) with their canon progenitor, but I wouldn't like to state in advance that this MUST include features x,y and z.

I suppose what it comes down to is that I don't mind all that much whether they conform to my own view of the canon characters, as long as they conform to my view of human beings.

[quillori]

I will happily accept characters who seem to have used the canon character purely as a jumping-off point, if the story they're in is well told and the characters convincing within that story.

Oh, so will I, definitely. Actually, not just for characterisation specifically, but in general as well, I am very, very happy with canon being the jumping-off point for the writer's own story (where the story is worth reading, obviously). Many of the stories I have most enjoyed have done just that. But I know that not everyone feels that way, and I do feel it's worth making a distinction between stories trying to fit with canon, where those who like such things can argue about how good the fit is, and stories that take canon as a springboard, where the question makes little sense. (This post largely sprang from another discussion I didn't think it was profitable to link to, since it largely consisted of a mouse telling a writer I admire that her fic didn't belong in the fandom, because it didn't fit the mouse's view of the characters. Between being rather disapproving of the whole 'I have to tell you to go away anonymously because everyone else thinks you're great and might be mean to me' and outright disagreeing with the view that the only sort of stories that should be allowed in fandom are ones that try to stick as close to canon as possible ... well, it's possible I laid excessive stress in this post on how fic can stick to canon because I was trying to be fair and balanced and not end up ranting incoherently.)

Proving something is/isn't in character is a game I quite like playing, but only because I like seeing the different characterisations people come up with, not because I think there's a real answer. Although I do think there's a sense in which someone can be 'in character': in much the same way you can say whether you find a character within a story convincing, you can smoosh the story and canon together in your mind and ask whether the character is still convincing or not. (Of course, it's harder to smoosh the stories together in any meaningful way if they are set many years apart, or one is heavily AU.) I don't think I can pinpoint what it is that makes a character coherent, but there is definitely a difference between them doing something unexpected and it feeling natural and like it's revealing greater depth to the character, and it just seeming random. (OK, the difference is probably basically how good the writer is: even when the reaction to B is different from the reaction to A, in a good story I think you can generally look back and see where the reaction might be coming from, even if only from hints in totally different Situation C.) Mind you, I'm still much more interested in good characterisation than close-to-canon characterisation (and I suspect I have a preference for jumping-off point type stories anyway).

Actually, it strikes me that pretty much everything that has ever struck me as being wildly OOC has also been poorly written, which I don't think means that good writers have some magical ability to write in character so much as that if the writing's good I don't care. (Although having said that, I think I might just have pinpointed the reason I tend to prefer fandoms where I don't care too deeply about the source: that way I can just look for good stories, rather than trying to find good stories in line with my own interpretation of canon, given that the latter are likely to be few in number or non-existent.)

Non tl;dr version: I think we're in agreement that good characterisation is what really matters, but I'm slightly more inclined to think IC/OOC can be a meaningful distinction, even if not one that's clear cut and susceptible to conclusive proof?

[azdak]

I do feel it's worth making a distinction between stories trying to fit with canon, where those who like such things can argue about how good the fit is, and stories that take canon as a springboard, where the question makes little sense.

I agree, completely. I'm just not sure that I'd include characterisation in that. Because characterisation isn't a matter of checkable facts - it can't even be reduced to a list of features, like "irritable" or "remarkably intelligent", because what counts is the way those characteristics are revealed on context (even in canon, supposedly brilliant characters often act as if they were no more intelligent than their writers). It's one thing to say "This story ignores this, this and this event from canon", which everyone can agree on. It would be much harder, I think, to get people to list a set of characteristics that must be displayed in order to be "in character".

Voices are another matter. It's much easier to put one's finger one why dialogue sounds out of character (though it may be out of character in a good way).

it largely consisted of a mouse telling a writer I admire that her fic didn't belong in the fandom, because it didn't fit the mouse's view of the characters.

That certainly makes it much clearer where you're coming from. (I loathe people like this; she could always have just not read the stories, if they offended her aesthetic sensibilities so badly). And I absolutely agree that where stories as a whole are concerned, there are some that are primarily concerned with engaging with canon events, and others which are primarily concerned with engaging with other fanworks. I'm just dubious about how far it's possible to extend that to characterisation. But then I admit that when I read stories in which I dislike how the characters behave (weepiness, soppiness, lurve etc) I tend to go "Oh, that's bad writing" rather than "Oh, that's out of character" (there's usually all sorts of other evidence I can point to to justify my view ;-))

Actually, it strikes me that pretty much everything that has ever struck me as being wildly OOC has also been poorly written, which I don't think means that good writers have some magical ability to write in character so much as that if the writing's good I don't care.

Or (which would be my own argument) that good writers give their characters motivations, so that the behaviour is understandable. It's a bit like Stanislavsky's advice to actors about playing a character who reacts very differently from themselves (eg Lady Macbeth) - what would have to happen to me so that I would react to these events in this fashion? Want Avon to be less of a bastard? Write a story where the things that happen to him, teach him to be nicer, or teach him to pretend to be nicer.

I'm slightly more inclined to think IC/OOC can be a meaningful distinction

You're probably right. I'm more inclined to think "NO human being would react like this" rather than "That was very out of character for Avon", but there's no denying that the latter is still also OOC.