Characterisation questions, and a (short) new fanfic

[selenak]

wisteria_ has a fascinating discussion about how we, as readers, define out of character behaviour in fanfiction here , how much depends on favourite pairings or favourite writers.

Obviously, the criteria is different for everyone involved, and sometimes it shifts. I used to dislike AUs in general, and B/A, while not a pairing I dislike, never had me hunt for fanfic about them, but yahtzee63's Phoenix Rising is both an AU and eventually B/A, and I adored it. (On the other hand, Yahtzee's As Time Goes By is something I never managed to read in its entirety, but that's neither here nor there.)

The quality of the writer is certainly a factor. Sylvia Volk's Methos couldn't be more different from Kat Allison's, but they both convinced me in their respective stories. My personal interpretation of Methos tends to go a bit more in Kat Allison's direction, but not completely; at any rate, I saw both Sylvia's and Kat's renditions as valid interpretations of Methos as presented on the show Highlander. However, take Sylvia's zen-like Methos idea, give it to a far worse writer, and you end up with Saint!Methos, that bane of HL fanfic. Take Kat's ruthless and cynical Methos, do the same thing, and you end up with some of those badfics where the authors appear to think lifestyle a la Kronos is fun.

Sometimes, though, even a wonderful writer just doesn't do the trick of convincing me. Not that this is the writer's fault, I hasten to add; it's probably all due to my personal squicks or indifferences. I stopped reading eliade's Season Noir after she had Spike kiss Xander, because I couldn't suspend disbelief anymore. (And Anna S. is certainly one of the best fanfic authors around.) I realize that if the same situation - a taunting kiss - had been developed between Spike and Angel, I would not have bat an eyelid, and again, the reason why I think one is ooc and the other is not is simply because I, personally, don't buy the X/S pairing in any variation, not because the quality of Anna's writing had changed.

What I do think is ooc independently from personal kinks or squicks: sloppy use of characters without any regard of their aims and purpose in the original source. For example: when hunting for stories about Bester about a decade ago, when B5 was originally broadcast, I found one in which he abducted Delenn and mindraped her. I also found one in which he did this with Londo. (And here I was feeling thrilled at seeing a story listing both Bester and Londo as principal characters.) Huh? Now the show gives you leaveway to see Bester as the scum of the Earth as Garibaldi does, or as a self-sacrificial devotee to the telepathic cause as the interns who hero-worship him do, or as both, but what remains true in both interpretations are the man's priorities (telepaths ought to rule) and the fact his actions always have a purpose. He doesn't gratiously torture people left, right and center, let alone powerful alien ambassadors.

If you need a B5 villain to capture and torture Delenn, look up the Vorlons; I'm sure Mr. Sebastian would be available. (Not that he didn't have a purpose as well.) Or some OC who lost their entire family in the Earth/Minbari war due to her orders. If you want someone to torture Londo, then, to paraphrase what Londo says to Na'Toth in A Tragedy of Telepaths, take someone from the very long line of enemies he's made. But in neither case take Bester just because he's one of the more prominent villains of the show.

In other news, thefiringline got restarted, and once again we have a Born to the Purple challenge. Naturally, I couldn't resist, especially once I got this idea about Adira and G'Kar. The result is here. (Among other things, I think it's a love letter to sabine101. A lot of my recent fanfic tends to be.)

Comments

[deborah-judge.livejournal.com]

Now you have me wondering about why Bester would torture Londo. Maybe if Centauri telepaths wanted to join the psicorps and Londo wasn't allowing it? But then you'd have to explain why torture made more sense than regular diplomatic channels, which I'm sure Bester could use quite effectively.

I think OOC is mostly a matter of the writing rather than the concept - if characters *sound* like themselves and justify their actions in the way they would then I won't call it OOC. But there are certain characterizations that I won't read simply because I don't enjoy them. And that goes for characterizations that are close to canon as well - any story in which Delenn really bears no moral guilt for the E/M war because she was too upset to think straight is going to put me off, even though such a reading of canon is perfectly plausible.

And OOC is even harder to define when canon goes OOC as well. I'll never buy Lennier's diary the way it's presented. But someone who does, and who, say, doesn't accept the hits about Lennier being Delenn's intended successor, is going to come up with a totally different reading of the character.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Now you have me wondering about why Bester would torture Londo.

The reason you suggest and dismiss would actually be stunning sense compared to what that fanfic came up with. It's a late fourth season AU in which Londo offers to negotiate for Sheridan's release "Face of the Enemy" and gets mind-tortured by Bester for his trouble. At which point I stopped reading, so I can't tell you how it ends. Bah.

any story in which Delenn really bears no moral guilt for the E/M war because she was too upset to think straight is going to put me off, even though such a reading of canon is perfectly plausible.

I know what you mean. To use a DS9 example, post-Waltz canon justifies fanfics in which Dukat was always Evil!Dukat (who was just kidding himself before), but it's not an interpretation I find interesting or would read for long. That's where our personal interpretions come into play.

[muffinmonster.livejournal.com]

Heh, I know that Bester/Londo story. The Delenn one I never encountered, though - I guess I should be glad for that. I could offer you a nice piece of Bester torturing Susan, however. (Graphic details included, obviously.) ;)

I think there's always all kinds of different facets to a character's personality; depending on the writer, they will focus one some of these, and ignore others. However, there are some things that just don't work for certain characters, simply because it's not in them to act that way. If someone absolutely wants a character to do something that would usually be considered out of character, then they have to at least explain it! Or do what you advised: pick someone else. I really don't agree with wisteria_ when she says that it's wrong to call a portrayal of a character "out of character". I swear, I could show her hundreds of stories over at FFN that absolutely fit that description! ;p

Bah, I hate it when people forget the mighty power of C&C; canon and consistency all the way, unless you make sure that everyone knows that your story is considered AU! And even then there are some things that will cause me to hit the "back" button faster than some authors can say "disclaimer"; after all, if you're not really writing a certain character, then why not just develop one of your own?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm sure Bester torturing Susan, Talia or even Lyta stories are as countless as sand in the desert. (Though with Lyta it's probably more Lyta-strikes-back stories.) And yes, be glad you were spared the Delenn one - I stopped reading in the middle of the first act, as it were.

However, there are some things that just don't work for certain characters, simply because it's not in them to act that way. If someone absolutely wants a character to do something that would usually be considered out of character, then they have to at least explain it! Or do what you advised: pick someone else.

Exactly. alara_r once wrote an excellent post on how to use your villain correctly in fanfic which pointed that out as well. To pick an example from one of your other fandoms, I could never believe a story in which King Haggard raped the Lady Almalthea. Not because Haggard isn't evil, or not obsessed with unicorns, but because it doesn't fit with his character as presented in the original text.

About AUs: the irony is that they can be wonderful for character exploration. That's why I got so fascinated with the "Five things which never happened..." concept. But a good AU doesn't just take a character and fixes said character to the author's liking.