A rant about a popular rant....

[conuly]

Many people are claiming that it is impossible for the characters in HPB to be "ooc" because, after all, JKR wrote the book, and they're her characters, so they're always in character!

I'm not going to argue over whether or not they are in character. I will say, however, that it is possible for them to be out of character, or, at least, to have inconsistent characterization, which is just about the same thing.

If JKR had written five books that involved a sweet kid who never would hurt a fly, and then, in the sixth book, had him go on a murderous rampage for no reason whatsoever - that would be out of character. If Harry had been writing Hermione love letters for the past five books, and dreaming about her, then to have him suddenly declare his undying love for McGonagal in this book would be out of character. If Voldemort suddenly appeared at Hogwarts with some chocolate and said he just wanted to make up - that would be out of character, and it doesn't matter who writes it.

None of that happened in this book, granted, but my point still stands. It is entirely possible for JKR to have written this book with all the main characters out of character. Please don't use this post to argue that they are or aren't, because I'm not getting into that. Just... be logical, thanks.

Oh, and incidentally? If you're reading these books because of the Harry/Draco or Ron/Squid love, or whatever else you've got going - I'll move a complaint that you *may* be reading them for the wrong reason. Even in book 6, the relationships aren't the focus of these stories.

Comments

[morganne13.livejournal.com]

In my opinion, when talking about books, it makes more sense to say that its inconsistent characterization than to say that the character is ooc. To me, saying they're ooc implies that they are intentionally or accidentally being something other than themselves, more like an actor or a player in a role playing game doing something they'd do rather than the character they're trying to portray. Inconsistent characterization places the responsibility? i guess for the weirdness on the author rather than the character, which is where it should be.

[atalantapendrag.livejournal.com]

That's a matter of semantics. I will grant the distinction, but it means more or less the same thing; if it had been in a fanfic, it would have been considered OOC, and having the "Holy One"'s name on the spine doesn't make it any better.

[morganne13.livejournal.com]

Um...fanfic's are a little dicier on the semantics. It doesn't have anything to do with the "Holy One" as much as it being a matter of creation. The author of a work with characters in which those characters are new, the semantics of it are that if the author slips up in their creating, its inconsistent characterization. With the fanfics, their being a written work I would still tend to go with the phrase "inconsistent characterization," but because the fanfic author is not the original creator of the character or necessarily an official? user of the character might be a way to say it, the arguement could be made to say that something they write is OOC.

As far as fanfics and their being in that grey area, its up to you which you consider to be the more fitting term. So goes the english language. :-)