114 replies to this topic

[TheRedStranger]

Trying to balance OCs and non- OCs

 

 There seems to be this arbitrary rule that the twain should never meet. I heavily disagree. This rule is oversimplistic: It's just one does not need to overpower the other. Look, OC's come about all the time on the other end of the Fanon/Canon line. Dulcy is a good example of a bad example of an OC from the otherside of the fence. Slopply dropped (despite Hurst introduction of the character in Blast to The Past) into the second season with no definte build up to her or tie-in. See? The sins of bad character writing are universal afterall.  This could have been remedied by giving a plot point out to show why she suddenly appeared and knew all the Freedom Fighters enough to call them "Tony" and other nicknames and be all buddy-buddy and such. 

 

 So make sure they are introduced well via a certain movement of the plot for one thing. If they are going to stay for the long haul with a Official crowd, best design them well enough to be cohesive to that group of Official Characters , and more importantly have them play a relevant role in their own development and the story as a whole. Keep em fresh to the story from then on out.  If they go stale...well I will let one man speak for me http://muffybolding....lings.jpg?w=640. Either that or hustle them on out of the Officials way with their own in-world based story like the above rule suggests - just note that this rule is a bit too general and needs to be more specific in light of these aformention possibilites and story elements.

 

As for the quality problems with O.C's?

[Janus]

I usually don't see too many problems in the fanfics I read in regards to character portrayals.  I rarely read stories with O.C.'s in them.  I've never actually read any Sonic fanfiction (Sea3on is at a level where I don't really consider it a fanfic) so I can't really comment in regards to Sonic fics.  I did read one story that was told through the eyes of an O.C. and it was really well done.  It more depends on the skill of the writer and how well they can write and portray characters.

[GamemasterAnthony]

*sees the SonAmy thing*  Oh for the love...

 

The truth is, when it comes to pairings, the only bad pairing is one that "just happens" without any buildup or background.  Sonic and Sally works since we know they've been friends even before Robotnik attacked.  Sonic and Amy CAN work if there was a way to stop Amy's possessive attitude and allow her to have a more mature relationship with Sonic.  In fact...any pairing of any two characters (even a same sex pariing) can work if there is a good explanation as to why they are a pairing.  It all depends on the skill of the writer.

 

As for quality problems with OCs...it's actually the same with the quality problems of CANON characters, believe it or not.  Again, this is dependant on the writer.  Believe it or not, there really isn't such a thing as a bad character...just a character that is written badly.  For example:

 

AMY ROSE

Sega:  Annoying over obsessed fangirl

Fleetway:  Key member of the Freedom Fighters and decent fighter

 

BIG THE CAT

Sonic Adventure:  Unnecessary fishing minigame character with no importance to plot

Sonic Chronicles - The Dark Brotherhood:  Funny character with hilarious moments

 

In both of these cases, how bad the character was was based entirely on how they were depicted in that particual setting or situation.  With OCs it's the same thing.  OCs can be great if the writer can weave them into the story without screwing up the general narrative.  Even a self-insert can be good if written well, strangely enough!  Hell...MY self-insert persona was loved for a while!  (Still surprised why...I still think I was lucky as drek.)

 

Anyways...my two Mobium on those...

[TheRedStranger]

Killing characters off. Go!

[GamemasterAnthony]

Ah, killing off characters...this goes into a REAL slippery slope as anyone who saw the aftermath of "Red Wedding" can tell you.

 

Killing off a main and estalished character can be tricky, especially if it's a well-liked character that many fans have vested in.  In another thread on this forum, I mentioned a sort of backlash that occured against Hasbro when they decided to kill off Optimus Prime in the G1 movie.  As a result, Hasbro had to figure out a way to bring him back in order to get a large number of the fans back as well.

 

Fanfiction writers, however, have a little more leeway in my opinion since fanfiction is NEVER canon.  However, they still run the risk of backlash from readers if they decide to kill off a beloved character.  This is why they have to craft the narrative carefully in order for the death to make sense.  (See: Aeris)  A badly crafted narrative can actually come off like the author is trying to kill off a character for the sake of killing off a character they don't like...which can come across as character bashing, which tends to look juvenile and unprofessional.

 

So, character death is feasable as long as it fits the narrative of the story.  Even more so if it creates the right kind of impact the death should provide.

[RedAuthar]

At the same time you have balance killing of the minor or no -named characters as they soon become canon fodder for teh Main cast.

 

Stinking Red Shirts. 

[TheRedStranger]

At the same time you have balance killing of the minor or no -named characters as they soon become canon fodder for teh Main cast.

 

Stinking Red Shirts. 

 

Every death should be meaningful to the story and have narrative impact.

 

Best example I can come up with is the end of Wrath of Khan. 

[Captain Sorzo]

Killing off important, non-villainous characters is much more problematic in long-running series with no forseeable end, such as the Star Wars Expanded Universe. The short-term impact of a character's death must be weighed against the fact that everything written in the future won't be able to make use of that character. If the series only has one author, this can be carefully controlled. In multi-author affairs, however, the decision by one person to kill off a character could very well negatively impact the stories of others.

 

Many franchises try to work around this by bringing back dead characters, thus cheapening death as a narrative tool. DC and Marvel comics are both notorious for doing this. Even the death Stranger just alluded to was undone in the next film. Yet the alternative, going forward for years without a great character just because some author wanted short-term shock value, is not much more appealing.

 

As such, authors involved in such long-running series should be exceedingly careful when deciding whether to kill off a major character. It can be well done, with meaningful impact that outweighs the loss of the character, but most of the time it just is not worth it. There are plenty of alternative ways to create drama and compelling conflict without giving characters the axe.

[TheRedStranger]

 Killing/hurting/breaking/roboticizing/mentally-scaring someone has to be done down the road if you want your villans to not decay into empty AoSTHesque comic foils which thereby zaps away the conflict. Villans need victories over the heros (Joker kills Jason Todd, Joker paralyzes Batgirl, Spock comes back but then Commander Kruge kills Kirk's only son) . The great thing about Satam is that Robotnik has all but won, so you gotta go through a lot of trouble to make him suck as a writer. This was a great idea on the part of the writers, because it kept him well perserved as a menacing villan. You might have saved the day and made it one step closer to victory but he still rules all civilization in a steel-fisted grip - oh great, and now he's got Kat.

 

At the end of the day a price has to be paid to win, and sometimes the profit -margine for victory is written in crimson ink.

[RedAuthar]

As such, authors involved in such long-running series should be exceedingly careful when deciding whether to kill off a major character. It can be well done, with meaningful impact that outweighs the loss of the character, but most of the time it just is not worth it. There are plenty of alternative ways to create drama and compelling conflict without giving characters the axe.

 

Yes and no.

 

If characters feel like they can't be injured, hurt, or potentially killed, you never really feel like they're in danger.  

Example:  If nobody ever died at all in X-Men (very notorious for killing and bring back characters), would you really feel Magneto as a threat?  How about the Anti-Mutant gorups that suddenly seem underpowered because the heroes won't ever die?  

 

Yes you can find alternative ways to create dramatic and compelling storylines without killing anyone, but that isn't the idea of killing a character.  Killing a character is to make a character feel touchable, vulnerable, able to lose.  Make them feel like they may not win this battle.  There may be chance they don't come out of this alive. Make the villains more intimidating.  

 

Now again, it's true you don't have to kill a character to do that, injuries work just as well, even just losing the fight can, however Killing someone leaves a more lasting effect.  Again exampling with the X-Men:  Nightcrawler was Killed by Bastion.  But it doesn't just end with the character's death.  Wolverine his best friend has been permanently damaged by the death, being the one the took it the hardest.  On top of that, Nightcrawler was a very religious character (Christian), however due to the circumstances, Cyclops couldn't give him a Christian burial so instead had him cremated.  This help lead up to the following out between Wolverine and Cyclops as Wolverine believed that they should have done it the way Nightcrawler would have wanted no matter the circumstance.  Just an injury would have never left such an lasting impact on the comics.  Neither would have the character's survival.  

 

So again, yes, killing a character is risky, if not downright dangerous, but when done correctly it makes for a much better dramatic story then any of the others could do. 

[Janus]

 Killing/hurting/breaking/roboticizing/mentally-scaring someone has to be done down the road if you want your villans to not decay into empty AoSTHesque comic foils which thereby zaps away the conflict. Villans need victories over the heros (Joker kills Jason Todd, Joker paralyzes Batgirl, Spock comes back but then Commander Kruge kills Kirk's only son) . The great thing about Satam is that Robotnik has all but won, so you gotta go through a lot of trouble to make him suck as a writer. This was a great idea on the part of the writers, because it kept him well perserved as a menacing villan. You might have saved the day and made it one step closer to victory but he still rules all civilization in a steel-fisted grip - oh great, and now he's got Kat.

 

At the end of the day a price has to be paid to win, and sometimes the profit -margine for victory is written in crimson ink.

I usually like it when the villain wins every now and then because it adds interesting drama.  And I would agree that if deaths occur in a work, there should be some meaning and impact to it.  I've never liked it when a bunch of characters die all at once because the characters (and the audience) don't have much time to react to each one.

[TheRedStranger]

 

 Killing/hurting/breaking/roboticizing/mentally-scaring someone has to be done down the road if you want your villans to not decay into empty AoSTHesque comic foils which thereby zaps away the conflict. Villans need victories over the heros (Joker kills Jason Todd, Joker paralyzes Batgirl, Spock comes back but then Commander Kruge kills Kirk's only son) . The great thing about Satam is that Robotnik has all but won, so you gotta go through a lot of trouble to make him suck as a writer. This was a great idea on the part of the writers, because it kept him well perserved as a menacing villan. You might have saved the day and made it one step closer to victory but he still rules all civilization in a steel-fisted grip - oh great, and now he's got Kat.

 

At the end of the day a price has to be paid to win, and sometimes the profit -margine for victory is written in crimson ink.

I usually like it when the villain wins every now and then because it adds interesting drama.  And I would agree that if deaths occur in a work, there should be some meaning and impact to it.  I've never liked it when a bunch of characters die all at once because the characters (and the audience) don't have much time to react to each one.

 

 

Yes this would be a big no. Killing a bunch of people off en masse  says to your reader: hey, I didn't like theses guys or had the ability to write them and I thought I ought to get rid of them in a psuedo-dramatic way. However, you can kill more than one in a single show if you give them plot-relevant deaths like we have mentioned above. And...if they are just that bad (what is commonly called a "Scrapy" - it can be excused).

[GamemasterAnthony]

I definitely agree that the villian must have some wins.  I've often said in other forums that while I may prefer the good guys to win overall in the end...the villian still needs to be a credible threat.  That way when the heroes DO win, it feels like a true victory.  If, however, the villain is something of a joke (like the aforementioned AoStH version of Buttnik), having the heroes win feels hollow and meaningless.

 

This is actually a reason I have a problem trying to figure out what to do with Geoffrey St. John.  To be honest...he just doesn't seem very effective as either a good guy OR a bad guy.  As a good guy, he was too much of a douche to much of the main cast...and as a bad guy (like in the recent comics) he just seems too honorable at times to feel evil enough to qualify.  He's...kind of MEH as a character.  I mean, if he could just commit to some definitive point of view, he might be more workable as a character.

[TheRedStranger]

I definitely agree that the villian must have some wins.  I've often said in other forums that while I may prefer the good guys to win overall in the end...the villian still needs to be a credible threat.  That way when the heroes DO win, it feels like a true victory.  If, however, the villain is something of a joke (like the aforementioned AoStH version of Buttnik), having the heroes win feels hollow and meaningless.

 

This is actually a reason I have a problem trying to figure out what to do with Geoffrey St. John.  To be honest...he just doesn't seem very effective as either a good guy OR a bad guy.  As a good guy, he was too much of a douche to much of the main cast...and as a bad guy (like in the recent comics) he just seems too honorable at times to feel evil enough to qualify.  He's...kind of MEH as a character.  I mean, if he could just commit to some definitive point of view, he might be more workable as a character.

 

 So that leads us to characters who skirt the moral line. What about "nuetral" character's in fan-fiction? How are they portrayed, and how ought they be protrayed?

[RedAuthar]

There technically is three forms of neutral.  

 

Third Party Villains - Third Group that fights both side.  

Pure Neutral - Characters that don't take a side.  These people are just there.  Usually a little boring.  But that's how they're supposed to be.

Buyable - Characters that can be "bought" on to either side temporarily, but have their own personal goals. 

[TheRedStranger]

There technically is three forms of neutral.  

 

Third Party Villains - Third Group that fights both side.  

Pure Neutral - Characters that don't take a side.  These people are just there.  Usually a little boring.  But that's how they're supposed to be.

Buyable - Characters that can be "bought" on to either side temporarily, but have their own personal goals. 

 

Lawful Nuetral - http://tvtropes.org/...n/LawfulNeutral Has four sub-types.

True Nuetral - http://tvtropes.org/...ain/TrueNeutral. Very indifferent/apatheitc by belief or want. Or they are non-sapient. 

Chaotic Nuetral - http://tvtropes.org/.../ChaoticNeutral Five types.

 

Though I don't except this line of thinking as utter gosple (I personally don't even believe in true nuetrality, everyone has a side and that side is open to deep moral questioning) , it's a great spring board for discussing "nuetral characters".

[RedAuthar]

While technically those work...any of them could fit into my three.  

[GamemasterAnthony]

I've never really been a fan of the concept of a character being "neutral".  This is for a couple of reasons...

 

The character is aligned...to himself/herself - In any situation characters don't want to choose sides in, ultimately they will decide based on what is best for themselves.  Take Geoffrey mentioned earlier.  He was willing to side with the FFs since he had a common enemy with them in Robotnik, but once Buttnik was no longer an issue he sided with Ixus since he didn't want to be ruled under a regime that befriended the same humans he hated.  Ultimately, he chose sides based on what he felt was best for him.  (Consider the fact Master Brightmore changed sides in the Kaijudo series and you get the idea.)

 

Other characters or the world itself may not allow neutrality - "Greybeard or Battleborn", basically...if anyone remembers that from Skyrim.  This is one of those scenarios where those that don't want to choose sides don't have a choice in the matter.  Either side (or perhaps both sides, depending on the world) will usually give the character the choice: join us or else.  Eventually, this goes back to what I talked about in the above item.

 

Sadly, the only true neutral characters that COULD be created in theory are godlike beings that no one has the power to manipulate.  Essentially those that tell both sides to leave him/her the drek alone or BOTH sides will perish.

[TheRedStranger]

I've never really been a fan of the concept of a character being "neutral".  This is for a couple of reasons...

 

The character is aligned...to himself/herself - In any situation characters don't want to choose sides in, ultimately they will decide based on what is best for themselves.  Take Geoffrey mentioned earlier.  He was willing to side with the FFs since he had a common enemy with them in Robotnik, but once Buttnik was no longer an issue he sided with Ixus since he didn't want to be ruled under a regime that befriended the same humans he hated.  Ultimately, he chose sides based on what he felt was best for him.  (Consider the fact Master Brightmore changed sides in the Kaijudo series and you get the idea.)

 

Other characters or the world itself may not allow neutrality - "Greybeard or Battleborn", basically...if anyone remembers that from Skyrim.  This is one of those scenarios where those that don't want to choose sides don't have a choice in the matter.  Either side (or perhaps both sides, depending on the world) will usually give the character the choice: join us or else.  Eventually, this goes back to what I talked about in the above item.

 

Sadly, the only true neutral characters that COULD be created in theory are godlike beings that no one has the power to manipulate.  Essentially those that tell both sides to leave him/her the drek alone or BOTH sides will perish.

 

A big theme I like to play with is the deconstruction of "moral-grayness" as just moral duplicity in some fashion or another. Also when faced with either and X and Y choice and forced to pick the lesser of two evils, I loved to smack the villan around with a surprise third option, shattering the fallacious bifurcations they themselves ironically establish. 

[TheRedStranger]

What do you see people commonly getting wrong with portraying official characters? And how could they avoid it?