Characters behaving badly

[sistermagpie]

I was having this discussion on reenka's lj and this came up...



reenka said, regarding Ginny's change of personality in OotP:

"Of course it's still Ginny-- it has to be. Even bad writing is 'the truth' as far as 'fictional reality' goes, because we have nothing else, right-- except for our own imaginations patching up the holes bad writing leaves behind."

I guess my question here is...does it have to still be Ginny? Where do you draw the line? I think most people read with an understanding that any character has the potential to be written OOC even by his author, if that author changes her mind or gets a new agenda or loses interest or whatever. If the characters are going to seem "real" to us at all we have to believe that there are certain things they would never do. But if they break that rule for us, are they not themselves? How far can someone push a character while claiming this is just a "different side?"

I mean, this is something we don't think twice about in fanfic: X character is OOC. Everyone complains about fics where a character is suddenly different--and for me, this was very true of OotP Ginny. It wasn't a different side, it was a different character.
Like the difference between if I were to surprise someone by revealing I spoke Chinese, and if I suddenly began speaking in a Scottish accent and everyone insisted I had always spoken that way and you just had thought I had an American accent because I got nervous around you. I get that JKR is claiming Ginny is a case of the former, but to me it was definitely the latter. Maybe there too there were fanfic writers who would say, "Hey, I wasn't surprised. We never knew where Sister Magpie was from and I wrote her as being born in Glasgow. Many of us had considered her being Scottish because of her coloring!" But they'd still have to admit that no, they'd never actually heard me talk that way before.

I don't mean for this to be a discussion of Ginny, though. I'm just using that as an example of a character where the question comes up. If you think her characterization wasn't a change etc., feel free to substitute another character or just think of a hypothetical situation where you couldn't make the leap.

Is there a place where everyone just says, "Nyuh uh. Not the character?" Sometimes it's just a question of the character doing something wrong--like, oh, all of the last season of The X-Files where everybody was just acting out Chris Carter's agenda. But I still felt like it "was" the characters, perhaps only because I had the advantage of looking at them and they looked and sounded the same, had the same body language. Had I just read "Awful Things" (sorry--that's "All Things") I think it might have seemed even more wildly ridiculous than it was watching it acted out.

So my question is, what do other people think about OOC canon characters? Do you see a grey area between the author giving you surprising new information and doing something that just doesn't work? Of course ritics can and do criticize characterization. So where do you draw the line?

(Btw, I also believe that you can have Mary Sues in canon and don't really understand why one couldn't, but that's a separate question.) This question, I guess, can we not look at a canon now and consider certain things unacceptable for a character based on what we've seen so far, or is open to happen as long as the author is still writing? I mean, this is the sort of thing we have no trouble discarding in fanfic. How much difference does it make if it's canon...and why is it different, exactly?

Comments

[bethos.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you can have Mary Sues in canon. Why not? Anne McCaffrey does.

And yeah, characters can act completely OOC in canon. 'Cause I'm with you - Ginny does.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I remember reading this article about Madeline L'Engle where her editors had to tell her this one character had become completely insufferable--she was always right, everyone else was always wrong, she was too perfect...iow, we hate your Mary Sue.

[shusu.livejournal.com]

It's odd, but Ginny never struck me as massively OOC. Granted I haven't reread it yet. I saw where a lot of people were coming from, but to me, it was a failure of not providing foreshadowing. We are introduced to her under the influence of two strong personalities -- Harry and Tom. We don't get to see her rehabilitation after the fact, not even during the trip to Egypt, and the only thing I really remember from the intervening books is that she was Hermione's confidante. What if she feels the pressure at home to occupy more of her brothers' niches because they're off fighting and/or Percy, and Molly's depressed? Just not enough information. Her age is another thing. I went through exactly that kind of a transformation during that span of time. My peer group and activities didn't significantly change, but wow, my journal entries are night and day.

To tie in, I think I allow authors a lot of leeway when they don't provide proper foreshadowing. One author had a term for it, which I forget... it had to do with getting a Better Idea. Sometimes you just can't go back. I guess to me, if an author makes a gaffe that's large enough to be noticed, they didn't justify the change well enough. It's more like the train jumped the tracks than became a different car. Generally if an author switches trains on me, I've already closed the book. ^^;;; That's just bad writing.

I guess I'm more forgiving when it comes to character inconsistencies than I am with plot inconsistencies. Plot I can logic out; people change. But when the character weirdness *is* a plot inconsistency, like contradicting an existing pattern without explanation, then I cry foul. Chances are if the characters are so out there, the plot has already turned me off.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

For me it wasn't so much that she was OOC in terms of my thinking, "She wouldn't do that!" because you're right, we just didn't see that much of her before. It was more that she was obviously being introduced as a new character--in every scene she acted a very specific way, when for years before, up until recently, she had had a very different tone to her personality. This is after she was under anyone's influence really--and even then, the way she was under Harry's influence said something about her own character.

So it was kind of like, okay, in the first four books I thought Ginny was supposed to basically be this type of girl. In book five she was replaced by another girl. She hadn't changed because we were told this was always who she was. I mean, it was admitted in the text that she was different through Harry--he was struck by how different she was. It was just that the author explained it through a joke--oh, when someone has a crush on you they are a different person...and I just didn't buy it in the way it was getting put across.

So for me Ginny is that Better Idea...although in my case I'd consider her a worse idea because I didn't like her character at all. In every scene she was that New Idea.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think with Ginny, the example is important because she's a -minor- character, and I think with that, it's just that the grey area widens a lot further than it does with a major character like Doggett, Scully & Mulder, y'know? Especially when you have a narrative that's pov-centric rather than an ensemble visual that follows several threads in a typical show.
I mean, this also depends on whether you're focusing on what things the other characters should've noticed/resisted ('but Harry would've known!'), which depends on the perceptiveness/closeness of the two characters, and things we just wouldn't buy no matter what because it's ridiculous (um... Scotty getting a French accent).

I think Ginny gets more leg-room because she wasn't well-delineated before-- I mean, some people may have interpreted her actions in certain ways before OoTP, but we didn't have a lot of chance to directly observe her-- though we can say Harry did. Even so, that's indirect evidence of what -should- have been true. We didn't have a lot of -facts- before OoTP. I think facts are a lot more difficult to contradict than inferences, especially ones based on a third-person-limited pov.

I can, of course, -always- get a feeling that the canon is being ridiculous or whatever... therefore the characterization is -bad- or silly or a parody (and I think a number of HP characterizations -are- basically caricaturish, possibly on purpose). A caricature/sketch developing into a more well-rounded character faces a lot of special trials, and has its own sort of grey area of how one feels about the direction of the change-- it's like you're getting to know the character all over again.

I think one should also be careful, in stories that span years and also stories about kids/teens, about allowing the possibility of growth or greater inconsistency. In fact, one of the reasons I like writing/reading about teenagers is that there's that extra grey space to play with characterization and that you can go in a number of different directions. Of course, you as the reader could still think it's an unlikely direction, but my own feeling on it depends on how much I like said direction and whether I feel it's... fun or whatever.

With canon!Draco (who's a secondary/minor character) translating in fanon and people saying he's "OOC"-- I think it's easier to be completely off with him and yet there's a grey area in JKR's own approach. A constant inconsistency, if you will. So what do you do with those characters? Well, you could use the sum of the different aspects and try to incorporate them all, thus approximating some 'feel' of canon. If canon itself retains some measure of its former 'feel', then I think it's not too badly OOC with a minor-to-major characterization, especially.

So, I mean... that's why I just -add- OoTP to the other books and mix it up in my head-- because then each new book doesn't have the power to overwhelm the others. The others balance it.

And how much of this 'OOC' character perception is in the critic's head and the result of their pre-existing ideas on the character and how much is 'really there'? How can you be certain you'd been perceiving author intent correctly-- since that's what's involved in OOCness, isn't it? I dunno, it's confusing-- especially with unfinished works like HP.

So there is always a grey area, and there are always obvious things, but I think those 'obvious' things will vary with each reader/viewer 'cause here we're talking about one's individual perception of canon-- which clearly differs from person to person. Could you really get a majority of HP readers to agree on exactly what a character was like without just resorting to quoting canon and stating facts?

There can definitely be obvious errors, especially in ensemble shows where they switch writers. However, there's always room for the author just-- changing things-- badly or well, but changing them-- or twisting them. And even a twisted, changed characterization is still... 'true', as long as you -can- attach it somehow. And even then one should give the work time to be complete. But... sometimes the character can just be nonsensical in a particular reader's eyes... definitely. That may or may not be an objective judgement though, y'know? Heh.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think in a way it can be more jarring with a minor character. I mean, we've got more leeway with Hermione and Ron because they're already more complex. When they do something different it's going to be part of an arc. Okay, maybe I would say Ron suffered in OotP where he was so resigned and not jealous and I wondered what was wrong with him, but still we got enough of him in different situations to make me feel like there was just a story there I didn't fully see.

With a minor character, though, they almost have to stay more true to form because that's all we know about them. If Filch suddenly started asking Harry how he was doing and what he was thinking of doing when he left school whenever he saw him, you would ask what happened to Filch.

So with Ginny too it's not so much that the facts are a problem, but that to me she really was speaking with a new accent. We weren't just getting new information, we were getting new way of acting with exposition to explain it. Like if Neville spent the book as a loudmouth clown and gave Harry noogies and Harry was all, "Um, what happened to Neville?" and everybody explained he'd always been like that but he was no longer timid around Harry. Yes, it would be explained within the text but I think many people would also deal with it the way they do with Ginny, by mentally splitting "canon" and "consistency." It's canon Neville is like this, but we all know this is the new Neville. Or as I said somewhere else, we can see he's been recast to go a different way with him. So in speaking of PoA we might refer to the actor who played him then, and in OotP the actor who plays him now.

I mean, with Ginny it seems like even JKR is upfront about the fact that there's no looking for clues in the past, beyond Ron's line about her never shutting up. Harry's cluelessness really was supposed to make him see a different person--even if Ginny's lines and behavior then were a fact. So in a way we don't have to try to make the two match up too much, because the earlier version is supposedly just wrong, as if we just heard about the character before and this is the real thing and she's nothing like what we'd heard.

But that of course means anybody's up for grabs and no characterization is too consistent except for Harry's.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hehehe Possibly, what this really comes down to is a question of good writing vs. relating to (or resolving) the universe outside of the actual canon methods. I think I personally try to remix things myself-- so that it folds together neatly-- because I view the details of the books, whether plot or characterization, as fanfic-fodder, except for Harry, who is 'really real' for me within the text.

Is the character real to the reader? The more real they are, I think, the more 'room' they get, you're right. To me, the characters' 'reality' doesn't fully depend on canon, except for Harry. Every other character acquired their 'reality' for me through me writing them. So... yeah, I get what you're saying about minor characters having to tread more carefully, in a way, and yet this still depends on one's relationship with the text in the first place, too. How much are you willing to accept? What is the function of this character for you? Do they have a 'function', or do you just want them to 'work' in a realistic sense?

Usually, with most stories, I want the character to -work- and be realistic, which necessitates being well-written. I mean, how do have realism without good writing? They seem intrinsically linked.

My Ginny (and everyone but Harry and possibly Ron & Snape) gets their realism from my head though, drawing on JKR's outline-- pre-OoTP and post-OoTP. I think I'm a weird case, though. I think it comes down to the readers 'smoothing over' the edges of the text for whatever reason, though. One just-- fills in the blanks or doesn't, depending on one's disposition. Of course, it's still bad writing, but what kind of surprise is -that-? ahahahah *coughs*

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I do see what you mean. And especially about just adding the new material to the old and making the character out of that...when I think of it that way there's no problem. It's like...on nraged we recently started a re-read and some of the characters weren't played the same way at first. So sometimes I'm trying to make the early stuff work with the characters that were really in the game, even when I know it's probably a different player or the details haven't been worked out yet.

[closet-geek.livejournal.com]

I read your post and this is what came to mind. I'm not sure whether I'm actually getting the point, but here's to giving it a good try.

I think there's a difference between canonicity (?) and consistency. Because JKR writes OotP!Ginny the way she does, that makes it canon, but that doesn't mean it's consistent. (Snottily interjecting to say--that doesn't mean it's particularly *good* either.) 'In character' is a bit more of a gray area because I think the author is also the primary person to say what's in character or not, but hey--it doesn't have to be particularly good characterization either. I generally think the author is the final word on canon and 'in character', but I don't think we have to like the way they turned out. OotP!Ginny is canon, yes, but not consistent. (Or likable, for that matter.)

[malafede.livejournal.com]

consistency

I was just about to say that. Characterization inside the same universe can be inconsistent, just as the ethos and the timeline. And about Mary Sue - the original Mary Sue was a canon character, so what's up with all the fuss? I think the concept of Mary Sue as the (idealized) projection of an author in the story is one of the forms Mary Sue can take, just a subcategory, not the definition of the genre.

denialfic rules :-)

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

nice distinction!!!

and sistermagpie...what a great question.

b/c we've all seen it, haven't we? *g* but i think closet_geek is right. we'll have to adjust, whether we like it or not.

EX: OZ. Keller was a kinda crazy sometime killer until he was accused of pretty much being a serial killer of gay men(if I remember correctly). I wasn't in the fandom at the time, but I can only imagine the debates. b/c it totally comes out of left field and I don't think the show set it up sufficiently. *But* once it's canon, you gotta write around it and take it into account. (unless you choose to deny it...b/c we all know Keller didn't really murder those boys and Avon didn't really shoot Blake and Sam leaped home and noone got killed at the end of Angel [see, I'm a good girl...i'll spoil a twenty year old show but not this spring's finale])

Re: denialfic rules :-)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes! I think that's definitely the type of thing. As I said below, it's like she was recast. The show had her one way, then in the fifth season Ginny was recast with a different actress who was a different type. But on a TV show that almost helps because you can pretty much refer to "the old Ginny" or "the new Ginny." Or by the actors--if there seemed to be a real characterization change, compounded by different performances, you could refer to the character by the actress' name to distinguish.

Of course there's no way of getting around the fact that it's canon because it's in the book. You can deny it happened in that way we deal with things that just don't work for us, but even there I think the change gives us options. A person could write either Ginny and be starting with canon. It's like a flint. It's canon to say he's both ages because they're both in canon. But you can also say yeah, it's a mistake and I'm just choosing which answer I want for my own purposes.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's definitely the way I see it, I think. She's canon, obviously, but that shouldn't stop anyone from saying she's inconsistent. Particularly when even the pov character is saying she's inconsistent. Of course it's possible to use Harry's pov to surprise us, I just thought this time I didn't buy it, that I didn't think Ginny's crush or Harry's cluelessness explained this characterization.

[moonfruituk.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I think we can all, as real people, be OOC. Like, we can react in ways which may surprise us and those around us. If we'd given the situation some thought, we might have reacted differently, but as it was, we didn't.

To take a personal example, I used to be a generally quite angry, reactionary and often violent person. I'm not anymore. Which one is IC, which is OOC? I'd say both are/were IC, but that now for me to react to something violently would be very OOC, whereas at one time it wouldn't have been.

People can, and do, change. Whether this is plausible or not...I don't know.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I think people can change--everyone can. Though in this case I think it's important that this *isn't* supposed to be a change. Ginny *isn't* acting OOC. She's always been this girl, it just happens that our pov character has never seen her acting in character before, despite spending time with her.

It's weird because it's exactly what people would get criticized in fanfic for, particularly if they did this kind of change with one of the "bad" characters like Draco or Snape. Only in a way with those characters, particularly Draco, Harry's pov would give you even more room for change, since these are people he actively dislikes.

I don't think it's wrong to think of, say, a girl who was "like" Ginny in CoS growing into OotP!Ginny in four years. Really, to me, the best way to describe Ginny in OotP would be to say she was recast. Like on soaps when they go for one actress and then decide to "go a different way" and hire a different type.

Re: OOCness

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah--I mean, the thing with Ginny isn't so much that I don't think a girl could start out shy and become assertive by 14. I think of myself as having a pretty big change in fifth grade when I became outgoing. I'm not extroverted by any means, but I can talk to strangers, while when I was a small child I didn't talk at all. So yes, it's absolutely true that one can grow into the other.

But that's different than having a character appear fully formed and when we ask what happened to the other one being told that this was always who she was and she's just now, after four years, decided to appear instead of sending an imposter. That's just...how do I make that work? I could buy Ginny *doing* many of the things she did in OotP, but she wasn't doing them as her original self. Nothing about GoF!Ginny indicated she could be able to catch a Snitch or throw a hex. But it's like if you look at the opposite with Hermione. She wasn't OOC by showing up at the ball looking stylish because she was doing that as herself. She *would* be out of character if next year she showed up constantly decked out to get attention from boys and whenever Harry was surprised somebody said she'd always been that way he'd just never noticed because he didn't think of her that way and he's clueless.

It's especially strange because while Harry was particularly interested in Ginny, he had no reason to want to see her as anyone other than what she was. As far as I can tell Harry has a reason to be somewhat interested in all the Weasleys and is. I mean, it does make sense that the Weasley daughter could be more of a tomboy because of her brothers' influence, it's equally believeably that she'd be totally girlie. If all the Weasleys had to be troublemakers and sports fans, we wouldn't have a Percy.

With Neville I didn't think of it so much as OOC personality wise as his suddenly being "fixed." Most kids who have to struggle with inadequacy just do it. They don't suddenly become good in school as a reward for their good character, which is what I felt was happening to Neville. It was like his good intentions had to get a boost from a new competence, when the two don't always go together.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

Is there a place where everyone just says, "Nyuh uh. Not the character?"

Well imagine the following happening in "HP and the HBP":


Harry first meets Draco on his summer hols, by a coincidence (as he has before). Draco chats him up, telling Harry that it really was a good thing he got Voldemort exposed last spring, because man, that Voldie is a creepy fellow, what with his wanting to rid the world of muggles and muggleborns. Harry thanks Draco for the compliment, agrees that Voldie is a creepy fellow, and feels good about the fact that now people at least believe him, that Voldie has returned. Not ONE thought passes Harry's head that Draco's behavior is just a little odd and suspicious.

Next time we see Draco, making his annual visit to the trio's train compartment. He makes nice conversation about the weather, to which Harry responds equally nicely. He then proceeds complimentating Hermione for her stunningly pretty hair. Hermione blushes but looks flattered. Then Draco tells Ron that he's really admiring the way Ron is handling his prefect-duties. Ron too, blushes but looks flattered and tells Draco that he'll help him out any time of the week. After that Draco leaves, and the trio goes on discussing whatever it was they were discussing before Draco showed up, as if nothing's happened.

The third time we meet Draco when he's just joined the DA group. Again he's all nice and gets righteously upset when the group gets intothe topic about those horrendeous prejudices some people have against muggle-borns; Draco can't believe there are people who actually think that blood matters! Again no one raises an eye-brow at Draco expressing himself like this, they just aggree with him.

After the meeting Hermione lets slip that Draco only showed up because he hates Justin Finch-Fletchley and wanted to get the opportunity to outdo him in a duel.

Ron stopped dead 'But wait a minute, I thought Draco hated Harry!' he said.
'Well, Draco used to hate Harry, but now he hates Justin. Not that he's lost respect for you or anything,' she added with an apologetic look at Harry. 'See, Justin rejected him over the summer. Plus, he's getting real good-looking so I suppose Draco is jealous about that. He got over his jealousy on Harry ages ago, when he found out about the down-side of celebrity, last year.'
Harry wasn't particulary interested in this discussion, but then he thought of something.
'Ah, so that's why he's all nice now. And has gotten over all that "Mudblood-crap". Because he doesn't hate us anymore,' he said.
'That's right,' said Hermione.


Please, you name ONE fan who WOULDN'T think JKR wrote Draco incredibly OOC if she did this to him in the next book! Yet, she does this with Ginny in OotP, and few people batan eye.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

...And I'd like to add that my point here also is that the key for keeping characters in character, isn't only how you describe the characters themselves (though that, of course, IS a big issue), but it's equally important that allthe characters they interact with don't suddenly start acting majorly OOC around this particular character (as they certainly do in my Draco-example, but they also did in OotP, considering that Harry had never reflected upon the fact that Ginny was so different from the Ginny he was used to, until Hermione explicitly brought it up. And a thing that I found not meshing at all with what we know of Ron, was that he was never the least bit jealous of the fact that his little sister was better than him in Quidditch AND dating before he did! Yes, he got overprotective, but a REAL brother would also have felt outdone, I mean that's your worst nightmare, you're younger sister beginning dating before YOU.)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes! The reactions of the other characters were part of it too--it was like they'd all gotten little notecards with exposition and backstory they had to interject here and there, because this was Ginny's book. At the moment she did something fabulous a character was there to say, "And Ginny's always been like that. Did you know when she was X she did A,B and C and you just didn't notice because you were D,E and F?"

So I felt, almost on Harry's behalf, that he shouldn't have to put up with this either. Like when Ginny would be kind of belligerant towards him, or mildly insulting. We were told this was just her personality and she'd always been like that--and if it had been the way she'd always been it would have been fine. Instead I think I kept expecting Harry to say, "Excuse me, you seem to be under the impression that we have a different relationship than we do. We are not on an insulting basis. If you've behaved a certain way around me at all times for some reason, you can just continue to do so."

And yeah, Ron. How odd is that? He's terribly jealous of Harry getting the limelight, but why would it bother him that his sister's the star during his own worst humiliations? Oh, it doesn't because their relationship has changed as well and Ron, like the rest of the family, has always known that Ginny was da bomb.

[likethemodel.livejournal.com]

It sort of seems that JRo has made Ginny into present-day Lily.

I mean, Lily seemed to always be bringing James down a notch, and Ginny told off Harry for saying he's the only one who has had to deal with Voldemort (I hated her so much then, yes Tom Riddle got a hold of her but really all he did was sleep walk her around and then knock her out. It wasn't anything like what Harry had and has to go through). Their names also both mean purity (apparently Ginevra is Italian for 'juniper' which means purity and the 'lily' is a flower symbolizing purity, as well) and they both have red hair.

Lily was socially lower than James Potter (I assume he is a pureblood), Ginny is socially lower than Harry despite her pureblood status (he's the wealthy and Boy-Who-Lived; she comes from a family that is poor and regarded as blood traitors in some circles).

Harry and Ginny's relationship seems to mirror James and Lily's in interesting ways. Ginny changes for the 'better' meaning she's strong and independent and of course the sexiest thang at Hogwarts (maybe JRo's reaction to articles on the lack of strong females). James apparently changes greatly, as well. Enough for him to be named Head Boy, anyway. So in both relationships one person changes for the better and the other's eyes are opened.

The only difference, that I see, is that James was mad for Lily while Ginny had a crush on Harry.

That's basically all the evidence I have on that idea. It's just a feeling that I have.

[millefiori.livejournal.com]

I think that in some cases the writer knows a lot of backstory that doesn't make it into the text. Perhaps if the reader knew everything about the character that the writer does, that seemingly out of left field change would make more sense. So, while this comes across as a character being OOC, it could in fact be a failure on the part of the writer to include enough of the right kind of hints for the reader to make the leap.

This is something I need an editor or beta reader to help with, because (being one of those writers who has mountains of backstory for every little hill I write) I can lose sight of what I actually wrote down, and how it comes across to a reader who doesn't know all that backstory. Unfortunately JKR is in a terrible position--I imagine there are only a handful of people she can trust with unpublished drafts of her writing, and it's probably almost impossible for her to get her work reviewed by someone with a fresh eye.

As for Ginny -- I'm kind of torn. I've read your thoughts about her characterization before and in some ways I'm inclined to agree with you. OTOH, this sudden new characterization we see in OotP almost perfectly aligns her personality and talents with the rest of the Weasley siblings. (Kind of, "Oh, yeah, she used to be such a nice little girl, but now she's an asshole like all the rest of them.")

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree that her personality certainly makes sense within the Weasley family. That's part of what makes it such a weird issue for me, because it's not like this *couldn't* have been the way JKR went with Ginny Weasley all along. It's just whatever she was trying to do here in "hiding" her personality with the understanding that Harry just wasn't seeing it, imo, doesn't work. Even with her crush the signs of the real Ginny we saw didn't, imo, give us the girl we saw here, even if they had things in common.

It's funny...in a way she's a little like the thestrals. There's this big scene where Harry sees them for the first time in OotP because he's seen death. But then people wonder...well, wouldn't he have seen them the year before when he was leaving after fourth year? Presumably he would have, but he didn't. That's a bit how I feel with Ginny--she was over him in fourth year and to me we saw her real personality then. She wasn't overly shy, she seemed socially competent. And then a month later, in OotP, she turned into a thestral.:-)

[chrysantza.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about backstory, and JKR being in a poor position vis-a-vis editors and/or informal betas. I tend to have tons of backstory for my main characters and not only do I have to be careful that what is obvious to me isn't a complete surprise to my readers, I have to fight not to drop in huge steaming hunks of narrative/backstory everywhere.

Since the books are from Harry's POV and the first three books are much shorter than GoF and OOtP, I wonder if there was more backstory and/or foreshadowing vis-a-vis Ginny that wound up on the editor's floor, so to speak? It's very possible that more was cut from PoA or even CoS than JKR really wanted.

It's also very possible that an editor botched up the job somewhere. I was looking at the website of an author who has written in several genres (mystery, romance) and she stated that one of her earlier books was ruined by an incompetent/inexperienced editor.

[chrysantza.livejournal.com]

I have to wonder how much of the "Ginny is OOC! She changed too suddenly!" complaints are because of the infamous Three-Year Summer? With the large gap between the publication of GoF and of OOtP, fanon and fanfic rushed in to fill the vacuum and readers had all this time to solidify their opinion on "what Ginny is really like."

If OOtP had been released within a year or so of GoF, readers may have found it easier to integrate it with the rest of canon. It wouldn't have looked as if Ginny's "true character" was revealed too suddenly, nor as if "too many new characters" were introduced "too late" in the series (I hope that people who resent new characters don't ever, ever try to read James Michener). I believe we have to take this three-year-summer into consideration and look at our own agendas for what we think OOtP and/or character development "should" have been like.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

My first thought for me with Ginny I don't think that has too much bearing because I wasn't really interested in her and didn't have a real idea of what she was going to be like. I didn't talk about her much or read fanfic about her. But I think even without meaning to I probably did get more of a sense of her from fandom and fanon ideas would have crept in there somewhere.

It is definitely true that if the book had come out more quickly it would have been easier to swallow. Less time to let the books sink in is probably better. That way you're just sort of washed over in a sea of canon.

[forked.livejournal.com]

Interesting question! (Surfing in from DS).

Hm- I think this is kinda complicated. At the most specific level, I don't think Ginny was out of character in OotP (though I can understand why some folks think she was). As reenka noted above, she is a minor character, one we didn't know a whole lot about, one we see largely through Harry's pov- and we frankly have little insight into what might have caused her to evolve in the way she did. Do I think it possible to get from 'girly Ginny' who crushes on Harry to the more self-assured girl of OotP- yes, I can imagine it. Did JKR lay it out? Not really, but given the tight focus and pov she uses I didn't see it as a failing. Kids change and Ginny has been through a lot in her short life.

In a more general sense, I think fans can reasonably charge that authors sometimes write 'out of character' events. I see these as mistakes on the author/editors part, where it seems like they simply cocked up and had the character do something that is completely inconsistent with their personality as it's been laid out. The example that leaps to mind is actually a 'Smallville' one, where they had Clark thank his girlfriend for bringing him a cake for his birthday and note he'd never had one before (simplifying). Of course, everyone knew his mom was big into baking and his parents were very caring and intent on giving him a normal, happy life- so we were all going 'WTF'? It just made no sense on earth that his mom had never baked him a cake for his birthday.

So yea, I do think sometimes an author can write a moment/event or two that can reasonably be critiqued for being out of character. However, I am much less likely to call 'out of character' when the creator is a single author (as is the case with JKR) and/or when I trust the writing team. JKR has pretty much total control over her creations- if she writes something, I tend to assume she's aware of what she's written before and where she eventually wants to go with it. With TV, you may have writing teams that change over time. When I was into soap operas, you could have characters that have been around since before I was born and who have been written for by a variety of head writers and teams. In those cases, I am definitely more comfortable with thinking the 'writers' are butchering a previous characterization (i.e., writing 'out of character').

So- short answer... I think original authors sometimes write 'out of character moments', but I don't think they can write 'out of character characters'. If a characterization seems to change and that change is consistent, then that's the 'canon characterization' at that point in time. I do think changes in characterization should make sense, but with minor characters that we don't see much of or know much about an author has more leeway for change without the details being laid out. Of course, whether a change makes sense or has enough detail to explain it varies from person to person. For one person, it may work. For another, it won't. When it doesn't work, I think you have to chalk it up to bad writing.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Well, one thing I think is important is that this isn't supposed to be a development-because I agree Ginny could have developed into this. It's more that all at once she was playing a new note very loudly in every scene she was in, with everyone else joining in to sing how she'd always played this one note!

But anyway, it's not that I think everybody must agree that she was so OOC because not everything she was in OotP was at odds with what she was before at all. As I said above, it wasn't so much that, "She wouldn't say/do that!" as much as just thinking she'd obviously been recast with a different actress who had a different interpretation of the part, one which the writers had cast her for.

Of course, everyone knew his mom was big into baking and his parents were very caring and intent on giving him a normal, happy life- so we were all going 'WTF'? It just made no sense on earth that his mom had never baked him a cake for his birthday.

Oh yes, very good point. One of those times when the author is going for some emotional moment in the scene even though it contradicts things. I remember Northern Exposure driving me crazy doing stuff like that at the end as they struggled to turn all the characters into Saints while Joel was a monster. It was really annoying. And then there's also the infamous X-Files incident of Scully's cross, where in one ep we hear she got it for her 15th birthday and then later we have a flashback to her getting it at Christmas.

If a characterization seems to change and that change is consistent, then that's the 'canon characterization' at that point in time.

Yeah, it seems like that's the distinction that one just has to make. JKR wrote this, so this is what there is. She seems to feel she set it up by having Ron say Ginny "never shut up" in PS/SS--which to me describes yet a third Ginny we've never seen! So I know that I'm supposed to see this Ginny as the same girl, just as on a TV show if they recast the person I know I'm just supposed to pretend she's always looked like this.

[forked.livejournal.com]

And then there's also the infamous X-Files incident of Scully's cross, where in one ep we hear she got it for her 15th birthday and then later we have a flashback to her getting it at Christmas.

Hee! Exactly. I actually prefer those kinds of 'out of character' blips because they are easy to dismiss.

And I do think it matters how strongly attached one is to a minor character. The more you like a particular characterization, I think the more likely you are to pick up on things that go against that characterization. For me, I like Ginny well enough, but I'm not particularly invested in the characterization. Thus, I'm probably oblivious to some of the changes a real fan of hers will pick up on. And because she is a more minor character, it's easier for me to gloss over any inconsistencies. But I definitely think the viewer/reader perspective matters a whole lot to both how a character is interpreted and how open to change a reader is. My lord- I was barely into Buffy fandom, but can still remember the debates about 'Seeing Red' and whether or not Spike was attempting rape- much less whether it was in character for him to do so!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. For me with Ginny I think I might not have thought about her at all except that I disliked her so intensely in OotP. So it wasn't that she was ruining my previous ideas for her, because I didn't really have any, it was that I disliked this character where I hadn't felt strongly about her before, which made me see her even more as a different character.

Ginny

[prettyveela.livejournal.com]

Hiiiiiiiiii SisterMagPie!

I've read everyone's comments and people have good points, but I thought Ginny's change was beginning to show in GoF.

I remember in GoF when I chuckled a little when Ginny told Harry and Ron to "shut up" and then revealed that they both got turned down for the Yule Ball. I was thinking to myself "So this is the Ginny that the other characters see."

Because it's from Harry perspective, we don't see the Ginny that the other characters talk about. Remember when Ron was shocked that Ginny was so quiet, because she doesn't shut up usually? We never saw that but we knew it existed, just not around Harry and were in his head.

In book 5, Harry begins to notice exactly what others have been saying in previous books. Ginny has a strong personality and she's not a wallflower like he thought she was.


Another simple answer is that Ginny is growing up. There are plenty of people in our lives and celebrities that started out "shy and quiet" and now are completely the opposite.


I can't think of any other HP character to substitute Ginny with. I think it's always been J.K.'s plan to elevate Neville and Ginny from minor to semi major characters in this series(her making Dean Thomas a lesser character to make more room for Neville proved that.)


Ok I'm rambling, but great journal entry as always.

Re: Ginny

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

For me the Ginny in GoF was perfect--she was obviously not silent, had a personality, stuck up for herself. I kept wanting that girl to come back in OotP, because I felt like the OotP one had a far more...what's the word? hostility?

Like, Ron's comment about her never shutting up indicates she's a chatterbox, which OotP!Ginny isn't. She says just what she needs to and then keeps quiet. In GoF I thought Ginny fit that better. She could tell people to shut up when they needed it, but seemed basically good-natured. I could imagine her giggling and chattering with her friends.

I mean, it's not really that Harry just starts to notice things in OotP because he literally can't miss them. This is how Ginny talks. This is what Ginny does. Before she spoke differently and didn't do these things. Now, I do think that this girl could develop from the girl we saw earlier--that's not an issue for me. It just seems clear that in OotP the author knowingly changed her. We know she knows she did it, because she's been proud about the joke--she's always been like this, she says, only Harry didn't see it. The problem is Harry (and the audience) did see something, and that something is gone now.

I do agree that this has always been JKR's plan for both Ginny and Neville, though. I think maybe, though, that this is just one of those places where her plan isn't enough for me. It's another one of those character moments where I don't think it works logically at all but I know there's not much point in arguing it because the author clearly is saying it. There's been a couple of moments like that in earlier books that still bother me, but I accept the results of those moments as canon, just as I know this is canon Ginny now. It's just I will always still see them as two different people, or just think of Ginny as having not been introduced until Book V.

[no-remorse.livejournal.com]

I guess the problem you have here is that you apply a concept that was created especially for fanfiction on an original piece of fiction. Within the realm of fanfiction Mary Sues and being "out of character" are important standards to define good and bad fanfiction. (That doesn't mean that your fanfic has to suck when your characters are OOC, but that if they are, the odds are against you.)

It's important, because you are playing in someone else's playground and your readers love that playground as it is. They don't want the characters to be changed, they tend to like them too much as they are to see them changed just to suit your story.

Now an original piece of fiction has only one creator - where fanfiction has two (the creator of the original source and the fanfiction author). Fanfiction characters are OOC, when the reader perceives a shift between the characterisation of the original creator and the fanfic writer. If there is only one creator such shift has no reason to happen - one mind, one creation, one characterisation, so to speak.

But what if it happens? What if a character suddenly becomes Scottish after being American for years? Well, it is a case of bad writing when your American character suddenly becomes Scottish - without warning, without being called MacSomethingwhatever, without having any fondness for scotch and haggis, without any signs of British relatives. Of course one can make an American character Scottish (complete with the accent) and still have an excellent characterisation - if you have the right plot for it, if you foreshadow it etc. And that's the problem with Ginny.

Yes, there was shift in characterisation, that simply cannot be denied. However what people disagree about is not the shift itself, but to which degree it was prepared, foreshadowed - to which degree it is well-written. When you throw the (fanfic) concept of OOC into the discussion, you are not only making a statement about Ginny's characterisation in OotP, but you also make a rather uncomplimentary comment on JKR's writing abilities. The concept of OOC is never ever complimentary, so using it for Ginny is bound to get criticised.

So the problem I see is not acknowledging certain elements of an original piece - a self-insert of the author or a shift in characterisation - but using words for these things that have purely negative connotations. Or have you ever heard of someone using the terms "Mary Sue" or "OOC" as a compliment?

So if you want to discuss an author's shift in characterisation or his/her need to self-insert him/herself into the story in a fandom that is very much devoted to said author, then maybe it is clever to use words, phases and concept that are perceived as neutral and non-judgmental.

"Mary Sue" and "out of character" are not one of those.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

For Mary Sue, I actually do think it's a neutral term, though I agree in fandom it's almost never used in anything but a critical way. To me, even though I know all the negative connations it has in fandom, a Mary Sue is an author insertion, and in the hands of a good author that Mary Sue can be a wonderful character. So for me, at least, I don't always consider it a criticism to say a writer of OC has a Mary Sue, it's more of just an acknowledgement of where that particular character comes from--even if very often the reason you notice it is a sign of bad writing. (For instance, a character that shouldn't get the guy does, and you suspect it's because the author wanted everything to work out for this character.) There are characters in original fiction I do consider Mary Sues without meaning I think they're badly written.

I hadn't thought about the fanfic connection the way you're bringing it up now, but you're right. Fanfic does, of course, have a whole different set of rules when it comes to being in character because fanfic writers are conforming to someone else's universe. At the same time, is it necessarily wrong to use the term OOC for a canon character even if it does reflect badly on JKR's abilities as a writer? It seems like that would be an obvious thing for any reviewer to talk about if he was so inclined: X character was flat and one-dimensional, Y character is markedly different than in previous books, a change the author tries to explain through the limited pov and having other characters explain she's always been this way, but it doesn't work."

Perhaps you're right and saying she's acting OOC is the wrong term...maybe OOC is better used for specific moments, as in the last season of XF when many characters' actions were described as OOC by fans. To me, it doesn't seem like it's too critical because it's something we're more accustomed to associating with fanfic, though I agree it means something very different when it's applied to an original author. Because fanfic is also, imo, a form of commenting on the text, so you're criticizing the person's understanding of the character. The original author isn't guilty of not understanding the character, just of possibly making a shift that some readers can't follow.

I guess I feel like canon is canon, yes, but people should also feel free to feel like the writer left something out or didn't do something well--what you've described above as discussing whether or not a change was properly foreshadowed etc. That is really what I'm talking about, you're right. I feel like sometimes people swing to an extreme of feeling like you can't criticize an original author the way one could a fanfic author, when in many ways you can, since the reason OOC fanfics jar us is because they don't jibe with what we know about previous canon. If something in new canon feels the same way, the author could have made some of the same mistakes a fanfic author did. And fanfic authors have gotten readers to accept far greater changes in character through the way they present it.

[fiera-316.livejournal.com]

This is really an interesting question, and it's really hard to say...I mean, you mention the idea that Ginny is OOC in OotP on FictionAlleyPark, just one comment about it, and you have about fifteen Ginny-fans jump down your throat screaming "she is NOT OOC!! There are so many clues to her character, you just have to dig for them! See, in CoS Flourish and Blotts, she stood up to Draco for Harry's sake! See, during GoF!Summer, she told her mother "You are so old-fashioned" -- that definitely shows how rebellious she can be to her mother. She called Ron stupid in GoF, too, how can you be surprised about her swearing?? Honestly, read the books!"

It gets quite aggravating, but I do have to admit that if one looks at it this way -- if someone chooses to memorize every single line and scene that Ginny has ever been in, then you can make the claim that shades of her new personality HAVE been there all along. Which can technically make her new characterization "in-character". And sure, Ginny was hidden for the first four books, and if you want clues to her character, then you'd have to look carefully at everything she has ever said pre-OotP.

But firstly, what very often gets overlooked are the times that Ginny has been shown contradicting even the few character hints we'd had of her pre-OotP -- like the time she covered her face and ran when Draco told her Harry hadn't liked her Valentine (and I STILL don't buy that she was stressed out because of Tom -- she had just seen Harry get the diary back. It wasn't as if Draco still had it, and she was trying not to look at it in his hands; and you'd think that if she was deathly worried about Harry having the diary, she would have been far too preoccupied to even hear what Draco had to say in that scene, let alone act as though his comment [which had absolutely nothing to do with the diary] had personally embarrassed her). Or all the times Ginny has been shown willingly holding her mother's hand.

The contradictions in Ginny's character go even further than that: the major evidence for her new Quidditch-skills pre-OotP seems to be that the majority of her brothers play Quidditch, and that she went to the Quidditch world cup. Yet those who say this tend to overlook the fact that a) Percy, one of the brothers that Ginny is arguably the closest to (he was the one most worried about her in CoS) never DID play Quidditch; and neither did Bill, the other brother she seems to admire a lot. And b) Hermione went to the Quidditch world cup, too -- I suppose this means that if SHE suddenly became a star chaser in Book 6, no one would be surprised? [/sarcasm] And c)Didn't Ginny fall asleep at the table in GoF when they were discussing the Quidditch World Cup after the game? A huge lover of Quidditch there! [/more sarcasm]
JKR claims herself that no one should be surprised by Ginny's sudden forcefulness, because Ron reminded us in CoS that "she never shuts up". Yet one of OotP!Ginny's main traits is the ability to both lie very smoothly, and to know when to keep quiet. And for someone who never shuts up, she did an amazing job keeping secret for eight years the fact that she used to steal the twins' brooms from the Burrow shed. Very, very strange.

I've come to realize that Ginny's character has been written with many inconsistencies throughout the books, and so I think it comes down to what closet_geek said some posts earlier. Ginny has to be in-character in the books, because JKR's the one who wrote and created her character; but that doesn't mean she didn't write her inconsistently (and sure, the other characters are sometimes written inconsistently too, but not so much as Ginny has been).
And um, if she's been written inconsistently throughout the series, then one more book full of inconsistencies can't be called OOC-ness anyway, right? =D

I agree about canon!Mary-Sues; I don't understand why they can't exist in canon either, because I don't know where it explicitly states that Mary-Sues can only exist in fanworks of already-created books/universes.

[chrysantza.livejournal.com]

I agree about canon!Mary-Sues; I don't understand why they can't exist in canon either, because I don't know where it explicitly states that Mary-Sues can only exist in fanworks of already-created books/universes.


It depends on what your definition of "Mary Sue" is and whether you think it's always bad to have one. I do not like the idea of "canon Sues" simply because it seems to be used as a catchall term of abuse. It's come to mean "any young, attractive female character" and/or "any female character I happen to dislike." The idea that a writer ought not to write young, attractive, talented and loved females is ridiculous, as is the idea that no author ought to introduce new characters in the middle of a book or series.

In a nutshell, original fiction characters can get away with what fanfic characters cannot. Of course a main character in an original work of fiction is going to have much of the action revolve around them. Of course the Hero or Heroine is going to Save the World.

This is why I am heard to say that there is no such thing as a canon Mary Sue. I have come to believe that the term is used in all the wrong ways for all the wrong reasons. "Dumbed down" main characters in an original fic make for dull reading.

Whether her new characterization is poorly done and/or jarring or not, I don't think Ginny would qualify as a Mary Sue in any case, because she's not the main character and does not take attention away from Harry. Simply being talented, outspoken and having boyfriends does not make a Mary Sue nor a badly written character. I'm not saying that you or the others on this thread have said this, but I've heard it more than once on FA and other places.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I do not like the idea of "canon Sues" simply because it seems to be used as a catchall term of abuse. It's come to mean "any young, attractive female character" and/or "any female character I happen to dislike."

It's true that's what it's come to mean, but I guess it just annoys me that people misuse it. I think the original meaning is more interesting and more useful. If we need a word for badly-written female characters, strong or not, it should just be badly written characters. Of course, the trouble is in fanfic the most obnoxious female characters often have been made into author insertions, encouraging the stereotype. But for me the main point is that it's an author insertion with a degree of wish fulfillment.

I have a friend who wrote a sreies of fantasy mysteries and I remember we were talking about the main character and I asked if this other mutual friend of ours thought the main character was him (this guy was very full of himself and I thought he'd no doubt read about this cool, sexy hero his best friend wrote and recognize himself). He said yes, J had thought the character was him, and he wasn't. I said, "I thought he was YOU." The guy was kind of embarassed but admitted I was right. He was a a classic Gary Stu, well written. He wasn't overly perfect but he did solve the mystery and he was very attractive. My recognizing him as a Gary Stu made me actually like him more, rather than less, because I loved the idea of this guy creating that alter ego. But he was also just a really likeable character.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think one reason it gets difficult to discuss the New!Ginny question is people think it has to be a choice between two extremes, that if you think there's a major change now it means before you thought she was a complete mouse who never spoke. But I do remember the moments in the past where she showed she was capable of standing up for things she believed in, and that she wasn't a total doormat. I just think all of those details led up to something different than the point that was made with Ginny in OotP. My main confusion isn't that I can't believe the girl from CoS could throw a hex ever, it's that I'm asking how on earth could anybody miss THIS character? It's like trying to hide Hermione's personality.

ITA on the Quidditch thing--not only does Ginny fall asleep but we hear nothing from her during the game. Hermione, meanwhile, is jumping up and down and screaming. This was a perfect opportunity to show Ginny acting like herself--it's fourth year so she's at least on her way to getting over Harry, she certainly doesn't get all flustered around him, she's spending a whole day watching the sport she supposedly loves enough to train for in secret--but we get nothing until she falls asleep. Harry might not be interested in Ginny herself but he is a Quidditch fan--he'd listen to anyone talk about that intelligently.

I definitely don't see why Ginny's brothers' interest in Quidditch would mean it stood to reason she would be so great at it--I just wondered why she and Ron didn't play together rather than her having to sneak out brooms in secret. Being the one girl in an all-boy family actually doesn't mean you have to be a tomboy or play the sports they do. If Percy managed to avoid Quidditch it's not a given.

And for someone who never shuts up, she did an amazing job keeping secret for eight years the fact that she used to steal the twins' brooms from the Burrow shed. Very, very strange.

Yes! That's the comment that bothers me the most because it's the one JKR points to as the foreshadowing and yet it is possibly further from OotP!Ginny than the blushing girl of CoS was. Never shuts up? On the contrary, this Ginny never says more than she has to to get in a cutting remark. She managed to hide her entire personality for 4 years. I have a hard time imagining this Ginny having the patience to keep up that nice girl act for five minutes, let alone three years.

And um, if she's been written inconsistently throughout the series, then one more book full of inconsistencies can't be called OOC-ness anyway, right? =D

LOL! Yes, I think that's it! It's why I always think it's odd when fans will claim that the fact that they weren't surprised by this version of Ginny is proof that she was always that way, when really what they're saying is one version of fanon Ginny out of several turned out to be somewhat like the one we got. But the whole reason there were so many versions was because she was strangely presented. My problem with OotP wasn't that she was so very much contradicting the clear character we'd had before, but that this was a new thing no matter what came before.

I hope she changes again in the next book, is all I'll say!

agree about canon!Mary-Sues; I don't understand why they can't exist in canon either, because I don't know where it explicitly states that Mary-Sues can only exist in fanworks of already-created books/universes.

In fact, I always thought the opposite was true, that mainly something belonging to OF. We just notice them more in fanfic because they stand out. Either you notice how a character you know has been warped or somebody else's Mary Sue stands out like a sore thumb in the universe of another author (especially if the fic writer is a bad writer).

[threeoranges.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to say that I agree with the bent of this general discussion - that the true bone of contention is not so much Ginny changing as the rest of the characters acting as if the character has always been that way and Harry just never noticed. Instead of the author acknowledging that there has been a change (or, to be charitable, an evolution) in the character's personality, the reader's surrogate, Harry, is mocked for being unobservant. "She was always bright, vivacious and witty, Harry! Anyone with eyes in their head could see that!"

I would venture to suggest that, in such cases, the author is rewriting the backstory and expecting the reader to take it not as an alteration, but as something which "sheds new light" on the previous facts. If the innovation truly is minor, the author can usually get away with it. If the innovation is noticeably different from what we'd been previously told, however, then part of our framework for understanding the stories is taken away. We can't trust the author not to tinker with the established facts of the world they created. If they treat their ground-rules so cavalierly, why should we care either?

At the risk of going off on a tangent, this exact reason is why I will no longer be bothering with Terry Moore's previously gripping series of graphic novels STRANGERS IN PARADISE. He's "re-visiting" the backstory of the characters, but in his attempts to "deepen" the characters by throwing "new light" on certain key scenes he's made nonsense of previously strong motivations, muddled relationships and key facts... He's contradicted himself so often now I get the impression that he's "winging it", and if he cares so little for the world he created then he can hardly blame me for being in agreement.

Rant over, but thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

That was an excellent rant--and yes, I completely agree. It's frustrating because it's really not that I can't believe a character can change, but the retconning--and I agree, except in very rare cases when this is done to familiar characters and storylines it usually winds up ruining what came before it and not "deepening" it at all. It's almost like the author trying to do what only fanfic is allowed to do, explore different "what if?" situations by changing the characters.