On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Richard Lawson wrote:
: Two points: What, exactly, is out of character? The thing about Ranma
: 1/2 is that there is *no* consistent characterization.
I disagree. There *is* a characterization which is not always
100% consistent. There is a fine but important difference between
this and what you said. It's the same difference between nothing
being there and something being not there. :)
: The primary
: thrust of Ranma 1/2 is humor, not drama. Therefore, the characters will
: behave in whatever manner gets the biggest laugh.
Which includes acting against their characterization in unexpected
ways. Exactly for that purpose there *has* to be a reasonably
consistent characterization - so that it is humorous when the
characters do (or appear to do) something OOC.
: For example, the two biggest Ukyophiles I know - Zen and Blade - like to
: pretend that the last few volumes of manga don't exist. Because, they
: say, Ukyo acts "out of character" in those volumes. It just goes to
: show that you can't pin down one set of characterizations for *any*
: character.
Just because there are different ways to interpret the given data
doesn't mean that you can conclude *everything* from it.
: I could argue Kasumi the all-knowing wise heart of the home. I could
: argue Kasumi the total ditz, bright as a burned-out light bulb. I could
: even argue Kasumi the biker babe - heck, just look how much she enjoyed
: torturing Ranma when she discovered his fear of cats. :)
Could you argue Mousse hating Shampoo? Ranma loving Cologne?
Nabiki the patron saint of generosity?
: I equate the Ranma 1/2 manga with the Bible: Whatever view you'd like
: to hold, you'd find support for in the source material.
But not *consistent* support. An interpretation is valid when it
fits the given facts more than it disagrees with them. Kasumi the
leather-lovin' whip-crackin' biker babe has very, very little
support, while Kasumi the sweet innocent does not only fit just
about all of the manga but even the parts that you cite to support
your interpretation.
: Me, I don't like fanfics that pair Ryoga and female Ranma. I simply
: don't see them having that kind of relationship. But neither do I
: discourage people from writing such fanfics; if they want to explore
: that kind of relationship, let them. I won't call it OOC; I'll just
: call it contrary to the way *I* like to view the characters.
You are going about this exactly the wrong way, Richard. Don't
try to prove that there is no such thing as OOC (because there is)
- that's not the *point*. The point is that it can be *okay* to
write OOC. Kasumi the Badass Biker Babe is *funny*! And it is
funny *because* it is so obviously OOC.
: Second: Okay, someone wants to write a story that even they consider to
: be OOC. So what?
*This* is the important part. It should have been point #1, if
not the only one.
: Part of what fanfic writing is about is exploring all
: aspects of a certain person's character. By putting these characters in
: extreme situations or having them behave in extreme ways, we can get a
: well-rounded view of that character which is more satisfying than the
: contradictary and two-dimensional portrayls found in the manga.
YES! *That* is the argument you can use against excessive
OOC-shouting.
Personally, I will always flag any *unnecessary* OOC-ness. That
is, any OOC behavior of characters that does not benefit the story
or is necessary to its premise. If a character is written OOC not
because the author wanted it that way, but just because he or she
simply didn't care, it is a tremendous turnoff for me. If they
couldn't care enough about the material to get some simple facts
right, why should I?
Unnecessary OOC-ness can devalue a story just as much as creative
OOC-ness can elevate it above the ordinary.
One aside:
: But don't try to
: impose standards. For one, it's impossible.
Ahem. This from one of the most rabid Micro$oft supporters I
know? :)
Sebastian