Deconstructing "Out of Character"

[Robb Stark]

This is one of the most common points of contention I see, on a wide range of debates, here any virtually everywhere else I've discussed fiction. It's also one of the areas I pay the least attention to personally, and almost never enters into my line of thinking. That said, I've always been interested in what people think about this.

How do you define the term "out of character", or does it even exist for you at all? I see comments regularly on both sides. I've seen actions by numerous characters, in the Buffyverse and out of it, be wiped away by fans because they are deemed out of character, and I've seen others say that the very notion of "out of character" is impossible because in a scripted show, where the words and actions stem from the pen of a writer, everything a character does is by design "in character". What do you guys think?

If I had to decide, I would say that there kind of has to be an in-story explanation for a character's actions, no matter what the context. That said, I do at times keep in mind the storytelling limitations of the creative team in mind. Using Buffy as an example, I feel that Joss Whedon is an outstanding character writer, someone amazing at creating impactful dialogue, but I don't think he's a very exceptional storyteller. With that in mind, sometimes I do chalk inconsistencies up to that thought.

 

[Blaze]

About 99% of the time, the "out of character" excuse is a pile of bull crap. Instead of using "out of character" as an excuse as to why my favourites did something stupid, crazy or whatever, I'd rather try and understand why they might have, or what is the reasoning behind it. And almost all of the time (with a good writer), actions can be explained. Of course if the writer is crap, than it can be a bit harder, make less sense, and be less fun to debate. Happily for me, I think the writing team on Buffy did a stellar job at having good characterization.

Now, if someone uses the phrase out of character simply to state that what the character did is not something they would have normally done, and then state what it was about the situation that made the character do something out of the ordinary, then in this case the usage of the phrase is completely fine. I just don't like when the phrase is used as an excuse for an action. Especially when there is clear meaning behind de action.

Using a Buffy example, many people hate Spuffy. Many have great reasons for it, and very debatable reasons. But when someone says "I hate Spuffy because it was OOC for Buffy", I shake my head and ask, was it truly OOC in s6 while Buffy was in deep depression. Now, if Buffy did the same exact thing but in s4, that could be considered OOC. And that would be poor writing.

Again, there is that 1% when a good writer can really mess up and write something that makes 0 sense, even in context. But a truly good writer and actor will be able to make sense out of it.

 

[Kean]

I think the term OOC on its own is meaningless. If a character does something in canon then their actions can be nothing but in character because they have done them. However, I think when people claim a character is OCC they mean that they are doing something that is not consistent with their story and actions prior to what is being described as the OOC behaviour.

When the Twilight arc originally broke there was a lot of talk of it being OOC. We could find enough in Angel's history so that it wasn't completely out of the realm of plausibility but we could also find a whole bunch of stuff in his story that supported a strong argument that his actions weren't consistent with his story. I think ultimately, the issue came down to a story that worked in the most basic sense but never felt right.

In some sense I don't believe OOC exists because I think an given character (or person), given the right conditions, is capable of anything. Any given Whedonverse character is a good example of this because they are always breaking out of themselves and becoming new people. Wesley is probably the most succinct example of this. Look at who he is during his time in Sunnydale and then look at who he is during the first episode of Angel S4. That version of him would have been unimaginable when we first met him.

So I think when I get down to it, I don't think OOC exists, but I do think bad, sloppy storytelling exists and that is nearly always what we mean when we say OOC.

 

[white avenger]

I agree that, if the actions are depicted on the show or in any medium, such as comic books or novels with the approval of the creator (which the novelizations of Buffy and Angel and almost all of the pre-season 8 comics were not) then that is canon and the character in question is depicted properly. Having said that, I see no reason whatsoever why any character should be limited to any rigid set of rules as to what they would do, how they would act, or how they should feel in any specific circumstance. Why should they be totally consistent in every episode or issue that they are in? That, to me, would be out of character, simply because normal people don't react that way. People change as their moods change. Anything else would be what I would call out of character.

How can anyone say that taking on a sinister disguise and plotting against Buffy and all that she stands for is consistent with what we have always imagined Angel to be?How can we say that it is consistent with what we have always imagined Buffy to be, to forgive the monster who tried to rape her? How can we say that it is consistent with what we have always imagined Willow to be that she would literally skin someone alive and try to destroy the world? And yet, all of those things happened, not in some fan fiction, but in canon stories. People simply don't always react in the way that you would expect them to. Joss created characters that we have become invested in to the point that they have almost become real to us. Angel, Buffy, Spike, or any other of Joss' created characters that are lifelike, people who are, just like real people, inconsistent in how they react to what they encounter. That's what makes them, to me at least, both believable and entertaining.

Anything other than that would be what I would consider out of character.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Yeah people just use OOC as an excuse.

It can't really exist, once a character does something it becomes part of their character.

When people say a characters actions are out of character, they are just saying a character has done something they dont like and it doesn't fit with how they see a character and what they expect of a character.

 

[EVIL UU]

"Out of Character" is like "curvy" in an online dating site profile - you see it, you stop reading, roll your eyes and flat out discard everything else that person has written. What "Out of Character" really means is I don't like it and I lack the honesty to just admit it at best or I'm a lazy idiot with no analytical skills or source material proficiency at worst just like what "curvy" really means is obese.

Basically, there is no OOC, period.

 

[The Bronze]

Once it's in the canon then it's in the character. It's up to the viewer / reader to figure out reasons for actions they don't like. That said I can understand when people have complaints. My example is Xander summoning Sweet. For me it just seemed like a throwaway line to tidy up the episode. It happened though so it just has to be accepted as part of the character, like it or not.

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=12470]The Bronze[/MENTION]

My example is Xander summoning Sweet.

Well, Xander does resort to using magic in an irresponsible way in "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered" and yes, it is Amy who actually casts the spell so it could be argued that Xander does not have the skills required to summon Sweet but it is not that implausible in my opinion. Xander helps cast both enjoining and resurrection spells not to mention that little bit about him borrowing witchcraft books from the library in season 1. I mean, come on, this is hell mouth after all.

Yeah, I don't like it but out of character? No way.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

[MENTION=12470]The Bronze[/MENTION]


Well, Xander does resort to using magic in an irresponsible way in "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered" and yes, it is Amy who actually casts the spell so it could be argued that Xander does not have the skills required to summon Sweet but it is not that implausible in my opinion. Xander helps cast both enjoining and resurrection spells not to mention that little bit about him borrowing witchcraft books from the library in season 1. I mean, come on, this is hell mouth after all.

Yeah, I don't like it but out of character? No way.

100%

This is an important distinction cuz it's one thing to say that people just say something is out of character to explain away an incident, and trying to reply saying: well the character did it so it is in their character.
I can't remember an example of someone claiming something a character did was OOC, that couldn't be backed up by past actions. Not only is something in character just cuz they did it, but that character also has past actions that back it up pretty much every time.

 

[Silverspike]

For me OOC is something that occurs when a writer establishes over along period of time character/characters, and honing said until you understand what makes them 'tick' and what's normal or not normal behavior for them.

Suddenly getting said characters to exhibit behavior that does not fit into this established pattern without any good reason or cause is seen by me (at least) as being OOC.

 

[The Bronze]

[MENTION=11194]EVIL UU[/MENTION]

Yeah that's how I square it off in my head as well. He's got a history for reckless use of magic and enough I'd say enough knowledge to summon Sweet. So it's definitely not beyond possibility and therefore out of character. I just see it as very odd that someone who'd been on the hellmouth as long as Xander would do something so stupid for a bit of entertainment. I tend to think of it more as a throwaway gag and way of tying up the episode, not something the writers gave an awful lot of thought to. So like you say not OOC, just a bit wierd for me.

 

[thetopher]

OOC really only happens through lazy, badly handled writing, when the writers want to get a character from point A to point B but don't really know how to do it, so in that context of course OOC exists.
Look at Spike in S6, his character is all over the place, really inconsistant. If I cared more I would cite him as a character who's badly written at this point and is therefore OOC.

Also There are characters who act 'out of character' during the course of a story (for example Buffy in S6) when the writers give (or try to give ) a reason for it, and that's acceptable imo.

I mean, think about how many Smallvile episode rely on this OOC stuff, somebody is always being mind-controlled, or possessed or being driven mad or something. It's one of their core, go-to ideas on the show.

 

[Blaze]

OOC really only happens through lazy, badly handled writing, when the writers want to get a character from point A to point B but don't really know how to do it, so in that context of course OOC exists.
Look at Spike in S6, his character is all over the place, really inconsistant. If I cared more I would cite him as a character who's badly written at this point and is therefore OOC.

This is my problem with OOC. I've actually written lengthy post before explaining why I think Spike is not OOC in s6 and why the writers did a good job with his character. This OOC thing comes down too much to personal opinion sometimes and is too subjective.

This is why I'd rather try to find a meaning instead of just saying "it's inconsistent". Because out there, I'm sure there's load of people who don't think it's OOC, probably including the writers. Of course, bad writing does happen, but I think people rely too much on OOC. In a series like BtVS which I consider highly above average, I do not particularly like using OOC arguments because I don't really think it applies. Unless were talking about character remodelling like what they did with Darla, in which case even they explained developing the character differently than what they had anticipated.

 

[thetopher]

This is my problem with OOC. I've actually written lengthy post before explaining why I think Spike is not OOC in s6 and why the writers did a good job with his character. This OOC thing comes down too much to personal opinion sometimes and is too subjective.

This is why I'd rather try to find a meaning instead of just saying "it's inconsistent". Because out there, I'm sure there's load of people who don't think it's OOC, probably including the writers. Of course, bad writing does happen, but I think people rely too much on OOC. In a series like BtVS which I consider highly above average, I do not particularly like using OOC arguments because I don't really think it applies. Unless were talking about character remodelling like what they did with Darla, in which case even they explained developing the character differently than what they had anticipated.

Well, usually that's how I feel to, better to come up for a reason for the character acting the way they did than to just say that this is OOC.

I don't want to get into another debate about S6, but the season is full of...I suppose a better phrase to use is 'inconsistancies in character development' which is a lot more accurate than OOC (which is a blanket term that, as you say, rarely appies to shows like Buffy.)
I was also saying how OOC can be a crux for some writers, like in Smallville where every season they would have a couple of 'people acting OOC' episodes for some dopey reason. (Red K, little spiny cave creatures, weird gas, ghost possession, wierd krypto power- it got really silly after a while.)

The only times that BTVS does this is one, maybe two episodes involving magic, usually to comic effect. 🙂

Anyway, to get back to the point of the thread, I think the term 'OOC' can be used, (sparingly) but only if it can be justified as part of an argument- show your reasoning, cite examples of why you think the character wouoldn't do that.


Otherwise people are going to think 'oh, you just don't like the way they took that character', which, hey, is a valid assumption.🙂
Personally I think it can only rarely be applied.