OCs, and when to use them · 7:13am Sep 7th, 2012
Wanderer D asked me to help out with his latest blog post on OCs. Yay.
I decided to write about when it was appropriate to use OCs. You may disagree with me, and I will give the disclaimer that in fiction you can pretty much do what you want, but you have to know the rules to know how to break the rules.
The whole thing is here, but for the sake of completeness, my contribution is below:
You’ve got your wonderful new OC, Marmite Showers. They’re all you’ve ever dreamed of! Smart (like you), sexy (like you) and popular (like you). All you need to do now is to write a story about them to show the world what a wonderful character they are. Perhaps Marmite Showers will come to Ponyville and meet all the ponies and fall in love with Fluttershy. What a wonderful story that will be!
If the above sounds a bit like what you are doing, stop. Pick up a rare earth magnet and wipe it across your hard drive several times. Throw your computer out of the window. Finally, get a friend (or parent/guardian) to crush your hands with a steamroller.
I’m not saying that such stories are bad (I’m of the belief that there are no bad ideas, just badly executed ideas), it’s just that it’s really really easy to make a story like that terrible, and really really difficult to make it great. The old ‘write a story all about how great your character is’ can be a challenge for an amazing writer, but chances are you (and me!) aren’t of that calibre.
For some reason, the moment they decide to write a story about an OC, most people tend to throw everything they know about writing out of the window and just write something about their character coming to Ponyville and meeting all the characters one by one yadda yadda. Maybe there’s some sort of villain they then have to fight or some mysterious dark secret, or they have to marry Fluttershy, but they all follow the same standard formula. A story that functions primarily as a showcase for their amazing character. And well, that’s not really a story, is it?
1 – What is your story about?
Showcasing a character is not a story in itself. If your sole reason for writing your tale is to show off your character, then you really are doing it wrong; the only person who cares about your character is you, telling everyone that Marmite Showers is the ‘new pony in town, what will he do?’ is not going to draw in an audience.
Stories need to be about something, there has to be a solid, core idea behind what you are writing and why. There needs to be a reason that you are writing besides the fact that you like the pretty shapes words make on a page. The best stories have a really key, core idea behind them, a ‘unique selling point’ that intrigues the reader and draws them in. There’s often themes that are portrayed in events and character arcs, even if you don’t consciously notice them. Personally, I find that repeating the “why, why, why?” question to myself in examining everything I do with a story helps in its construction.
A piece of writing about Marmite Showers coming to Ponyville and meeting Twilight then meeting Applejack then having a party with Pinkie Pie and then marrying Fluttershy isn’t a story, it’s just stuff that happens. You could stop writing at any point and it would be just as complete if it went on for 1,000 words or 10,000 words. Something about a pony called Marmite Showers who opens a Marmite store and is shunned by the populace who do not understand the deliciousness of Marmite, until they are finally convinced after trying some that it is in fact amazing, is a story. I call this story “My Mate, Marmite”.
2 – Casting your characters
Having an OC is a bit like being a Hollywood director who is sleeping with an actor and wants to put them in everything they make. A script lands on their desk and blam, the actor is in the starring role whether they deserve it or not.
The story is the key, and as such, the characters need to fit the story, rather than the story be mashed out of shape to star the character. The less you try to shoehorn a character into a place they don’t belong, the better. People can tell, trust me.
There are two types of OC: the ones that develop naturally out of plot necessity (if you compare this to MLP, these would be the Trixies and June Bugs and Flim-Flams) and those that the author has already designed and wants to put into a plot (those would be the Princess-sell-this-toy-Cadances of MLP). The former is by far the better because they are more natural, but there is nothing wrong with the latter, as long as you are careful in developing a story around that character.
When writing your story, think about the characters you need, and why. If you need a character that is intelligent and good with magic and bookish, then you should probably use Twilight Sparkle and not her mysterious older sister who is better at magic than her and has wings and a broken horn and laser-eyes. Put the square block in the square hole. On the flip-side, if your story has a scene where someone breaks a horseshoe and needs it fixed, it is more appropriate to invent (say) Fulcrum the bearded blacksmith who has a big hammer and dreams of the day when Ponyville will be ruled by Communism then to suddenly give Fluttershy a hammer and anvil and make her the Ponyville blacksmith. The best OCs fill a natural gap in the narrative, this helps in giving them a strong reason for existing and a ‘unique selling point’ as opposed to a generic pony who is good at everything but happens to be the writer’s own OC.
If I was to want to cast Marmite Showers in “My Mate, Marmite” I need to make sure that he’s an integral part of the narrative besides just being in it. As this imaginary story revolves around a Marmite shop it seems like this box is ticked, but the key is that the character’s effect on the story is unique: if any other character was the protagonist, the story would take a different route. They need to have a strong enough personality to carry a story. This brings me nicely to the next point:
3 – They need to have a strong enough personality to carry a story.
I said earlier that the story should come first, and then the characters. This is true. However the opposite is also true at the same time: a story should be character led, not plot led. The events of the story should naturally arise from the actions of the characters in a logical and coherent manner. A story where Applejack lies to Twilight that Granny Smith is dead, because the plot requires that Twilight thinks Granny Smith is dead, is a poor story as it requires Applejack to act out of character. The story and characters need to complement each other, hand in hand.
Again, I think this is why most stories with OCs tend to fail, because the writers don’t give their OCs a strong enough personality. A lot of OCs are very wishy-washy generic ‘nice’ characters because the writers project their own personality on to them. A character who is ‘nice’ and ‘kind’ and ‘friendly’ isn’t really a character, or at least not a main character.
This is also why villainous OCs tend to be more accepted. They fit a clearer gap in the narrative and have generally villainous personalities. You know where they stand.
MLP has some pretty great characterisation when all is said and done. The main six ponies are very unique, with strong character traits. You could put all six in the same situation and each of them would handle it different, and the important thing is that you could probably work out how each of them would tackle a situation because their characters are so clear and well-defined. The stories change because of their presence in them; they are not just swept along by whatever the plot demands.
Here’s a great exercise to try: describe a character without reference to what they look like, their relationship to anyone else, or their job. The more detailed you can get it, the better the character.
For characters like Twilight, this is easy (off the top of my head: nerdy, bookish, prone to anxiety and worry, can get carried away, slightly socially awkward, genius). For characters like Princess Tenhorn Sparkle when I can’t describe that she has ten horns or is Twilight Sparkle’s magic sister, it is harder (she is uh, kind and uh, nice?). That’s an extreme example, but you get the picture. If a character doesn’t have a strong personality when everything else has been stripped away, then you probably shouldn’t be using them as your protagonist.
4 - Transience vs Permanence
One of the most important aspects of a story is character development. Your protagonist should ideally finish the story a different person to how they started it. Using an OC can make this a much more powerful event than using a canon character for the simple reason than an OC is your character.
When you use a canon character, you are effectively borrowing them – at the end of the story they are passed back to the fandom at large. If your story is about Scootaloo finally learning to fly, then her victory is fleeting; the very next story by another writer that the reader looks at will have her unable to fly again. It might be sad that Fluttershy dies at the end of your tale, but she’ll also appear in at least fifty new stories a day and pop up every week on television. Leaps and bounds made by canon characters in your story will by definition only last until the reader starts to read something else.
Use an original character though, and any change is permanent. It’s far more exciting when Clippy Wings learns to fly, because once he’s learnt it, that’s it. He’s your character, you’re writing about him, and he can fly now, dammit! It’s sadder when Marmite Showers dies because he drowns in a vat of his own marmite because that’s it, he’s dead forever. He’s not going to pop up on television; you, the author, have made this final statement. With an OC, you have the power of permanence.
Until someone steals your characters and uses them in clop.
Indeed.
Quite so. I find this quite the interesting read, dear Blueshift.
-Tricondon
I think you have to draw the line between an OC as the central protagonist and an OC in a supporting role. You have a lot more flexibility if the spotlight isn't always going to be on your OC, or if they are only in a couple scenes even if they are essential to the plot. Supporting characters and "one scene/episode wonders" can become hugely popular.
As I said on the other post, now you need to do a story where Fluttershy meets Fulcrum at the Marmite convention and they get married.
I agree almost wholeheartedly.
The only point on which I contend is this:
"Again, I think this is why most stories with OCs tend to fail, because the writers don’t give their OCs a strong enough personality. A lot of OCs are very wishy-washy generic ‘nice’ characters because the writers project their own personality on to them. A character who is ‘nice’ and ‘kind’ and ‘friendly’ isn’t really a character, or at least not a main character."
I suspect this is a projection, not of the writer's personality but how they wish to perceive themselves with all the interesting quirks and flaws ironed out. For example, were I to, in a fit of insanity, actually write myself into a story accurately, the character would be contentious and overly fond of the sound of their own voice.
But that really is a minor point.
I think there's too much attention put on OCs as protagonist characters and that's problematic in and of itself. Even using OCs as primary antagonists plays a distant second. The problem with this is that using OCs in any role is deprecated, while almost all advice (like your definitely excellent advice) is focused on protag OCs. I'm not sure what to do about this, but I like using OC and quasi-OC antagonists so this is a subject near and dear to my heart.
.342036
While that is a primary focus, it seems to me that most of this advice can easily be applied to antagonists. Don't they need to serve the role of the story and have a strong enough personality to drive it forward? Isn't it better to make sure your antagonist isn't fitting a niche that an existing character already fills? And so on, with most of the advice. I suppose you could skimp on the character development (transience vs permanence) but many good antagonists get that as well.
I approve.
fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/271/d/b/rarity_clap_by_mihaaaa-d4b7kr9.gif
Actually, I consider Tank to be a much better example of that than Cadance. Especially with how incredibly contrived Dash's predicament was.
Cadance was actually a good character, only messed up because they gave her wings for no reason.
1. Nice article, hits the nail right on the head, though I think the hate for OCs is so strong that when I tried making an all OC fic with these types of things it got almost all downvotes (I also tagged it with gore even though it's not a gore story, it just has some gore in it)
2. Fulcrum the communist is best pony. I'm going to export him into a clop fic.
Blue stop writing all your fics right now and start writing My Mate, Marmite.
Then do a Transformers comic about it.
I agree with everything, even that last line. Especially that last line. Thanks, this can help me with my new story!
encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRoVQKetpsZ6aFjARR_xo00Karzpepq8zxBTbCrIzKGdphwyvEC_Q
Why? I dunno...
Marmite? MARMITE!?
you monster! That stuff Never Get's Any More Tolerable. EVERY TIME IT'S JUST AS FOUL. Every few months I start believing again that It Can't Be That Bad As I Remember... and it is.
ahem, rant aside... a lot of it is template. Canon characters have a commonly accepted template as traits go, OC's you build from the ground up. (...Ground Up. Bam, instant OC name. Let's roll with it and see where we go.)
I find the story should feature the personality as much as the personality should feature the story. You probably wouldn't put gruff and ready but well meaning Ground Up (Bam mix and match traits!) in a story about Fluttershy overcoming SOME RATIONAL AND SYMPATHETIC FEAR, because This OC has NO Essential Reason To Be Involved in that, when established canon characters are more than likely to take that role anyway...
...except if Ground Up works at mining, (Oh, a setting now, He's on fire!) and he needs Fluttershy's help to convinve the Quarray Eels to move out of the way for a while so his team can get at some valubale stuffythings (Scene building! Woo! Woo the reader!)...and he's awkwardly trying to figure out how to be sensitive while working against a qouta and learning that a direct approach of insistence (like in mining) isn't always the best idea... Binga linga Bingo!
Wait... Now Ground Up has relevance, and setting, and room for Character Development, and did I mention RELEVANCE to a story involving
?
You have to admit, that's a pretty good story concept for what was spawned in the ramblings of a comment.
If I can name one quark heavy quirk against OC's, it's that all too often their shoved into a setting and premise that wasn't made for them, nor were they made for it. To suddenly make the case that OC Magee (He's quite fond of a quite drink or two in the evening) is best buds with Dash flies (hardy har har) in the face all established canon and affronts the reader's sensibilities. In short, they're the mane SIX, not mane seven, and not even duct tape (well, maybe duct tape) could stick an OC to that. Don't worry, there's plenty of OC friendly settings if you look for 'em.
But yeah, the post was much more cohesive and useful than this nominal rant o mine (Sweet rant of mine)
...I like to rant.
And rave, if the song's good.
Don't read this, go read what Blueshift said. Even though telling you this here at the end is redundant in the utmost
Seriously, he's much more articulate than this.
But yeah, OC's - handle with care.
And then your character gets used in clop, indeed.
"It’s sadder when Marmite Showers dies because he drowns in a vat of his own marmite because that’s it, he’s dead forever."
Dude! Watch the spoilers!
342312
I'm going to ship Fulcrum with Ground Up. FulcrUp is new OTP.
342342
I love all that guy's reviews, really really clever and insightful. It's a shame about some of the really crude jokes which makes me uncomfortable about showing it to others (put that cat down Mr Plinkett!)
342312
Get some shortcrust pastry.
Spread Marmite over it.
Sprinkle with cheese
Roll into a cylinder, and cut into segments
Place in oven for 15-20 minutes
You will never doubt Marmite again
342106
I'd probably argue that Cadance isn't a character at all, but a plot device. Her primary characteristic is something in relation to another character (she is a bride). I couldn't honestly tell you anything about her character other than "she's nice".
That's not a BAD thing (apart from the end where she saves the day, not Twilight, the character we have been following throughout the finale, that's why it felt so weird to me).
342530
I don't know man, I just don't know! I mean, it hurt so much last time, I don't know if I can go through that kind of thing again.
I really liked what you said Blueshift, Wanderer D's educational blogs are always the best.
342537
She was an analogy for the positive power of love while Chrysalis was an analogy for the negative power of love.
On the other hand, Tank exists to generate continuity between the show and toy lines.
*grins and claps* bravo! Another nifty post, now get to work on that Marmite oc! *whipcrack*
342702
But Tank has an actual characterization with strengths and weaknesses, Cadence is a Mary Sue.
I hate her.
whatdafaqshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/rofl01.png
344668
Actually, based on her backstory and character traits, she's not technically a mary-sue. It just seems like that because her introduction was so suddden. Shining Armor kind of is though. And in a hilarius way, their existence kind of makes Twi one.
As for Tank, I never said he was a mary sue, just that his only reason for existing is to sell a toy.
344912
How is she not a Mary Sue? Name one flaw that she has.
Tank wasn't just made to sell a toy, we saw the episode coming even before the toy was announced, there was even a fanfic that described a plot very similar with that to the episode.
342010 Quite.
342537
She loves Shining Armor and.... You're right it is hard. I've thought of one, though. Judging by that flashback, she's probably where Twilight got her frighteningly lax stance on emotional manipulation spells, as evidenced by her commenting that the Want It, Need It spell "works every time", learning by example from her babysitter using magic to play cupid.
344921
She's not a Mary Sue because she's a completely normal for a pony and all of her perks are explained logically. She's just hot, and nice. She's not even very strong or even well known.
346611
Hot, nice, and an all powerful alicorn. Mary Sue.
346730
All powerful? OK, at this point I'll just assume our perceptions of reality are so different we can never agree and drop it.
346736
Well not all powerful, but definitely more powerful than the average pony. She has no real flaws like all the other characters. The only character who is allowed to be perfect is Celestia because she doesn't play the role of the hero.
346739
In the context of our perspective, maybe. Not in the context of the show. She has no qualities or traits that are unreasonable in context. She's not especially powerful or more charmed than one of her pedigree would be expected to be. The only reason she has no flaws is because we only see her for like a couple hours on her wedding day. She's Celestia's niece, she's a Princess by blood, so she has wings, she used to foalsit Twilight so she met and fell in love with her brother. She has the hyper-situational ability to make repressed love surface. Other than that, she's good looking, again probably due to pedigree. Her niceness is entirely reasonable for a genuinely good person. She's weaker and less exceptional than any of the mane 6 individually. She couldn't even get out of a stupid cave that Twilight blasted open in a couple seconds.
I agree she's not an exceptionally well rounded character, but again that is due to very limited screen time.
And a poorly realized characterization does not automatically make her a mary-sue. there is NOTHING exceptional about her that does not make perfect sense in the context of her pedigree and associations.
346765
The biggest problem is that she ended up being the hero of the episode when she wasn't the focus of the episode, she wasn't even a rounded character. That ruined the entire episode. The episode would have been the best ever if she didn't ruin it.
346771
She was the hero? She was a glorified Red Bull (Pink Alicorn - It gives you wingies!) to recharge Shining Armor's batteries. Now Shining's spell is a Mary-Sue ability.
346778
They were both awful Mary Sue's out of nowhere.
346793
Well in an episodic series where the producers specifically stated they want as little continuity as possible, "out of nowhere" is really to be expected.
However, I will say that regardless of their poor characterization, neither of them ACTED like Mary-Sues at least. Except Chrysalis. She acted like a Mary-Sue, even though she really wasn't one.
346819
Chrysalis wasn't a Mary Sue, she was the freaking villain. Also, the series definitely does have continuity, there are many continuity gags in many of the episodes. Adding a random big brother is a character out of nowhere.
346838
Ok. Read what I type. I said she wasn't an MS, I said she sort of acted like one expects an MS to act.
Also, I never said there wasn't continuity. I said the producers want as little as possible. Hasbro does not want another Transformers clusterfrick for MLP of all things.
346853
If she was an OC all the other ponies would like her and stuff.
MLP is episodic and the episodes are made to be viewed in any order, but it still has a fair amount continuity. One time characters are fine, one time siblings are not.
346868
346877
I did. It didn't change my opinion at all.
346765
My issue with the ending is that it works 'if it was real', ie it is perfectly reasonable that two powerful characters will love-cannon the villains out of nowhere, but it doesn't work 'if it is a story' in thatthe external resolution should come about as a result of the internal resolution. For example, in the pilot episode, Twilight can rainbow-cannon Nightmare Moon not because she has the Elements of Harmony, but because she has resolved the 'problem' of the episode and realised she has good friends.
The 'problem' of the finale was that Twilight was feeling estranged from her older brother. The 'solution' of the episode however, was that Shining Armour and Cadance reaffirm their love for each other, thus defeating Chrysalis. Only... that love was never in doubt at all. It's just not that satisfying.
Don't get me wrong, I really really liked the season finale, I just felt that they fumbled the ball on something pretty obvious and fundamental (and something they have done right in the past).
I don't think she's Mary-Sueish though, we don't see enough of her for that, just too much of a plot device that is brought to the fore.
346893
I agree 100%. There was NOTHING in that episode that was satisfyingly explained or resolved.
But I don't really mind. I don't watch the show for the story. 90% of the episodes make me facedesk anyway.
I only really care about the characters and the scenes, not the overall plot.
If I want story I'll read fics.
346902
I think that's unfair. It was pretty logically cohesive, but not that satisfying after the initial buzz.
346923
Every single thing logically cohesive about that episode had to be inferred by the viewer.
Or was just expositionally tacked on without prior implication.
The only things that made any sense were the mane 6 being invited to (not involved in) the wedding and Chrysalis impersonating Cadance to collect love for her hive.
Nothing else in the story was sufficiently foreshadowed or satisfactorily explained. Nothing.
Not saying I didn't like it. Both episodes are in my top 10. Just not for the story.