> I think this is were the disagreement is coming from. From a "what is canon" after the fact (post-hoc), yes, what has already been written is the canon. What hasn't been written is AU.
Yeah, I think the conversation at this point has pretty much whittle down to our different perspectives of what canon and IC/OOC consists of.
> However, it seems like you are arguing that it is impossible for canon to write a character OOC because as long as it's canon, then it is by definition IC.
Yes, that's the way I consider it. At least, the range of what can be considered IC is determined by the primary source material, plus the interpretation of that primary source by the reader (me).
> At least not in fandom (nor in lit crit) where bad canon is called out for character OOCness all the time.
Right, that's how you consider the usage of "canon" and "IC/OOC".
In those circumstances, I would still call it bad writing and whatever, and depending on the situation, prefer fics that ignored it. But at the same I also wouldn't call it out of character as a matter of terminology.
no subject
Yeah, I think the conversation at this point has pretty much whittle down to our different perspectives of what canon and IC/OOC consists of.
> However, it seems like you are arguing that it is impossible for canon to write a character OOC because as long as it's canon, then it is by definition IC.
Yes, that's the way I consider it. At least, the range of what can be considered IC is determined by the primary source material, plus the interpretation of that primary source by the reader (me).
> At least not in fandom (nor in lit crit) where bad canon is called out for character OOCness all the time.
Right, that's how you consider the usage of "canon" and "IC/OOC".
In those circumstances, I would still call it bad writing and whatever, and depending on the situation, prefer fics that ignored it. But at the same I also wouldn't call it out of character as a matter of terminology.