Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2015-01-07 06:28 pm
[ SECRET POST #2926 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2926 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

__________________________________________________
08.

__________________________________________________
09.

Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 036 secrets from Secret Submission Post #418.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

no subject
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-01-08 06:23 am (UTC)(link)I don't necessarily think criticisms of OOC are arguing with the fact that the writer knows the character best, though.
It's entirely possible for a creator to write their own characters as behaving in an OOC way, if said behavior goes against everything the creator has already shown. Just because they control the character, it doesn't mean their behavior doesn't need to be developed in a way that makes sense.
"They're mine and I can write them any way I choose!" while being factually true, doesn't exempt any creator from making their characters' actions logical to the audience who isn't them and can't see what they know best. The audience relies on the creator to display that to them via the character's actions, and if those actions make no sense based on what has gone before, then that character is behaving in an OOC way, regardless of who's responsible for it.