do you have any advice on making characters not ocs? i saw some diskhorses about how nowdays shows/indie games dont make actual characters but just ocs and im curious of your opinion
Genuinely, I have no clue what the difference is.
Tbh this ask genuinely baffled me because I have no idea what anon means so I started speculating what it could be with people.
From a literary standpoint, there is no difference. It means literally the same thing. Every single "character" in a newly created piece of work is someone's original character unless they're deliberately creating subversive fanfiction.
So, it kind of seems like this narrative to differentiate "OCs" with "characters" is simply to segregate characters one views as serious with others viewed to be self-indulgent and juvenile.
"A "character" is a three-dimensional exploration of people while an "OC" is just someone's self-indulgent fantasy!"
But, if one starts to interrogate any actual substantial differences here, one will be unable to arrive at actual meaningful conclusions. "An OC is one-dimensional." How do you know what all OCs are like? "An OC is self-indulgent." Do you think authors don't indulge in self-indulgence? Why is self-indulgence wrong? "An OC is too horny and pornographic." Some of the greatest examples of fiction are explorations of lust and desire (ex. The Picture of Dorian Gray). "OCs look cartoonish." Extremely reductive, and sets discourse around animation back 20 years -- "not all animation is for children." Being cartoonish has nothing to do with anything. "An OC is too personal." What do you think most fiction writing is, if not personal explorations about everything one feels and learns about? The very foundations of our grasp on language is based on our personal experiences.
No matter how much you explore this thought over and over, there is no meaningful difference here other than one person's perceived disgust, so the thought essentially boils down to:
"OCs are disgusting and cringe while characters provide real literary value."
And I completely believe that there is nothing meaningful into categorizations created solely out of disgust, so there is no real discussion to be had here.
I am aware of what possible meanings "everything is OCs" could entail tbh. Certain recent works like the adapted Tabletop game shows and the very DeviantArt OC-looking shows like Hazbin do seem like what OP might be what's being referred to as "OCs."
But, again, the only reason why one would feel inclined to admonish those IPs on the bases of being "OCs" is only due to aesthetic disagreements, and comparing them to stuff they've seen online that they view as "cringe" and similar enough to insult. But, I find this pointless and mean-spirited.
I think, essentially, all of one's complaints boils down to the quality of writing. There is good and bad examples of everything, even media displaying the veneer of "looking like someone's OCs." Look at Toby Fox's work. I find his aesthetic similar to Vivziepop in the sense that they're both from very specific corners of the internet with furry inspirations, but people find his work well-written enjoyable nonetheless.
If people still find his work disagreeable because the characters "look too much like OCs", then perhaps they shouldn't be engaging with media like that at all.
I disagree that everything looks like they're OCs. I think one might just have a very narrow media diet. There are plenty of movies and TV shows that are still coming out with very grounded designs and stories, so if the aesthetic is the sole basis of disagreement, I recommend those people look into those.
