This seemed like a topic that would've been really good for the ever so lonely Artrift forums (sigh) I might do it

So I've been thinking about this for a while when thinking back on my content, especially now as I begin to write a piece about current events (which nobody here will see, as per the rules and the norms). I have many OC's and/or works of fiction scattered about even if they're not my specialty. I am what you may see many call set in her ways, albeit in a kind of inclusivist/relativist way. When such a person, right or wrong, writes a work, you can expect it to carry that on each time. And the main characters, by the end of the story, embody this, right? Right?

So as I mentioned, I had been thinking of this question for a while. I have some variance in most characters, like they might have different traditions or habits, but someone asked me about it one day.

"Uh why is your character a Scientologist" they asked? The OC, which was based on a stereotypical Hollywood actor, had it implied in his details, though it reflected little.

"Something wrong with that?"

"So you're a Scientologist?"

"No, never considered it nor wish to."

"So you disagree with despotic doctrine, yet you make a character who follows despotic doctrine?"

"Despotic? Look at his heroism at the end of the story."

"Yeah, but it's still despotic doctrine. Imagine making your hero supporting [that thing that violates Godwin's Law] but then going on a quest and saving the world."

"But that's the stuff of villains."

"And Scientology isn't the stuff of villains?"

"The last guy who critiqued an OC asked me why I 'make them all church-loving islanders' and clearly this has led to an impasse."

Curious, I began looking at many of the OC's others put on the site. How much of a separation is imbued in OC's in your experience? Would they be disagreeable little rebels if they were summoned to life?

Only a Scientologist would object to such a character.

They would not accept a WOG (Term used by Scientologists to describe those outside the church.) making a fictional character a Scientologist nor Scientology depicted in a work of fiction.

Even for one of their own to do so would be considered squirrel (A term used by Scientologists for heretical behaviour and ideas, as opposed to tech; the established church doctrine as outlined by L Ron Hubbard and later David Miscavige.)

So only the Church and it's members themselves in my opinion would have any cause to be suspicious or offended.

A non Scientologist seeing red flags there sounds to me like ignorance... Which is understandable, though the Church and it's doctrines are far more open and widely known due to the whistle blowing of ex members... Understandably non Scientologists are largely ignorant to Scientology and it's beliefs.

Anyone curious would do well to watch Aaron Smith-Levin/Growing up in Scientology and Mike Rinder as good introductions into what ex church members have to say about their experiences and lessons from their time as Scientologists.

Consider many ex church members themselves were long time, if not born and raised as members of the church, a good number of them still as staff/Sea Org members.

Ron Miscavige (Ex member and father of the current head of Scientology David Miscavige) is also a solid and informative source.

The prevailing message is to educate yourself, help educate others, assist current members in pursuing alternatives to the Church if you are able and it is safe to do so.

The picketing of Scientology Orgs and intimidation of staff members is counter productive, as you must consider they're people on the ground floor, themselves victims and are subjected to exploration themselves. They shouldn't be the target and often attacks from the outside can cement the "Us vs them" mentality they are already indoctrinated with.

It's better to be courteous and charitable to specific individuals within those orgs (By charitable I mean provision of food, clothing and hygiene products; they are often severely lacking these and are paid a minimum or volunteers wage, which is often withheld or short changed from them by the Church behind closed doors.)

And whilst practicing a distance from the Church and the Org the individual is from; be approachable to them as the individual.

Again if it's safe for both you and them to do so.

The church is not above harassing non members they believe are SP's (Suppressive persons.), as their doctrine sternly decrees a policy of "Fair gaming" those they see as enemies to the church.

This harassment and intimidation may come in several forms.

The church at large is steadily declining, but consider those Scientologists you are able to meet, fanatical as they may be...

Are also victims of the church, and best to remove yourself from the situation or call the police if their zeal escalates.

All religions have been depicted in fiction and they are no more an exception than any other faith.

One of my personal movies is "The master" starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix. Which is loosely based upon L Ron Hubbard and what would become his church of Scientology.

Great movie.

I've actually attempted to read some of LRH's Science Fiction works... But reading a sequel or third volume without having read the first is difficult for me, and audio books on youtube are equally as elusive and scattered as cheap hard copies.

Found some of his stories a bit unappealing, boring... But I'm willing to try again down the track.

I know someone who owns a copy of Dianetics, might ask them to lend it to me.

But if it's all the same, it's time probably better spend getting around to reading something by Ayn Rand.

I think that the problem here is that readers too easily believe that a writer's personal beliefs are reflected in the way they write certain characters, especially characters that are supposed to be the main heroes or close to the main characters. And that is generally not so wrong as it makes it easier for a writer to envision how a character behaves and reacts toward certain situations. Then there are writers who can extend themselves into an alternate mindset for characters that are very different people from themselves, a method which is good for diversifying main characters so that you aren't writing the same character over and over again until your readers are bored. When that type of writing meets readers who believe that a main character is the embodiment of the writer's ideals, we now have the dilemma that a reader would believe that the writer themselves to be a dangerous person if, say, the original character goes on murderous rampages and gets away without even seeing the inside of a jail cell. The fear turns into outrage if that same character turns out to be a member of what the reader believes to be an undesirable group, say a Scientologist.

I have seen quite a number of original characters on this site, some decent, some horrible in their behavior. But there is no reason to believe that the character is acting out any beliefs or desires of the writer unless the writer happens to say so. Confrontation on such a subject only makes me wonder why a reader would so easily believe that the writer is a murderer just because their original character is. Take @rollee: he has his series Factory of Madness full of murderous children (granted, ghosts) and topics including child abuse and suicide. None of the characters are punished in any way, making the setting quite horrible. Do I believe Rollee is a suicidal, murderous psychopath that flays children alive and burns down houses? Of course not. Why do I not believe this about Rollee? Because he's a writer building a world of fiction. I would certainly have questions if he ever admitted that he has had experience with some of the subjects that come up in FoM, but I do not have an impulse to confront him about it simply because a lot of writers can make wonderfully horrific worlds like this without being sick in the head. If I thought that Rollee was that much of a psycho, how is he still producing works of fiction on a website when he probably should have been locked away in a nuthouse with sedation and electroshock therapy at the top of every hour? How are you, @chaseawaythedark, able to interact with a society that heavily distrusts and sometimes even actively shuns Scientologists while being a Scientologist? How has Stephen King gotten away with being a pyrokinetic little girl with a penchant for temper tantrums? Was Bill Watterson a chaotic little child who was constantly trying to stay on top of everyone around him only to fail miserably? One of my stories features a character getting mad at a TV program and shooting out her friend's TV. While I may certainly take issue with certain types of shows, I do not own a gun nor would I carelessly discharge it in another person's house without provocation.

In short, if someone confronts you about the way your character is behaving, they are looking far too deep into that character's connection to you. I would even dare say they are looking for confrontation where it should not exist. Not everybody writes Mary Sues.

When I was a teenager, I used to think that I was writing my Very Unique Characters™ with a broad range of views and opinions, but they were all clearly created by the same little girl, who had many faults and misconceptions, and very little real life experience. As I grew up, moved out, and adjusted my priorities, my stories changed, and as they got more complicated, I needed to think harder to find ways to connect all of the mini plot points, and to justify why certain characters would ever be in the same scene together. They have different histories, different family dynamics, different motivations, different long-term goals, different fears, strengths, and weaknesses.

I have learned from re-reading my old stories, and from seeing what other people were doing wrong, that it's very important to actually develop multiple ways of thinking. If one of my characters is a mechanic, I spend time chatting with my mechanic friends, watching repair videos, and studying the manuals of my yard equipment, to get an idea of what matters to that character. I don't smoke, and the few times I have tried it, I didn't like it at all, but, if I need to write a scene where a character is enjoying a cigarette after a very long ordeal, I need to get into that head space and make the reader understand how good it feels -- even if I'm physically gagging at the thought of how gross it is. If I find a horror movie that has a bunch of teenagers going camping together, and all of the women are only talking about "their conquests", it's painfully clear that the entire script was written without any actual input from women, and I give up on trying to watch it; not because it's doomed to be bad, (it might be great,) but because there was a minimal amount of effort put into it, and it breaks the illusion of believability. Therefore, when I write my guys, I actually do talk to men about similar topics and I listen to how they talk. Often times, they say things from a perspective that I never would have considered, so it's a learning experience in many ways.

It's also important to avoid cloning your characters and events from real people and situations that have happened; firstly, because it's obvious, and kind of boring. And, secondly, because it would be extremely awkward if one of those people found that story, recognized that they were the inspiration for a character, and assumed that whatever that character was used for was how the writer imagined interacting with him or her in real life. I've been in that situation, and I do not recommend it. I have former friends who think I was in love with them, or that I saw them as a villain, just because I borrowed their haircare routine or a cool piece of jewelry, for a character who had no other connection to them whatsoever.

Write what you know, and write what you love. There's nothing wrong with that. If someone mocks you for that, that person isn't worth your time. If someone respectfully offers critique, or asks why all of your characters seem alike, consider that they might have a point, but don't let it get you down. "Done is better than perfect" after all -- If you spend too much time trying to write the perfect story in one take, without a rough draft or revisions, it will never begin.