Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
I am OCR Cancer Free by Novadestin I am OCR Cancer Free by Novadestin
OCR Cancer = Original Character Reviewer Cancer
(Confused? See last statements.)

In these last few years I have noticed an extreme decline in the quality of OC reviews and the reviewers who give them. So here I proudly proclaim that I am OCR Cancer free!

My mind is still open and functional, I have control of my opinions and still retain the ability to be perceptive and sensible. My ears are fully functional for listening and understanding another point of view is still a thought process I have available to me. My fingers are capable of giving thorough con crit reviews and my attention span is still long enough to focus on something for more than 5 minutes.

I am thankful for my health, as are all the authors out there looking for help with their OC's. I support OC's and if you do too, than proclaim yourself OCR Cancer free and stay that way!

Signs that you may have OCR Cancer:
* Thin, brittle reviews that lack substance.
* Massive fatigue that inhibits the typing of more than a paragraph.
* Lazy eye that prevents focus on more than one small portion of a bio.
* Decreased brain function in the use of condescension.
* Constructive criticism deficiency.
* Delusions of Mary Sues and/or cliches at every turn.

Other symptoms may be out there... report them and spread the word! (seriously, tell me if you think of anymore x3)

(...What does all this mean? It means that if someone asks me for a review on their OC I will give them a fair, honest, and objective review based on the merits of their character alone that will not be condescending, judgmental, or lacking in examples and suggestions. Don't misunderstand, I will point out problems, but I won't make you feel like a dumbass just because something doesn't add up quite right. I am here to help you write, not be an ass like those with OCR Cancer and leave you ready to toss the whole story. I love both getting and giving OC reviews and I refuse to give in to these sub par reviews and people. Never settle, seek out a good reviewer and get a good review!

Anyone and everyone is welcome to use this stamp to proclaim they are OCR Cancer Free! And, if you wish to know my stance on the concept of Mary Sue before asking for help, you can always go here.)

Stamp template by Kencho Thank you my dear :D
Add a Comment:
HatedLove6 Featured By Owner Mar 21, 2016  Hobbyist Writer
Decided to poke around my old favorites and found the stamp again, but I have a new experience to share.  When I faved the stamp, I had not been a member of QuoteV.

QuoteV is probably worse with this than DA.  So many people there have OC review books, but they spew much of the same old shallow BS.  I've seriously seen people say "Mary-Sue age!" when a character's sixteen.  I've also seen butt-length hair as a Mary-Sue trait.  They also get annoyed at characters (for fan fiction) who join a group, and that group just so happens to be a popular group other people with their OCs join, and this counts against this character.  A hilarious thing I saw in the Writing group is the thread title that said something like "Detailed Character Reviews Up to 200 Words."  (How sparse are these character sheets that it takes only 200 words to review it?)  It's the same ridiculous BS as everywhere, but I say it's worse on QuoteV because of the sheer number of these books, and it feels like people are settling for bad reviews.  (Or they believe these bad reviews are actually good reviews.)

 After looking through fifty pages of searching for these books, there have only been two that seem at least reasonable.  The one I really want a review from has been very busy with school, so I don't mind waiting.  The other was :shrug:  They didn't point out anything petty, and said my character wasn't a Gary-Stu and all, but it wasn't really an in-depth review.  It seems that writing reactions after some parts of of the character sheet is the most popular way to review characters, which I don't mind, but the "reactions" are usually one or two-liners, and they're purely reactionary.  No real critique or advice or friendly suggestions.

Unless they're telling you to "fix it" or "get rid of it," which they don't suggest how, or they just plainly refuse to reconsider their views even after a discussion. 

For shiz and giggs I chose a fairly popular OC review book with the same BS being spouted around, just to see what they would say (and maybe change their views a little).  That experience just absolutely baffles me and reinforces the reasons why I scrutinize character review books (especially when scores or the phrase "Mary-Sue" is involved). 

First, they didn't understand that private character sheets that I use—and I would think is like most other people—are not as detailed as the character sheets I type for online reviews.  Usually for fan fiction I just have the name, appearance, and rough history and I'm good to go (no hobbies, personality, goals, motivations, etc. because that's easy stuff to remember or make up as you go), but if I want the character to be reviewed, I know I need to put down a ton more information so they actually know the character short of reading the story.  It's like editing your own story, even the obvious is missed, so I miss some details that may be needed because while it may be clear to me due to knowing the character myself, it wouldn't be clear to other people who don't.  So, yes, missing information is indeed my bad, but there's no need to give me attitude through the review on an otherwise completed character sheet. 

Another thing I hate is when the reviewer guesses.  "Let me guess, this is going to happen."  And then when their guess is proven right, they say, "Called it," as if a little predictability is a bad thing.  That is not in the least bit constructive, and is condescending.

Here's the confusing part, though: I was extraordinarily detailed in the appearance and the clothing.  I described him so well you can sketch a mugshot of him with technical speak kind of description, and even the shape of his hands and feet.  I described different outfits he tends to like in casual outdoor, casual indoor, semi-formal and formal (plus his superhero outfit).  So it's no wonder that I got a 10/10 under "Appearance."  I got an 8/10 under "Personality," which she said is really good and extremely balanced, but could always use improvement, but the reason it was docked two points was because he has PTSD, which leads me to the next score which really gets my goat.

A 1/10 in the backstory.  Why?  Because of sexual abuse, plus PTSD, plus self-harming.  Three things that tend to go hand in hand for a ton of people is overdoing it.  They made it sound like if I had stopped at sexual abuse, then the character may have been redeemable, PTSD is really, really, pushing it, but self-harming is an absolute no-no.  They also complained that that the backstory was all sad.  Fair enough, but I just wanted to focus on how the abuse started, and why the abuse changed him and played an integral part to how he became the person he is at the start of the story.  So sorry if I didn't mention any family barbecues or holidays or hanging out with his friends or camping trips or whatever.  I bullet-pointed the history because I just wanted to get to the important parts, and his abuse was central to his metamorphosis from an average kid to how he gained powers.  And even then it was pretty darn long.  As if that wasn't annoying enough, the character was for Teen Titans, and an abusive or sad history is pretty common in the characters that become heroes.  Dick Grayson, Bruce Wayne, Deadpool (I guess?), and a ton more superheroes from any universe.  The really sad part is that even with all the details in everything else, they didn't trust me to do research on these subjects so I don't misrepresent or romanticize it, and lumped me with "those" people even though reviews are supposed to be individualized to only that one person's work.

The Overall Character score was a 4/10 because even though I was super detailed in the personality and appearance, the backstory was just so unforgivable, the person didn't even know how to average out the score.

As for the extra tips, they put "FIX THE BACKGROUND!" yes, in caps lock.  And what they meant by "fix," they mean "get rid of."  Everything.  Sexual abuse, PTSD, and self-harming. 

It gets worse.

I placed a respectful comment asking for them to reconsider.  I explained to them that the abuse was the reason how and why he became a hero, and I said that I didn't see how it was fair to penalize my character review for other people who've done the misrepresenting and romanticizing of sexual abuse.  I told them I would add onto the character sheet to add the extra information that was needed, because it was needed (but the sass wasn't).  I also asked if the Overall Character score was a separate score or an average of the three other categories.

The OC review book had two reviewers, and the main author was not the one who reviewed it, but she was honest in that she thought worse of it; however if I did add in the information, she said they would reconsider and revise their review.  I did add the information and even added links to sources to grooming, signs of sexual abuse, pedophiles, PTSD, self-harming and self-mutilation, and even several sources on Navajo country because the character was Navajo (and yet neither of them asked me if I knew anything about being a Navajo and what it's like to live there and all).  No one usually adds links to anything unless it's a picture of their character, so me adding links to my sources is really going the extra mile.  OK, an extra mile of the five extra miles I had already put into the character sheet because it's really detailed.

I waited three weeks even though she said only a few days.  Only one thing changed. 

The Overall Score.  From a 4 to a 6.3.  Which is the average of the Appearance, Personality and Backstory scores, which stayed exactly the same word for word.  I know because I had screenshot everything before and after, including my comment along with their response. 

This experience is my fuel to write my next how-to guide, which is between a guide on how to spot a good OC reviewer from the atrocious, and a rant because I'm quite passionate and I don't think other people should have to go through all of that Arrowup  By Mamaelm .
Novadestin Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2010
hehe your welcome :) and yes I do, why?
AnimeRulez234 Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2010
I was just wondering! I use it as well, my username is 4shadowedice4!
AnimeRulez234 Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2010
...*blinks*...FINALLY!!!!!!!!! Some one finally pointed this out! I usually try to give good reviews but a few bad ones have slipped in here or there! I am an OC writer and am personally sick of reviews like this! ...Thank-you :)

PS, Do you use
Novadestin Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2010
replied below lol, forgot to hit reply :P
Novadestin Featured By Owner Aug 5, 2010
To be far, that probably should say "this can be Mary Sue" (just another example of my need to update it hehe). And that seems to be all in the very first section where it talks about naming and appearance and such (which is where most writers get into the most trouble). Anyway, author insertion is linked with high, red flag Mary Sue-ness because 90% of the time the "character" is presented as a "better" version of the author (smarter, prettier, funnier, more skilled, etc etc) and when you add that all up you can get into a pretty Mary Sue character. So its not that they are automatically the same, but they are very closely related.

I, personally, feel that the only real way to have an author insertion character that is not also a Mary Sue (aside from not doing author insertion in the first place, which is seen as just as bad as Mary Sue's) is to literally write about yourself rather than making up a "character cover". If you're making a character who is supposed to be you and does the same things as you and all that (and you don't embellish to avoid Mary Sue issues) then what the heck is the point of making a "character"?? Just make it you and be happy :)

I don't find anything wrong with people putting themselves into fandom world's, its only when they try to mask that they are doing it when the problems come in. I myself have done author insertion for a challenge where I literally had to used myself (name and everything) and so far everyone who has read it has enjoyed it. So there is nothing wrong with author insertion when its done as the author. (Sure some people might look down on it, but that's their own personal opinion and doesn't say anything about the act itself.) It only becomes bad (and potentially highly Mary Sue) when the author tries to mask themselves as someone else.

...and that is why I see author insertion as pretty much Mary Sue lol I really hope that made sense cause it is late and I am sleepy :P
cyber-end-raven Featured By Owner Aug 5, 2010
It makes more sense than what anyone else has said to me.
Novadestin Featured By Owner Aug 5, 2010
lol good to here :)
cyber-end-raven Featured By Owner Jul 31, 2010
So you were the one who wrote that "Anti Mary-Sue Test" thing? That page rocks!
Novadestin Featured By Owner Jul 31, 2010
lol yes it was me xD and thank you, even though it does need a big update :)
cyber-end-raven Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2010
Sadly, yes, it does. Azura, my character, got an 85 when I first took the test, but taking your advice brought it down to 49.
But still, why do you think self-inserts are Mary-Sues?
Novadestin Featured By Owner Aug 3, 2010
Well after I first wrote it, Syera (creator of the original test) revised things after a long discussion and I just haven't had time to get back to it.

Self inserts CAN be Mary Sue just like anything else, but I can't find where I mentioned self insertion so I can't say anything specific to that.
cyber-end-raven Featured By Owner Aug 3, 2010
I noticed that quite a few questions said, "This is Mary-Sues unless you are literally writing about yourself."
Novadestin Featured By Owner Aug 5, 2010
oops replied in the wrong spot hehe so see below
Add a Comment:


Submitted on
July 31, 2010
Image Size
5.3 KB


10 (who?)