> In general, what I like in fantasy/sci-fi is
>emphasis on characters and personalities more
>than on the "big picture" or grand overarching
>picture of the fictional cosmos, if I can only
>have one or the other.

I'm sick of characters. What I want is an SF novel that is just one long explanation of the scientific principles at the core of the "story." Oh wait, that's what Larry Niven writes. Never mind.

Seriously, I'm getting to the point where I'm sick of hearing people throw around the stock phrase "flat characters" or "poor characterization" when describing a book they didn't like. It's become a cliche instead of an actual criticism. It's almost to the point where nobody seems to really know what it means, they just know it will make them sound intelligent if they say that about a "bad" book.

Characters are good. People who fret and feel angst over every little thing are not, and unfortunately, when I read stories with "good characterization" these days, that seems to be what I get. Characters who make snap decisions in life-and death situations show characterization just as much as characters who fret and fuss in the same situations do.

> Iss "I mean, doesn't *everybody* have a fantasy
> novel they'd like to write?" achar

Quite true. I once read of someone who used to play a party game that consisted of walking up to a random person at a party and asking "So what is the name of your fantasy trilogy?". Most people, in his experience, had an answer.