>
> But if I may interpret, your objection is with
>how the criticism is misunderstood and misused.
>The criticism itself, when applied correctly, is
>still one of the most valid and revealing bases
>for criticism of fiction that there is.

Of course. I'm objecting only to the idiots who say it as a reflex action because they didn't like the book, so obviously the characters must be flat or something.

I'm also saying it as a reaction to all the diametrically opposed reviews of books/stories I've seen. I can't tell you how many times I've seen one person say "Book X was great--the characters were so REAL!" and see another person say "Book X sucked--the characters were flat and unrealized." What the heck is up with that??

In this very thread somehwere (or maybe it was another one) we've got a person praising Robert Jordan for his great characters. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people slam Jordan unmercifully because of his unrealistic or cliched characters. What gives? Somebody is obviously wrong, but I can never tell who unless I read the book myself, and that pretty much defeats the purpose of having read a review or gotten a recommendation. Obviously nobody is perfect, but I would think that we'd all at least be able to agree on a detail like this. Maybe I expect too much.