This is what I actually call constructive critisism....
well sort of.
It shows the pitfalls of a certain type of writing and one of the ways to
avoid it.
- or sets the new (or old) writer some conventions which could (and
sometimes should) be flaunted.
This sort of work denyes anything but the 2 dimensional portrayal of any
of the truly 2 dimensional characters and cuts off inovation..
OOC could simply be differing perceptions.
Look at the differing portrayals of both the Great Detective and Dr.
Watson by various actors and writers...
Watson is often portrayed as a bumbler... but look at "Without a Clue"
and also even his fictional "reality".
He was smart enough to be both a Dr and an army surgeon (well, perhaps
the latter was no great feat at the time) and also a suvivor.
alternitively,
Mr. Holmes's "7% solution" could have been a ruse and he may have indeed
been shooting his own ver of insulin.
Also, and totally off topic -without self insertion (or at least some of
it's looming presence) books like The Great Gatsby would never have been
written.
On the other hand some would consider this a good thing. :)
Me, I just don't like Hemmingway or Steinbeck.
___________________________________________________________________________
Nene Nene Nene Nene Nene Nene Nene Nene Nene
I met a Lady in the Meads,
Full beautiful, a faery's child,
Her hair was long, her foot was light
And her eyes were wild.
J.Keats
________________________________________________________________________
Agent Of Chaos. Robyn, Duke of Amber. Unicorn Knight
****************************************************************************