Another few cents of opinion on this whole "canon fodder" debate...

Now, of course, I hope you realize that this is a little over the top.

However, all I'm doing is taking the characterization standards you
seem to have set for others, and applying them to your own works.  By
doing this, I hope it makes you realize that your ridiculously
stringent standards for characterization in other people's work are
not appropriate, and that perhaps an apology to Mr. Kyle and all the
others that you've given a hard time over this is in order.

As I told you, I've already talked to Kyle. What others you're talking
about, I've no idea.

I think there's a difference here, one that Gary is usually pretty good about
observing, between some of the past criticisms being discussed here and
the ones about "Hearts and Minds 5."  When you're talking about the 
Ranma/Ukyou friendship thing, for instance, that's an issue of getting the
history right.  Some writers seem to assume that Ranma and Ukyou have
a close friendship which involves confiding in one another during the series.
Gary maintains that not only does this not show up in the original series, 
but there is a lot of evidence that contradicts it (the root of it all being that
Ukyou's too hung up on "winning" Ranma to be that kind of friend for him).

This would be different from, say, depicting a friendship evolving between
Ukyou and Ranma AFTER the series (as I think was the case in "Bitter
End," but it's been a while since I read the story).  At this point, the argument
is whether you agree that it's a reasonable projection of how the characters
would behave or grow after time.  In such debates, there's a lot more 
leeway for interpretation.  An author has to be more careful if he/she is 
going to try to read new stuff into the original series.  I think it's perfectly
reasonable to ask people to get the history right, if they are claiming
to use it as a basis for their story (and for the record, I don't consider
this to be an absolute - Dave Eddy's "Masks We Must Wear" and "Cut
Wood, Carry Water" are good examples of a writer who takes some 
liberties with the original material but turns out a very enjoyable story in
the process).

Not that Gary doesn't offer plenty of criticism about projecting character
growth - he disagreed with how Nick interpreted Ranma and Kuno in "Iris,"
as I recall.  But I thought he made the distinction between the kind of
criticism he was offering (interpretive vs. historical, shall we say) well
enough (and I didn't necessarily agree with him - I thought "Iris" was 
a very insightful bit of character writing).  

I just thought it was in important distinction to make here.

Besides, it's getting uglier here than it needs to be.  Holding Gary to a 
high standard is fair enough, saying that you disagree with his take on
Soun and/or Shampoo is perfectly reasonable, but is there any need to
start pointing fingers and shouting "hypocrite?"  I think that we can keep
this discussion at a higher level than that.

Grayson Towler
grayson@rigroup.net

http://www.rigroup.com/~grayson/relentless