At 04:54 PM 12/31/98 -0500, Nightman wrote:

Very interesting Gary.

Indeed.  The idea of Gary writing a FAQ on how to give good C&C...  ^_^

Seriously, it was well-done.  However, I would recommend the following rule
added to any characterization critiques:

If it's a characterization problem, mention it once, and only once.
Mentioning it again in response to the author's response causes it to cease
being C&C and takes it into the realm of characterization argument.  If
there is a serious problem with it, others will comment.  

Beyond that, if Nightman's comments do make it into the FAQ...

Other times an author may select a continuity or characterization that's
not the most popular view, or have an element that they're just not
interested in having discussed and they want the comments to focus on
other things. I know it may seem demanding, but I think it's not
unreasonable as long as the author doesn't have tons and tons of little
details they want excluded. For example, suppose someone writes a fic
where the premise is that Kasumi's vacuousness is all an act to cover
for [insert pithy/quirky plot element here]. I'm sure that author is NOT
going to want that fundamental plot element questioned every time it
comes up. On the other hand, you can tell the author the whole thing
doesn't work for you, but keep it constructive: 

    "I felt the idea that Kasumi was [insert plot element here] 
    just didn't get developed convincingly, and left the whole 
    fic not working for me as a result."

Harsh, yes, but if it's your honest opinion and you're sharing it with
genuine feeling ... it's good commentary for the author.

At the risk of sounding rude, this is not a good way of looking at it.
This falls under characterization interpretation.  

Most flamewars that have erupted due to C&C are the direct result of
someone challenging a characterization interpretation.  Each person will
see the characters in a different way, even with the same material; this is
natural, as people have different backgrounds and beliefs.
Characterization is an inexact science as a result; what may appear to be a
correct course of action to one may seem 'out-of-character' to someone else.

For instance, with the characterization of Kasumi, there are widely
differing viewpoints.  Some believe her to be rather vacuous; others see an
above-average intelligence behind the quiet demeanor.  There is some
evidence for both in the manga and anime.  Which one is right, and which
wrong?  Writers have used anime and manga at various times to portray such
radical characterizations as Akane with a rage disorder and Ranma as a
gender dysphoric.  Does that mean that ALL characterizations should have
Akane bashing the skull of a dolled-up Ranma?  ^_^  

Sometimes there are cases where judgment calls are made where there is NO
evidence indicating the possibility or impossibility of an event.  In this
case, such interpretations are likely to gain dissenters.  This is
especially true in 'long-term' cases, where the hinted-at events of a year
or more may serve to change the characters radically.  In such cases, much
of what is known about the characters may be wrong.

In short, characterization is a dangerous place to criticize.  Chances are,
after all, that the writer knows as much about the characters as you do,
and would not take kindly to repeated open-spaced comments that they are
wrong.  Therefore, if you do have a characterization problem with a work,
mention it once, politely, and do not mention it any more.  Any more falls
under things that will eventually be banned by Tybalt.  

Anyway, sorry I couldn't get more concise with my suggestions and
examples; I hope you can glean something useful from them though. 

Nightman

-- Nick