I think this is a fair critique, if a bit hyperbolic. One point overlooked is that the predominant form of science fiction was, for some decades, short stories

I think this is a fair critique, if a bit hyperbolic. One point overlooked is that the predominant form of science fiction was, for some decades, short stories. Salvor Hardin was as richly imagined a character as Bayta Darell, but he only appeared in short stories (or novellas); he was the hero for about half of Foundation. The sequels were novels; the women were accordingly more memorable; and by the way, I found grandaughter more memorable than grandmother anyway. Another point overlooked is the happy introduction of the vivid, lovable rogue. Nicholas van Rijn is an excellent example, even if by profession he is a tycoon. Lazarus Long is another; I found him a lot more vivid than the article's author evidently did. Fafryd and the Grey Mouser are Exhibits 3A and 3B, although that's fantasy, and even Lord of the Rings had vivid characters, so perhaps the criticism never applied to fantasy at all. On the other hand -- as much as I adore Zelazny, his heroes are pretty much all the same. They're jaded and cynical, witty in their cynicism, and usually very altruistic even so. Usually they're quasi-immortal demigods too, with the most important counterexample that part probably being the poet in A Rose For Ecclesiastes. Dune deserves a mention as being fairly early in the genre for having great characterization. Also Ann McCaffrey's Pern books, but those are really fantasies with a thin SF veneer. Getting more modern yet, I agree that characterization is the norm rather than the exception. My favorite is probably Miles Vorkosigan. I have no idea how that series could win so many Hugos and Nebulas and still seem to be relatively unknown.