I think this is a fair critique, if a bit hyperbolic.<p>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.<p>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&#x27;s author evidently did. Fafryd and the Grey Mouser are Exhibits 3A and 3B, although that&#x27;s fantasy, and even Lord of the Rings had vivid characters, so perhaps the criticism never applied to fantasy at all.<p>On the other hand -- as much as I adore Zelazny, his heroes are pretty much all the same. They&#x27;re jaded and cynical, witty in their cynicism, and usually very altruistic even so. Usually they&#x27;re quasi-immortal demigods too, with the most important counterexample that part probably being the poet in A Rose For Ecclesiastes.<p>Dune deserves a mention as being fairly early in the genre for having great characterization. Also Ann McCaffrey&#x27;s Pern books, but those are really fantasies with a thin SF veneer.<p>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.