I agree about the difference between a character's flaws and flawed writing. I can accept a character as realistic (even if I don't like them) when they're jerks and well-written as such. Snape comes to mind. No way would anyone confuse him with a 'nice guy'. Yet (and I'm a book behind, so don't tell me ;-), he's apparently at least making a serious attempt to redeem himself... without changing his basic personality, which is disagreeable in the extreme. I don't like Snape as a person, but I *adore* him as a 'good guy' antagonist. He fits his milieu.

Carter, on the other hand, has been so poorly written as to be nonsensical. Is she strong? Is she independent? Is she a freakin' Air Force officer? Who can tell? They tell us one thing while showing us something else, but the consequences don't match up with what we see. They're trying to tell us the sky is green even though we can see darn well it's blue. With a character like Snape, we *know* his flaws and they're consistent. What we don't always know is where his loyalties lie and that's intentional. We're *supposed* to question his every move. But his actions are consistent with what we *do* see and know. They're also consistently ambiguous where they're supposed to be, if that makes any sense. Carter's just all over the map. Is she 40 or is she 12? Who knows?

Farscape was a great example of women characters (and men, and others, for that matter ;-) who were pretty darned consistently written and not entirely black and white, or even sane. :-)