I've decided to go with positive reinforcement (clearly fandom is craving my headpats, whatever could work better?). Every time I see a complex and interesting characterisation of the two most sloppily maligned characters (IMO) I make sure to comment saying how happy I was to see it. And that's the sort of comment that tends to strike up conversations, not just "thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it", so I'm extra glad of it.

At least once, in scenarios where I feel I've built up a decent rapport with the author, I might mention that I feel differently about a given character, but usually that's only on stories that are complex enough to bother (I do read a lot of crap, and there's no point even getting started on most of it) talking about choices.

Writers react differently to comments pointing out problems. Some don't want to hear about it, or don't want to hear about it in public, or only want to hear about it from specific people (whom they trust). The nature of the problem is also going to affect its reception: a typo is different than a misplaced Americanism, and both are different than a major logic flaw that throws the whole premise of the story into question.

If someone tells me I have a typo or an error of grammar, I can fix that on a story that's already been posted. But basic challenges to characterization, or plot holes, are going to be different: by the time the story's posted, I'm pretty locked in to whatever is there. If someone pointed that out to me, I would (I hope) thank them for it but probably wouldn't revise the story significantly to correct it. I might make a note on the story, though, to acknowledge the error.

When people write that story that hinges on it being Dean's first visit to New Orleans I just bite the inside of my cheek and don't quote the line from the relevant episode.

At least I do now. The first time I saw that I PMed "Oh, know what's funny? Dean blah blah blah" and she took it well on the surface but I felt like shit the moment I hit send, and I have no idea why that took so long.

I like being helpful and I hate seeing wrong things, but wow is that sometimes not the point.

Regionalism is something I don't mention unless the writer is totally stinking with it, or they make a request for help. I never do more than a few, because I don't work for strangers, but a "drop the whilsts and bloodys in dialogue" doesn't cost anything.

Which reminds me--I also meant to ask--regionalisms outside dialogue in a story that's strongly set somewhere? To be avoided wholesale? Including spelling? Not important unless it's tight POV? What's the what?

I wouldn't mind "whilst" showing up in regular usage more. It amuses me when it shows up in fics, like an unconscious ID tag on the author.

As long as it's not Dean Winchester or Tony Stark using it, fine. I grew up saying it, after all. But the amount of bad American dialogue--my god, I didn't know that many non-Americans were writing fic. That's good for the diversity of the fandom, bad for the flow of the speech.

Yeah, it seems like most of the fic being generated in fandoms I read (SPN, Teen Wolf, Avengers Cinematic Universe) is by this huge influx of British writers, many of whom seem unable to pick up the difference between characters' speech patterns and their own despite watching the show.

I won't even get into how unlikely it is for Tony Stark to brew up a spot of tea in the afternoon...

It's the references to benches in the kitchen as opposed to counters that always makes me blink. Then again, in Tony Stark's kitchen, the odds of the counters being used as workbenches is high.

Do we know Tony has a kitchen?

(I've never heard a kitchen counter called a bench. Maybe it's regional?)

In Tony Stark's house are many kitchens. At least in fic.

Because where else would the Avengers have their team breakfasts?