Annie wrote:
This is one reason I attempted to point out that "h/c" is indeed a misnomer and can encompass a huge range of stories.
I absolutely agree with this. In fact, in a way, it feels a little odd to me to be discussing "h/c" at all (let alone defending it!), because I really don't tend to mentally categorize stories that way. In fact, more than once, I've looked at an indexed description of a story (e.g. on Judith's Library, or on some of the zine reviews on her website), seen it labelled "h/c, and done a bit of a mental doubletake. "H/c? It is? Oh, well, yeah, I suppose it is." Unless a particular story is a *really* obvious h/c cliche, the phrase "hurt/comfort" is unlikely to actually cross my mind while I'm reading. I was thinking maybe that was just me...
What's important is the "angst" level.
Yes, that *is* a categorization that I actually use. Of course, "angst" basically implies *emotional* distress, as opposed to physical, whereas the "hurt" part of "hurt/comfort" could be either. But, then, I'm not interested in reading about physical hurt for its own sake. It's the emotional aspects that are interesting to me.
Without some degree of emotional involvement with characters, I'm not interested in a tv show, a movie or a book.
I *can* be, if there's a really good plot, or really clever humor, or really nifty ideas. But it's much harder to suck me into something without good characters, and stories (in whatever medium) without interesting, involving characterization tend to be pretty forgettable for me.
But there I am, plugging my own electrodes in again. :)
-- Betty Ragan ** bragan@nrao.edu ** http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~bragan Not speaking for my employers, officially or otherwise. "Seeing a rotten picture for the special effects is like eating a tough steak for the smothered onions..." -- Isaac Asimov