Fiona wrote:

I also, as I said, saw a lot of people who liked h/c launcing into the discussion with categorical denials ("H/C is NOT S/M! BAD FIONA! BAD NEIL! NEVER SAY THIS IS SO!") or false analogies (Hamlet? Beautiful suffering?

Can

be played that way, but Hamlet can be played *any* way imaginable... bitter and unlikable... cold and rational... round the twist...). Which has, actually, made me even *less* kindly disposed to h/c as a genre than

before.

Perhaps so, but I don't think you are being fair. Perhaps you haven't been involved in other h/c discussions. Fans of h/c aren't just responding to the current thread, they are responding to repeated misinterpretations of the genre. This has all happened many times before. As in someone not into the genre decides to analyze what the genre is about. And the next step in the thread usually has people not into h/c telling h/c fans why they read or write h/c.

I would liken it to a non-parent telling me what parenting is all about and why I became a parent. (I have four children.)

And anyway, if it *is* S/M, what of it? I'm given to understand that S/M is considered an acceptable form of sexual expression these days... that is,

if

the erotica shelf in the Oxford Waterstones is anything to go by... I'm a little surprised that no one has come in to say "Yes, it's S/M, and I

*like*

it!"

But it's not S/M, as Tavia's well-written post has explained. What I don't understand is why she would have to go into such an in-depth explanation. Why can't those who do participate in the genre say "It's not S/M" and have other fans accept that we know what we're talking about it?

I also can't understand why those who don't like h/c care to analyze it. I have no interest in analyzing tech fanfiction or cyberpunk fanfiction or why some fans are drawn to those genres. What about h/c makes non-h/c fans so curious?

Carol Mc