I wrote:
As I perceive it, the real focus in h-c is upon the relationship(s) between the other character(s) and the one who is hurt. Any marked change or growth occurs in the comforter's perspective of the one who is hurt.
Tavia:
This is certainly one way of playing it, and it's what comes through in those h/c stories of yours that I've read. However, as I recall from discussions on TOL relating to your 'The Bargaining Chip', that wasn't the way most B7 fans/writers understood the genre.
"Bargaining Chip" most certainly emphasized that aspect of h-c but I've found it throughout fanfiction, both B7 and otherwise. I could probably provide examples if I gave this some time but off the top of my head, Sheila Paulson's work comes to mind as an example.
By forcing the comforter (and sometimes other background characters) to reflect upon the character who has been hurt, ... In other words, h-c can be a bit of a soapbox for the author.
This confused me... Why should anyone need to postulate injury to climb up on a soapbox...? I might be misunderstanding but I don't see the need to stab X in the lung to get Y to appreciate them. Tried and tested substitutes short of lung-stabbing include X threatening to disappear (to satellites) &c....
The injury and threat to the character's well-being elicits a protective reaction not found in the substitutes you cite. This emotional response is stronger than that elicited by X *choosing* to leave. Any appreciation by Y of X's sterling qualities and abilities is somewhat offset by the fact that X is either threatening to leave, has chosen to do so, or is otherwise consciously deciding something other than what Y would like. Y's own self-protective barriers would guard against that reaction.
Can an author get Y to appreciate X without putting X in peril? Of course, but it's less direct and more difficult.
Morrigan