(no subject)
Apr. 23rd, 2005 03:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
doyleThere's been discussion on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bookworm_jen's journal about canon and unconventional relationships. She proposed 4 rankings of relationships:
1) Canon: We saw an actual relationship on screen or there was a clear reference to a past relationship.
2) Near-Canon: We saw flirting or a one time fling on screen, or there was the implication of a past relationship. I would put relationships that are only refered to in commentary or interviews into this category.
3) Non-Canon: There was no relationship on screen, but there was a significant amount of sub-text or build-up and the writers could easily have worked it into the series without distorting the characters too badly.
4) Unconventional: There was no relationship, and it's highly unlikely that the writers could or would have worked it into the series without drastically changing who the characters are.
I'm interested in how subjective these are, or how much we agree on what counts as canon or almost-canon, so I present a poll. I randomly picked 15 m/f, m/m and f/f pairings, some of which happened on the show, some of which didn't. To play, pick which of the categories above you think each one falls into.
[Poll #480215]
[Poll #480216]
[Poll #480217]
bookworm_jen's journal about canon and unconventional relationships. She proposed 4 rankings of relationships:1) Canon: We saw an actual relationship on screen or there was a clear reference to a past relationship.
2) Near-Canon: We saw flirting or a one time fling on screen, or there was the implication of a past relationship. I would put relationships that are only refered to in commentary or interviews into this category.
3) Non-Canon: There was no relationship on screen, but there was a significant amount of sub-text or build-up and the writers could easily have worked it into the series without distorting the characters too badly.
4) Unconventional: There was no relationship, and it's highly unlikely that the writers could or would have worked it into the series without drastically changing who the characters are.
I'm interested in how subjective these are, or how much we agree on what counts as canon or almost-canon, so I present a poll. I randomly picked 15 m/f, m/m and f/f pairings, some of which happened on the show, some of which didn't. To play, pick which of the categories above you think each one falls into.
[Poll #480215]
[Poll #480216]
[Poll #480217]
no subject
on 2005-04-23 04:23 am (UTC)Lots of good points regarding how people approach the issues (ie relationship vs. sex, slasher vs. non-slasher). I'm just curious - any particular reason you used definite categories instead of a scale (ie "Canon" on one end, and "so totally not" on the other)??
phy
no subject
on 2005-04-23 04:27 am (UTC)no subject
on 2005-04-23 04:41 am (UTC)I'm not a huge fan of the definitions and had trouble categorizing some couples who I felt were "canon" but only met the definition of #2.
Can't wait to see the results though.
no subject
on 2005-04-23 06:16 pm (UTC)Yeah, I think I'd agree with you there (that the results would probably be different I mean)......was just thinking that there were a number of posts where people had trouble deciding between categories - so it may be that people want to gravitate towards one end or the other, but feel compelled to choose as a result of the definitions. Anyways, the results so far are still interesting regardless - food for thought in terms of how people conceptualize the entire fandom!
~phy
ps. 7-point Likert scales are cool....