(no subject)

[doyle]

There's been discussion on 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]

Comments

[skipthedemon.livejournal.com]

Personally, if we don't see anything on the screen, but it's heavily implied, like S/A or if the "relationship" consists of a few kisses over an episode or two, then I'm putting it under "2". However, I did put Connor/Cordy under 1, and Fred/Wes under 2, so maybe I'm not as consistent as I thought.

[fannishnej.livejournal.com]

if we don't see anything on the screen, but it's heavily implied, like S/A or if the "relationship" consists of a few kisses over an episode or two, then I'm putting it under "2".

That's pretty much what I was thinking when I made my original post. If you can think of a way I could re-phrase it that would make that clearer, please let me know.