(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

[sangpassionne.livejournal.com]

My biggest arguement was the use of 'relationship' as a defining term. Would/could have had sex is very different to a relationship. For example Faith/Xander is a canonical sexual encounter but there's no hint of a relationship there, whereas Giles/Ethan is only subtext and yet I, and I'm sure a lot of others, would definitely describe what they have as a relationship.

Ah, the vagaries of language. :-)