(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

[gloss]

These categories are really bugging me. Why is a one-time fling, like F/X, in the same category with flirting, like Cordy/Doyle or (I'd venture) Gunn/Wesley? Apples, oranges.

Also, I am all for distortion apparently. All my favorite ships are 4s. Except G/X and O/X, which are 3, thanks to Xander's Ever-Helpful Commentary and Appreciation for Other Men.

Still, yay for data!

[doyle_sb4.livejournal.com]

I'm the same, reluctantly handing a 4 to Connor/Wesley and taking Fred/Tara off the poll altogether seeing as they've never met...

[gloss]

Poor Wescon! No love for the scorned, scarred, lost skinny men.

You have no idea how much I wanted to give a 1 to Buffy/Faith.

[raskazzptitsa.livejournal.com]

Dude, you forgot our lone canon femmeslash pairing, Darla/Dru! Tsk.

[doyle_sb4.livejournal.com]

D'oh!

Canon, schmanon

[julia-here.livejournal.com]

Really, who the heck cares? My favorite fics have canon pairings, subtext pairings, arguable pairings, and where the heck did that come from pairings, although G/B (or practically anyone/Dawn) for instance, is a hell of a hard sell and I honestly can't remember ever reading a Xander/Joyce- rather think those latter have to do with being the very attatched mother to teenagers, one of each sort.

A good writer can make me like pairings between two characters I don't care for (Connor/Harmony, for instance) and the load of really inferior writers who deal in S/B, A/B, S/A, and S/X have dulled my taste for those pairings.

Julia, wishing, at the moment for a lot more post NFA gen...

[justhuman.livejournal.com]

I'm already finding the results interesting. I think a lot of this will come down to how people define "relationship". For instance, to me S/A or G/E were more strongly defined relationships than say Faith/Xan, who we actually saw have sex.

By the way, I didn't have it in me to mark Fred and Wesley with the 1, lol.

There's a monkey wrench or two -- which is about making the data interesting, as opposed to a complaint. There's a huge 1 response to Connor/Cordelia, but as far as I'm concerned, what we saw on screen wasn't Cordy because she was being possessed by Jasmine.

Re: Canon, schmanon

[doyle_sb4.livejournal.com]

I have never thought of Connor/Harmony. Hmm, intriguing...

[doyle_sb4.livejournal.com]

That's a good point - I wonder would that also skew the Angel/Cordelia results?

[kben.livejournal.com]

Huh. I don't think there's such thing as a 4 in the Jossverse.

[justhuman.livejournal.com]

Probably not as much. With Connor/Cordelia we know that it was 100% possession. There's arguably subtext between Cordy and Angel in seasons one and two.

I have to say that in that case I took into account that the "relationship" portrayed on screen wasn't convincing to me and since it didn't get very far, easier to ignore. ...And then she remember You're Welcome.

Re: Canon, schmanon

[julia-here.livejournal.com]

I am gobsmacked at the idea of naming a pairing you hadn't thought of.

Julia, slightly frightened

[writingpathways.livejournal.com]

Two things.

First off. House/Wilson Wallpaper. Rules!!!!! Sigh, they are soinlove. :-)

Second. Just wanted to explain my Cordelia/Connor vote. To me everything we saw on screen Season Four between those two was Connor/Jasmine!Cordelia. Meaning that it was not Cordelia, so there is nothing Canon that supports it in my eyes.

I know they're awfully subjective...

[fannishnej.livejournal.com]

I'm hoping to clarify the definitions to make them less so, but that's going to take input from lots of other people, hopefully ones who have a better grasp of the series as a whole than I do.

[wisdomeagle]

I was so peeved by the 3-4 distinction I finally decided that I'd use 4 incredibly subjectively for "pairings I think are impossible." Spike/Xander and Spike/Willow, I think, were the only ones that got this distinction.

I rated everything with canonical subtext, canonical unrequited, or a one-time fling a 2.

[wisdomeagle]

Good point. I was thinking of that just the other day with regards to Cordelia's half of that experience, and yet totally forgot when I voted!

ps:

[wisdomeagle]

Angel/Doyle is canon in the Birthdayverse!

Re: I know they're awfully subjective...

[doyle_sb4.livejournal.com]

I'm tabulating the results, which should give some kind of insight into what people see as canon, I hope... (one thing that really interests me is that I've previously seen people define relationships as being canon only if there's sex - which of course means Spike/Anya and Faith/Xander are canon but Angel/Cordelia, Cordelia/Xander and Xander/Willow aren't. Going by the results so far, it looks like that's not how most people see it, since at the moment C/X is the only ship to have 100% #1 votes)

Thanks for starting the discussion :)

[writingpathways.livejournal.com]

If you mean the fourteen who say it was near-canon, I would guess it's because they 'never got together' part of it? Who knows. Also I think for A/C people either loved or hated it, very little in between. So they might be admitting it almost happened but won't call it 100% Canon? Just a theory.

[jennyo.livejournal.com]

I...don't know if I see the point of the middle two categories. Ultimately, no matter how implied one's pet non-canon ship of choice is implied (even into DVD commentary or script notes), the minute you stray into this "it's practically CANON!" nonsense, you're ignoring a very simple fact. No matter how close it came? It didn't happen in canon. And by pretending otherwise, it leaves us without any way to have a shared source text because my practically canon diverges radically with a number of people's. Now, given I already feel that way most of the time, I don't know if that's a useful thing, because the only thing that determines PRACTICALLY canon is, well, fashion and individual taste, and ignores the other simple fact that even canon relationships can be written by people who don't really do a good job with canon characterization, or that by "distorting" the characters and going from point A to point X with some logical connections, you can make some pretty "unbelievable" things work in fic.

So I can see kind of what you're trying to gauge, but I'm not sure there's a useful point in it, given how fashion changes. That's...problematic and I also think it moves the burden of work on the reader (you don't GET Spander? OMG, but they're PRACTICALLY CANON!) than on the writer (Spander wasn't canon. But I like the idea, and I can see how it would work. Here you go, with some connection between the Spike and Xander of actual canon and the Spike and Xander of my story.)

Re: ps:

[doyle_sb4.livejournal.com]

*nods* We've seen the visions transferred, what, three times? (Doyle to Cordy in Hero, Angel to Cordelia in Birthday, Cordelia to Angel in You're Welcome) And all by kisses.

...wait, the Birthdayverse was all set up by Jasmine via Skip, right? Jasmine ships Angel/Doyle!

[a2zmom.livejournal.com]

Interesting poll. My problem is what about pairings that seemed one sided. For example, a case can easily be made for Doyle lusting after Angel but I personally never saw any interest on Angel's part.

[doyle_sb4.livejournal.com]

the minute you stray into this "it's practically CANON!" nonsense, you're ignoring a very simple fact. No matter how close it came? It didn't happen in canon.

But Angel/Cordelia and Wes/Fred - both of which I'd count as happening onscreen - are getting votes in the 'practically canon' category. That's what I'm mostly interested in, seeing what people don't count as canon as much as what they do.

*rereads sentence* Damn, my grammar sucks at this time of night.

Re: I know they're awfully subjective...

[justhuman.livejournal.com]

I've always used the UCSL definition that the two people needed to consider themselves in a relationship for it to be "canon". So, Cordilia and Xander presented themselves as couple, arranged dates even when they were secret ones. Faith and Xander never did anything beyond having sex... well and attempted murder, but since it's Faith, that's kinda like sex too ;-)

For instance by the UCSL definition, Wes/Lilah was considered unconventional until Wesley said the "R" word.

[jennyo.livejournal.com]

Well...to clarify, I think using the word "canon" in this context is really the sticker. Do I think Angel/Cordy and Willow/Xander were near misses, and I would rate them probably a 3? Yeah, sure. Like, I do agree some ships are subtextier than others. It's just that when you say the "c" word, you are guaranteed to come into a question of the weight of authority. And "practically canon" is a useful thing in favor of any ship.

I dunno. I can see it being about drawing lines, because what do you do with Cordy/Wes and Willow/Xander where the "relationship" was a kiss or two? But the canon part is...a hard one.