*g* Yeah, I figured you'd agree. I just thought that I should mention why I react to differing definitions of slash. It sets off internal alarms.
I've always associated slash with a deviation from the existing storyline and intent - a hypothetical "what if?" in a same-sex romantic context.
Hmmm... I guess it's a case of your attitude to the terms themselves, as well. I mean, I'm a pro-warning type of gal, so I consider slash to be a genre and a warning. Same for het.
If something's marked gen, I'd assume that it's basically characters interracting. I wouldn't assume a fic was sexual/overly romantic (ie. beyond anything shown onscreen) unless marked het or slash.
I guess it's a case of how do I define a "what-if". I assume that gen fic agrees with canon, like a missing scenes to the show, but it's not always something that is mentioned/acknowledged, hence part of it is always an original interpretation of what might have happened.
Okay, this is why I personally believe that slash has nothing to do with being canonical. It's very hard to define precisely what constitutes canon vs AU's. Is something mentioned in canon and extrapolated in fic still canonical? It doesn't break canon, but it's not part of the original canon of the show... In some small way, all fic is AU, and a what if scenario.
Just because I know that Willow and Tara dated onscreen, doesn't mean that a fic about them doing x is canonical. However, it does still include same-sex romance/sex, so I'd call it slash, and label it appropriately (as both gen and slash, I guess).
My comment was basically saying that, given the obvious nature of the m/m overtones of TLB, calling it "slash" (and therefore non-canon) is a little ironic.
*snerk* Yeah, I can't deny it. You are right. It's not subtext, it's text. I couldn't believe I was watching it with my mum, and just expected the brothers to kiss (and was wondering how the hell it managed to get it's rating with incest)...
no subject
*g* Yeah, I figured you'd agree. I just thought that I should mention why I react to differing definitions of slash. It sets off internal alarms.
I've always associated slash with a deviation from the existing storyline and intent - a hypothetical "what if?" in a same-sex romantic context.
Hmmm... I guess it's a case of your attitude to the terms themselves, as well. I mean, I'm a pro-warning type of gal, so I consider slash to be a genre and a warning. Same for het.
If something's marked gen, I'd assume that it's basically characters interracting. I wouldn't assume a fic was sexual/overly romantic (ie. beyond anything shown onscreen) unless marked het or slash.
I guess it's a case of how do I define a "what-if". I assume that gen fic agrees with canon, like a missing scenes to the show, but it's not always something that is mentioned/acknowledged, hence part of it is always an original interpretation of what might have happened.
Okay, this is why I personally believe that slash has nothing to do with being canonical. It's very hard to define precisely what constitutes canon vs AU's. Is something mentioned in canon and extrapolated in fic still canonical? It doesn't break canon, but it's not part of the original canon of the show... In some small way, all fic is AU, and a what if scenario.
Just because I know that Willow and Tara dated onscreen, doesn't mean that a fic about them doing x is canonical. However, it does still include same-sex romance/sex, so I'd call it slash, and label it appropriately (as both gen and slash, I guess).
My comment was basically saying that, given the obvious nature of the m/m overtones of TLB, calling it "slash" (and therefore non-canon) is a little ironic.
*snerk* Yeah, I can't deny it. You are right. It's not subtext, it's text. I couldn't believe I was watching it with my mum, and just expected the brothers to kiss (and was wondering how the hell it managed to get it's rating with incest)...