ficathons: update

[wisdomeagle]

I'm confused about this conventional/unconventional 'ship thing. Specifically, can anyone give me a definition of unconventional that includes Angel/Darla?

Status update on ficathons:
Femslash backup: started. In over my head with too much plot.
S3 Angel Angel for with_character: needs revised/beta'd.
Harmony ficathon: started.
Friendship ficathon: haven't started
Angel ficathon: wrote a paragraph
Giles gen ficathon: wrote tonight! Needs brit-picked.

Everything else is due in a month or more, which doesn't mean I shouldn't work on it, but just that I'm not including it right now.

So. Anyone want to Brit-pick a Giles gen story (probably around 1000 words) or beta an essay on Angel in S3?

The following ficathons are still open for sign-ups and you should all sign up and write my requests:
my own Gateverse OT3+ a thon (with 16 signups! Awesome!)
sjficathon. Sam/Jack ficathon. Because apparently I am a masochist!
Jack/Daniel ficathon.
xgenchallenge: Multifandom slightly creepy (yet hot!) cross gen/father figure kink challenge of angsty hotness. Cos, come on.

Comments

[gloss]

can anyone give me a definition of unconventional that includes Angel/Darla?
Dude, I saw that. I can't even remember where, but I did a double triple take.

Far as I'm concerned, UC=not onscreen. It *looks* simple...

[wisdomeagle]

We probably saw it at the same place; it was linked on your Buffy/Oz site.

It *looks* simple...

And yet somehow, we still can't define it!

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

Buh? Why on earth would anyone even want to stick Angel/Darla in unconventional? *iz confoozed* Dude, they were together for 150 years. They had sex on screen. And had a kid.

[wisdomeagle]

For serious! My mind is just blowing... how is that not conventional? How? *continues to be SO CONFUSED*

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

Ooh, wait. How old was this post/definition thingy? Because if it was written pre-S2, maybe Angel/Darla was still considered UC because very few people 'shipped them.

Still doesn't stop it from being canon though. It was canon in Buffy Season 1!

[profshallowness.livejournal.com]

Why on earth would anyone even want to stick Angel/Darla in unconventional? *iz confoozed* Dude, they were together for 150 years. They had sex on screen. And had a kid.

Coming to this really really belatedly, and adding the disclaimer that I haven't seen late s4 and s5 of AtS, but Angelus and Darla were 'together for 150 years.' Angel/Darla lead to Connor, and admittedly it depends on how you see Angelus-Angel-Liam.

[gloss]

It *looks* simple...
And yet somehow, we still can't define it!
I can: Not onscreen. *bg*

[jennixen.livejournal.com]

unconventional means just that. I don't see a definition ever that would include Angel/Darla though... ;)
Lorne/Darla is unconventional.
Angel/Fred would be too, I think.

For me, it's not only that it has to be offscreen, it also has to be uncommon or not THAT common.
I don't see Jack/Daniel being unconventional.
Daniel/Martouf or Jack/Martouf is.

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

Yes, agreed. Unconventional isn't the same as not-canon, though of course there's a lot of overlap. Angel/Wes wouldn't be UC, for instance, even though it's not canon. Angel/Connor, however, I think would be considered UC even though there's a small conclave of Angel/Connor writers.

Jack/Daniel is most certainly not UC.

[wisdomeagle]

See my response to jennixen below.

What makes a pairing rare, though? Like, in SGdom, is it anything except the Big Two? Is poor neglected Sam/Daniel unconventional? Sam/Teal'c? I just... eh. While the definition equating it with canon is as problematic as "canon" itself, it's easier for me to wrap my head around than doing frequency counts at Area52.

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

Huh, you're right, I'd forgotten that UC means something other than just "unpopular pairing" in Buffy fandom.

The Unconventional 'Shippers List FAQ says:

What is an "unconventional relationship?
An unconventional relationship is a romantic/sexual relationship that is NOT canon on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" or "Angel" at the time the story is set. Willow/Oz, Xander/Cordelia, Buffy/Angel, and Willow/Tara are (or were) canon. Examples of unconventional relationships would be Willow/Giles, Xander/Angel, Buffy/Faith, etc.

What is the UCSL list?
It's a fanfiction list devoted to any unconventional relationship. Slash (homosexual/homoromantic/homoerotic) and heterosexual fiction is gladly welcome.

Guess that means all non-canonical slash (and I use "slash" to mean same-sex) pairings are UC. Huh.

Kind of problematic, as you say -- I kind of prefer the dictionary definition of "unconventional" in this instance (yes, I'm inconsistent about when I go with dictionary definition and when I go with fandom convention). I don't think UC = not-canon would work for SG fandom -- to say Jack/Daniel is UC but Jack/Sam is "conventional" would be extremely problematic. Even in Buffy fandom I'd have a problem thinking of Angel/Spike or Angel/Wes as "unconventional".

Of course you have a point too, about where we draw the line. Sure, it's easy to say Angel/Spike is not UC, but what about Buffy/Willow? Are there enough 'shippers to say the pairing has stopped being "unconventional"? Cuz then it becomes a popularity contest or something...

[wisdomeagle]

Yep, the Buffy fandom is weird and wacky like that. I would never use the term myself (because, like you, I get caught up in the dictionary definition) and because SG-1 is basically my native fandom.

Frankly, I don't think SG-1/Lantis really needs that kind of distinction, you know? In the Buffyverse, there are dozens, maybe scores of pairings that are written, and classifying them as canonical/extracanonical really is useful. In SG-1, it will only prompt flamewar #314, Shippers vs. Slashers Redux, in which the Jack/Sam people say "iz canon, omg!" and the slashers say "omg, he loves them all more than he's supposed to and that was four years ago, bitch!" and then there's name-calling and general nastiness.

There really aren't any 'ships that are the equivalent of Willow/Tara or Buffy/Angel -- popular, written about, and indisputibly canonical.

I think I might just strike the word "unconventional" from my fannish vocabulary entirely, as it means something different in Buffyverse and... everywhere else.

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I don't think SG-1/Lantis really needs that kind of distinction, you know?
Agreed.

In the Buffyverse, there are dozens, maybe scores of pairings that are written, and classifying them as canonical/extracanonical really is useful.
Buffyverse, the one-stop spot to shop for all your 'shipping needs!

In SG-1, it will only prompt flamewar #314, Shippers vs. Slashers Redux, in which the Jack/Sam people say "iz canon, omg!" and the slashers say "omg, he loves them all more than he's supposed to and that was four years ago, bitch!" and then there's name-calling and general nastiness.
OMG yes. The whole canon/conventional thing would be like tossing gasoline on the fire. The nice thing about Jossverse was that (barring Spuffy vs Bangel wars) there wasn't the (extreme) polarisation we see in SG fandom. I could 'ship all sorts of popular pairings without feeling like I was betraying any particular camp.

Hmm, I think that's part of the reason why I'm enjoying Atlantis so much -- because there are a lot of different pairings I can get behind, without feeling I'm betraying my OTP. With SG-1 though, it feels like the Big Two will never stop being the Big Two. (Not saying there aren't other pairings, but we can't seem to stop tripping over Jack/Sam and Jack/Daniel.)

[wisdomeagle]

Interesting. I think that's a pretty useful definition but I don't think it's in common usage in the Jossverse fandom (which is afaik the only fandom that uses "unconventional" as opposed to more typical "extracanonical/noncanonical."

So by this defintion, does Jack/Sara count as unconventional? Or must something be both extracanonical and rare?

Also, if you ship anything that moves, does it matter? If a tree falls, etc.

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

So by this defintion, does Jack/Sara count as unconventional? Or must something be both extracanonical and rare?

Hmm, see, I can kind of understand why Jack/Sara might be considered UC. Or Buffy/Parker. There's, like, maybe one writer in SG fandom (BadgerGater) who consistently writes Jack/Sara in a way that doesn't relegate the pairing to back-story for a Jack/Other relationship. Even though Jack/Sara is canon and accepted, it's not conventional the way Jack/Sam and even Jack/Daniel is conventional. You're more likely to get a raised eyebrow over a Jack/Sara (or a Jack/Laira, Daniel/Kera, Sam/Joe) story than Jack/Daniel or, heck, Jack/Janet.

Argh. Fandom terms give me a headache! (In a good way -- it's all very interesting. *g*) I have my own definitions, but obviously they'll sometimes clash with other people's.

[wisdomeagle]

But! What if we thought of it this way: would you have to warn for a background mention of Jack/Sara? I certainly hope no one is so offended by the presence of het that mention of Jack's canonical marriage in a slashfic would cause a raised eyebrow. Ditto Daniel/Sha're, or the canon/conventional couples in BtVS (Willow/Tara, Buffy/Angel, Xander/Anya, etc... the canon couples in AtS are a lot more controversial. Like Jack/Sam.)

You're right! It's all so confusing! ph34r the confusion!

[fannishnej.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking about this and had the idea that there really need to be several terms:

1) Canon: We saw an actual relationship on screen or there was a clear reference to a past relationship. Examples: Buffy/Angel, Joyce/Hank, Angel/Darla

2) Near-Canon: We saw flirting or a one time fling on screen, or there was the implication of a past relationship. Examples: Giles/Joyce, Giles/Ethan, Xander/Faith

*3) Non-Canon: There was no relationship on screen, but the writers could easily have worked it into the series without distorting the characters to badly. Examples: Willow/Spike, Buffy/Xander, Buffy/Giles

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. Examples: Willow/Angel, Xander/Joyce, Cordelia/Snyder

*I can't decide if this should be a seperate category, or if it really is a sub-grouping of "Near-Canon" or "Unconventional".

[wisdomeagle]

Interesting distinction! I honestly don't think there are enough levels in your system! For instance, I think canonical UST or crushes should count for something -- Xander's long-standing crush on Buffy, for instance.

I wonder if it's more like a set of overlapping circles than a linear system. Where you've got one circle for A lusted after B, and one for B lusted after A, and one for they had kissage or sexage, and one for they loved each other, and one for they had a relationship, and... oh, I don't know!

To me, Willow/Spike and Willow/Angel are equally unlikely canon-wise. Some things, like Faith/Buffy, had all that subtext, while Willow/Xander had all that text!

And then there are things like Wes/Lilah! I'd put it in the first category: canon. But I saw one person put it in the "dangerous liasons" category, with Faith/Xander and Spike/Anya's one-night-stand!

Ach, so many! All so different!

[fannishnej.livejournal.com]

According to a friend of mine, Willow/Spike was nearly a canon relationship. She tells me that the writers considered having them end up together, and did have some scenes that would have set it up. (The "Spike tries to bite her and can't" scene in S4 is the only one I can think of right now.) Eventually of course, they ended up going a different direction. I'm not sure where she got this information, but she's been a Buffy fan lots longer than I have and is a huge Spike fan.

I think I'm going to copy my definitions into my journal and see what other people think. I'll link back here.

[fannishnej.livejournal.com]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/bookworm_jen/39608.html is the entry I posted about this.

[thelastgoodname.livejournal.com]

Specifically, can anyone give me a definition of unconventional that includes Angel/Darla?

Forgetting our narrow views in fandom for a moment, yeah, sure: they're both dead. That's about as unconventional in the broad sense of the word as you can get. Doesn't work in the Buffy fandom very well, but there you go.