Saturday Randomness: Fanonical Pairings

[browngirl]

I'm writing an unexpectedly difficult story, and one of the reasons it's difficult is that the pairing is fanonical; the characters don't interact in canon. I'm writing it because it's hot because I like fanonical pairings, for many of the same reasons I like introducing people in real life.

Long ago, I was a member of bdotp, a community devoted to pairings of any/all characters played by two actors who'd achieved stunning chemistry in one particular canon, and I was very charmed by how compatible so many of their characters could be made to be. In my current fannish obsession, with such a big cast, there are many offscreen interactions that can be surmised even though they don't happen onscreen, and I really like that about it.

What about you?

*gets back to writing*

Comments

[petronelle.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of that scale of canonicity I made up a while back and how I had number-i for imaginary pairings.

I still believe in Sparrowhawk in my heart, and Clark/Tim in the parts of my head that I used to write it. Also in Babs/anyone she wants, but I'm not sure that counts as never having met.

[jlm121.livejournal.com]

I am a huge fan of fanonical pairings. My particular ship in LOTR has no canonical basis and must pretty much defy canon to exist.

It's also amazing how two actors can create characters that exist in wholly different fandoms that can be amazing in crossovers. A number of excellent crossovers were the result of the bringing together of other characters created by the leads of Due South.

Can't wait to see what you're working on.

Wanders off to go reread Tales of the City/Hardcore Logo crossover.

[asimaiyat.livejournal.com]

I love that kind of pairing. While my all-time favorite pairings are based on what I see as canon chemistry (often they hate each other, but in a hot way), I also really like the whole "if those two could get together [implied: and get away from Ubiquitous Main Characters A-C], they could have so much more fun!" thing. I think it can be a fun way to give minor characters more of a life of their own.

Also the picture on the bdotp header made my heart skip a little beat.

[fairhearing.livejournal.com]

If fandom were politics, I would be an extremely right-wing conservative. In the stuff I love the most, I don't ship at all, just writing canon pairings when the story calls for it, and even in lesser-loved universes my "fanonical" pairings extend only to extremely boring and un-radical ships like Sirius/Remus or Chekov/Sulu.

Worse, when I settle on an OTP I can never again write either person with anyone else, nor can I truly enjoy reading about them with anyone else, even if I find other pairings hot/interesting (e.g. Sulu/Kirk) because of the crushing guilt afterwards. It sucks, but I have long ago accepted that this is who I am. :( I blame the Catholic upbringing, as usual.

[mrsfrankenstien.livejournal.com]

I had an argument with a friend of mine about this, she was insisting that crossovers or characters who hadn't met in canon were necessarily crack pairings.

This icon's keywords are "(un)dead het otp," and they've never had any canon interaction at all. Or at least, not while they were both alive.

[possibly-thrice.livejournal.com]

Are you talking about Pike/Gaila and if so may I spill glee in your coffee?

Also: well, my favorite pairing in STXI is without a doubt Pike/Winona/George, and... uh... yeah. Fanonical pairings. I like them too. Of course, part of that is my thing for minor characters, since the less screentime you have, the less characters you interact with, and thus the fanonical pairings are just a natural side effect. But still.

Hm.

[strangerian.livejournal.com]

In kind of a tangent, in response to the premise of bdotp, I have to reminisce about the Bodie/Doyle (Professionals, from '80s-era fandom) fanfic. One subgenre picked up the actors' other roles (either one alone, or in a couple of cases together) in other shows, and crossed them with Professionals so that Doyle, instead of slashing with (um, new grammar for old tricks!) Bodie proper, slashed with Bodie's identical cousin from an obscure thriller movie. This often segued into Bodie proper noticing that *he* always wanted to do that, and led to intra-show slash, and thus was order restored to the universe.

I'd *like* to say that slash pairings (with a few exceptions in recent years) are *all* fanonical, but the point of slash in many cases is that the only difference between slash and the show is that the guys are spending 24 hours a day together, instead of 16 or more. That is, are Kirk/Spock or Arthur/Merlin not partners in nearly every sense already? But there's certainly a point at which finding slash can be fanonical rather than a foregone conclusion. And it's fun.

[athelasleaf.livejournal.com]

I loved the whole little world of post-quest hobbits and their wives that Dana had in her brain. I don't know if that counts, since the het pairings there are canon, but since we never actually got to meet the ladies in canon, it's fanonical (omg say that word out loud, it's fun!).

[ilthit.livejournal.com]

Funny... I use "fanonical" to mean things that fanfic usually assumes happened/happens or that often happen in fanfic, rather than relationships that have no canon basis. Which lead you into the murky waters of what exactly constitutes canon basis, from a canon couple to canon UST to fan-perceived semi- or unintentional canon UST...

But, as for relationships that have no canon basis whatsoever, I have often found myself writing them simply because I like femslash and the Bechdel law is there for a reason. Sometimes it works; sometimes it frankly doesn't... It's all about how those stories and personalities fit together. I guess you could say I prefer writing pairings that do interact in canon at least a little bit, so you have something to go on.