But one of the arguments I read most often from gen writers (at least in WC) is that shipping a certain relationship (Peter/Neal, e.g.) is abhorrent not because its a pairing, but because it doesn't exist in canon.
Hmm, yes. I have gotten the vibe from gen writers in WC fandom at times (not always, of course, there are strictly-gen writers in the fandom whom I adore) that what they are really trying to avoid is, as aisle_one says below, slash. Claiming to be canon purists is a wonderful way to do that. OTOH, I do know people who actually do read the Peter/Neal relationship as father/son and therefore find slash with them to be rather squicky. Personally speaking, I prefer an at least subtextually slashy interpretation, but I'm not opposed to others.
For me, whether a story I write is gen or not simply depends on what the story wants. I'm willing to go gen if a romantic relationship feels distracting or unnecessary, but I'm just as willing to write a romantic relationship if that's what is called for. I'm not married to canon by any means, and I've read totally gen AU's (not so much in WC, but definitely in Doctor Who) that were not at all canon-compliant but still weren't focused on 'ships of any kind.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-07-09 10:49 pm (UTC)Hmm, yes. I have gotten the vibe from gen writers in WC fandom at times (not always, of course, there are strictly-gen writers in the fandom whom I adore) that what they are really trying to avoid is, as
For me, whether a story I write is gen or not simply depends on what the story wants. I'm willing to go gen if a romantic relationship feels distracting or unnecessary, but I'm just as willing to write a romantic relationship if that's what is called for. I'm not married to canon by any means, and I've read totally gen AU's (not so much in WC, but definitely in Doctor Who) that were not at all canon-compliant but still weren't focused on 'ships of any kind.