In the comments to the "would slashers support het couples"-post I often read that het-couples were not as interesting, because their relationship was often canon
( Read more... )
Ah, I'm glad my 'wish list' helped nudge you into posting.
As for your question, oddly enough you are the second person to have asked me this in the last few weeks, and it is a good question.
PDAs?? I don't think I know this term *embarrassed*
I would venture to guess that unless TPTB suddenly changed Gibbs and Ducky's characters (mind you given that DPB can't keep his own time line accurate or things consistent, this wouldn't surprise me at all), that in general terms their relationship wouldn't actually change much from what it already is. They are intimate friends, they have 'pet' names if you like for one another, they clearly love one another (even non-G/D fen say this), and they are close friends. So at a basic level, they couldn't really change them.
The big difference, I guess, between my way of writing them and what TPTB could do is that I pretty much always have them as 'out' to their colleagues, and if they aren't then when their colleagues find out there tends not to be any issue about it, whereas TPTB might make them secretive. I could live with that :-)
As to how much it would bother me, I guess it would depend on just what kind of difference there was. I mean if they suddenly got into BDSM or partner rape, etc. etc. then yes, that would bother me, but that would be so OOC from the people we have to be laughable.
But I take your point, there is indeed the danger of their relationship being different and given how deeply entrenched in and involved with this couple, I am, it might be more difficult than if it were one of my other couples who became canon.
Would I change to fit or keep on? Hmmm, it depends on what kind of thing it was. If it was something that I could easily and comfortably work with, then sure, I'd go with it. If it wasn't, then I'd most likely make all my stories AR.
PDA means "Public Display of Affection". Sorry, I thought the abbrevation were common in the anglophone world after I had wondered about it a few times myself and finally looked it up.
I wish I knew more about Gibbs/Ducky, but from what you are writing it really sounds like there wouldn't be too many problems. If they already have some kind of "like lovers, but without sex" relationship, the sex-thing shouldn't change too much.
It's just that when I think about what horrible things TPTB could have done to Fraser and either Ray (like Ray calling Fraser "baby" *runs away screaming*) I get very, very scared and would rather have everything the way it is. Okay, if TPTB are called Paul Gross I'd be a little more confident, but still - the risk is there ;)
Thank you for explaining PDA. I actually have not come across it before. Personally, I love those, and it's another thing Gibbs and Ducky do anyway, actually, so . . .
But you sum it up perfectly by saying that very little would be likely to change by adding the sex thing (this icon is from a canon scene, and it's one of several).
I have to agree that 'baby' does not sound right at all. I tend to like endearments and use them for my slash couples - although oddly enough I don't really use them that much in G/D beyond the 'my dear Jethro' canon and occasionally Jethro will say 'love', but then he shortens Ducky to 'Duck' anyway, so . . . You'd be amazed how many different ways he can say 'Duck'.
But when I do use endearments 'love' or 'my love' tends to be the one I use most often, with 'sweetheart' from time to time in MFU and a couple of Russian ones that Illya will use for Napoleon. And mia caro in dS from RayV.
The only time I've gone overboard, so to speak, was part of a deliberate humourous exchange when I have them coming up with just about every possible term that exists, but it's wasn't a serious exchange, purely a joking one.
As for your question, oddly enough you are the second person to have asked me this in the last few weeks, and it is a good question.
PDAs?? I don't think I know this term *embarrassed*
I would venture to guess that unless TPTB suddenly changed Gibbs and Ducky's characters (mind you given that DPB can't keep his own time line accurate or things consistent, this wouldn't surprise me at all), that in general terms their relationship wouldn't actually change much from what it already is. They are intimate friends, they have 'pet' names if you like for one another, they clearly love one another (even non-G/D fen say this), and they are close friends. So at a basic level, they couldn't really change them.
The big difference, I guess, between my way of writing them and what TPTB could do is that I pretty much always have them as 'out' to their colleagues, and if they aren't then when their colleagues find out there tends not to be any issue about it, whereas TPTB might make them secretive. I could live with that :-)
As to how much it would bother me, I guess it would depend on just what kind of difference there was. I mean if they suddenly got into BDSM or partner rape, etc. etc. then yes, that would bother me, but that would be so OOC from the people we have to be laughable.
But I take your point, there is indeed the danger of their relationship being different and given how deeply entrenched in and involved with this couple, I am, it might be more difficult than if it were one of my other couples who became canon.
Would I change to fit or keep on? Hmmm, it depends on what kind of thing it was. If it was something that I could easily and comfortably work with, then sure, I'd go with it. If it wasn't, then I'd most likely make all my stories AR.
But I'd still love to see it.
Reply
I wish I knew more about Gibbs/Ducky, but from what you are writing it really sounds like there wouldn't be too many problems. If they already have some kind of "like lovers, but without sex" relationship, the sex-thing shouldn't change too much.
It's just that when I think about what horrible things TPTB could have done to Fraser and either Ray (like Ray calling Fraser "baby" *runs away screaming*) I get very, very scared and would rather have everything the way it is. Okay, if TPTB are called Paul Gross I'd be a little more confident, but still - the risk is there ;)
Reply
But you sum it up perfectly by saying that very little would be likely to change by adding the sex thing (this icon is from a canon scene, and it's one of several).
I have to agree that 'baby' does not sound right at all. I tend to like endearments and use them for my slash couples - although oddly enough I don't really use them that much in G/D beyond the 'my dear Jethro' canon and occasionally Jethro will say 'love', but then he shortens Ducky to 'Duck' anyway, so . . . You'd be amazed how many different ways he can say 'Duck'.
But when I do use endearments 'love' or 'my love' tends to be the one I use most often, with 'sweetheart' from time to time in MFU and a couple of Russian ones that Illya will use for Napoleon. And mia caro in dS from RayV.
The only time I've gone overboard, so to speak, was part of a deliberate humourous exchange when I have them coming up with just about every possible term that exists, but it's wasn't a serious exchange, purely a joking one.
Reply
Leave a comment