"You said you knew a shortcut!" "This is a shortcut! Look how fast we got lost!"

Yo, fannish flisters.

How would you define a pairing that, in canon, has textually expressed a romantic or sexual interest in each other but not acted on it? I'm not talking "really large subtext that everyone in fandom agrees on" here, I'm talking more like an actual conversation "I think you're hot and I'd really like to get with you, but we can't for reasons a, b, and c."

Because...calling it a canon pairing seems to imply that they've actually gotten together in canon, which isn't the case. But it's not a subtext-based pairing, either because the mutual attraction is text, not subtext.

(To make this a little clearer: Er. Harry/Susan is clearly canon. They're together in the text for however long, they have an established relationship, they kiss and they have sex and they snuggle. Molly/Ramirez is clearly subtext; while they plainly have an attraction to one another, it's never come out and stated directly, and they certainly don't have a textual romantic relationship. But how would you define Harry/Murphy, where both parties have acknowledged that they're attracted to/interested in each other, but that it would be a really bad idea to act on that?)

I don't know why I'm think about this, except that I just watched a Lost Missing Pieces scene with Michael/Sun almost kissing, realizing it's not right, and walking away from each other, and now am struggling with what terminology to use for the pairing since it's no longer wholly subjective subtext but it's still not what I would call a canon pairing.

"You said you knew a shortcut!" "This is a shortcut! Look how fast we got lost!"

Yo, fannish flisters.

How would you define a pairing that, in canon, has textually expressed a romantic or sexual interest in each other but not acted on it? I'm not talking "really large subtext that everyone in fandom agrees on" here, I'm talking more like an actual conversation "I think you're hot and I'd really like to get with you, but we can't for reasons a, b, and c."

Because...calling it a canon pairing seems to imply that they've actually gotten together in canon, which isn't the case. But it's not a subtext-based pairing, either because the mutual attraction is text, not subtext.

(To make this a little clearer: Er. Harry/Susan is clearly canon. They're together in the text for however long, they have an established relationship, they kiss and they have sex and they snuggle. Molly/Ramirez is clearly subtext; while they plainly have an attraction to one another, it's never come out and stated directly, and they certainly don't have a textual romantic relationship. But how would you define Harry/Murphy, where both parties have acknowledged that they're attracted to/interested in each other, but that it would be a really bad idea to act on that?)

I don't know why I'm think about this, except that I just watched a Lost Missing Pieces scene with Michael/Sun almost kissing, realizing it's not right, and walking away from each other, and now am struggling with what terminology to use for the pairing since it's no longer wholly subjective subtext but it's still not what I would call a canon pairing.