But there were also other things that makes me draw certain conclusions, and I would like to test if those conclusions are correct.

There are, in general, the kind of ficcers who want “more of the same”, i.e. the same *kinds* of things that happen on the screen (Buffy slaying, Neelix cooking) if not the exact same things (different demons, different courses). There are also the kind of ficcers who want a twist - they like what they see, but something is missing. Perhaps everyone is unhappy all the time, and so they write a fic where the characters are happy instead, to see what would happen then.

I have a feeling you’re the first kind of ficcer, while I and most other people who occasionally write slash are the second kind. Is this correct?

If this is the case, the entire discussion can pretty much be scrapped and started over. :-) To a “twist” person, “uncanonical” means things that *could not conceivably happen* rather than things that haven’t happened. Neelix has prepared food. This is canonical by both standards. Seven of Nine has never tried to seduce the Captain, which makes it uncanonical by the first standard but not necessarily by the second. (”I have read about this thing called lesbianism. I find it very intriguing. Would you like to attempt it with me?”) Tom Paris declaring himself completely uninterested in history is uncanonical by both standards - we know he’s a history buff.

Obviously, when these two standards are confused, it means that person #1 is puzzled because s/he thinks person #2 argues that a character is gay on screen (which I agree that they’re usually not), while person #2 is puzzled because s/he thinks person #1 argues that these characters could never engage in homosexual behaviour under any circumstances and anyone suggesting otherwise, up to and including TPTB, is committing character rape.

Does this make any kind of sense or am I way off base?

I’m interested in what you have to say about SF rather than
your comments on fanfic, hope you don’t mind.You say

Consider, for example, the genre of science fiction. Sci-fi is a self-identifying genre, in that short stories are published in magazines that accept only science fiction, and
that novels are published by sci-fi houses and/or marked “sci-fi” on the spine. Readers can identify sci-fi by content even without these clues. Most sci-fi readers will
classify any story featuring futuristic science as science fiction. It doesn’t matter that certain stories fall in between sci-fi and fantasy, or in between sci-fi and thrillers -
the classification is still useful for people who want to read sf, and equally useful for people who don’t.

Personally I don’t think that is necessarily true in the modern world. SF has become simply a
marketing classification which bears little relation to what readers think of as SF. When a ‘literary’ known
author publishes a novel with an SF theme it is most often not acknowledged as such e.g. Doris Lessing or Jonathan Carroll.
Whereas an SF known writer oublishing a non SF books is froever labelled SF even if the books aren’t e.g. Iain Banks. SF readers
tend to be wide and voracious readers and so seek out the unlabelled stuff. Those avoiding it are often shocked to find the literary novels
they are reading are thought of as SF by those who actually know what SF is about. I believe SF is a far larger genre than futeristic science
and it may not even be about science at all IMO SF is far more about people and relationships than it
it about technology. Though a good case could be made for much of it being about what it is to be human.

The days in which a sci-fi writer could pass for mainstream
are over.

I think the opposite is true. The divisions for readers (if not for the marketing depts of publishing companies)are breaking down, at least in the eyes of SF readers
who read far wider than the delimited genre and recognise the themes of SF whoever writes them and whatever it is
listed as in the publishers catalogues.

That, in the end, explains why I had such a hard time understanding where you were coming from. I certainly do believe in subtext or else the only VOY pairings I would care for and/or accept as valid (for lack of better term) were P/T and C/7.

You wrote: Any take on major points of character, such as sexual orientation, that is contrary to all evidence in canon, is, therefore, not canonical.

I’m not exactly sure how you define canon. Would you say extrapolating from later seasons to hint at character traits in earlier seasons to be breaking from canon? Such as a Willow fic set before “New Moon Rising” in which she shows gay tendencies? Would a Buffy/Spike fic in which Buffy shows sexual interest in Spike before “Once More, With Feeling” be uncanonical?

I don’t care for angst, fluff, or slash, all of which are based on altering canon characterizations.

This seems to be a bit of a generalisation. Like you say, angst in Buffy is certainly not “altering canon charactersations”. Neither is fluff when it’s a Willow/Oz (pre-”Wild at Heart”) or a Willow/Tara (pre-”All The Way”). Willow relationships are pretty fluffy to begin with.

Slash, of course, is a different matter. Other than Willow/Tara (and to an extent Giles/Ethan, and Darla/Angel/Dru/Spike), none of the Buffyverse characters have ever been in a gay relationship that we know of. I’m just not ready to say that, just because we don’t see it, it is therefore uncanonical. We simply don’t know, just like we don’t know Angel’s human last name. But we can make pretty good guesses.

(I forgot to outline what I considered canon in my last post.) I believe that everything we see on screen is canon. But I also believe we don’t see everything on screen. I view the Buffyverse as a universe of characters independent of my consumption — meaning Buffy still slays vamps in Sunnydale even when I’m over in England with Giles or in L.A. with Angel.

I prefer fanfic that extrapolates from canon. In fact, the further from canon, the less I tend to enjoy a fic. But all fanfic is uncanonical in the strictest sense. Slash is the same thing. We take Wesley’s obvious devotion for Angel, and we ponder “what if?” in a slash story. We’ve had several canon moments in which Cordelia and other characters question the straight-ness of Angel and Wesley, implying that they’re kinda gay. Not one of these times have Angel or Wesley set the record straight with: “No, we’re 100% straight.” Until they do say that they’re 100% straight, it’s a fallacy to assume they are. Especially when they have absolutely no problems with Cordelia, et al. thinking/saying otherwise.

Canon is Buffy’s middle name being “Anne”. Canon is Xander is a construction worker. Not-canon is saying Angel is an atheist. Not-canon is saying Willow is 100% straight. And I do believe it would be not-canon to say that Andrew is 100% straight when we have evidence to the contrary — despite the fact he has never said, “I am gay.”

(Sorry, this turned out a lot longer than I expected! And it’s all JMHO.)