i blame Fandom for this one. even they don't have the meaning of these all that straight.
see, i've always thought a Crack Pairing is... well, a crazy pairing. a pairing that has no way of happening with the characters as they are in canon, and can only be written well through extremeAlternate Character Interpretation (or straight out chucking the original characterization out the window), and liberal (ab)use of Ass Pull. you know, stuff like human/animal pairs, human/inanimate object pairs, pairings between characters that weren't even alive at the same point in time, that sort of stuff. "bizarre" pairings, so to speak. the Crack Fic page uses the word "irrational," actually.
apparently, the tvtropes definition of Crack Pairing also includes ships that basically have little to no contact in canon, but other than that, have no particular aspect that makes them seem "irrational." that is, the pairing is only implausible in canon because they've never met; but if they ever did meet under regular circumstances, there's nothing really stopping them from hitting it off.
that's fine with me, i guess i'll just have to get on board with it. however, we come to Ships That Pass in the Night. it's exactly where the second part of the definition, the "implausible because they've never met or interacted" part, should go. right?
i have no problem with this separation, or with Ships That Pass in the Night being a subtrope of Crack Pairing if we've determined the term is actually used in both ways. BUT! the word "crack" has a natural negative connotation that bothers me. potholing a Ships That Pass in the Night pair to Crack Pairing is likely to make people think that you're calling their ship "crazy" and induce natter, flames and edit wars. y'all know how volatile Shipping is.
it's like saying a crossover fanfic is a Crack Fic. technically it is, because the crossing of those two universes is completely implausible in either canon. but if you go around calling a really serious, well-written fic a Crack Fic, someone is going to jump at your throat because "crack" implies it's crazy or irrational and how dare you because it's such an awesome fic and die you flamer and blah blah blah.
what i'm saying is: would it be possible, for the purposes of reducing shipping wank, to not pothole examples of Ships That Pass in the Night to Crack Pairing? i don't mean not mentioning in the definition (it is a subtrope, so it should be mentioned). just... the potholing. mainly. just potholing them to the correct subtrope is far less inflammatory.
i blame Fandom for this one. even they don't have the meaning of these all that straight.
see, i've always thought a Crack Pairing is... well, a crazy pairing. a pairing that has no way of happening with the characters as they are in canon, and can only be written well through extreme Alternate Character Interpretation (or straight out chucking the original characterization out the window), and liberal (ab)use of Ass Pull. you know, stuff like human/animal pairs, human/inanimate object pairs, pairings between characters that weren't even alive at the same point in time, that sort of stuff. "bizarre" pairings, so to speak. the Crack Fic page uses the word "irrational," actually.
apparently, the tvtropes definition of Crack Pairing also includes ships that basically have little to no contact in canon, but other than that, have no particular aspect that makes them seem "irrational." that is, the pairing is only implausible in canon because they've never met; but if they ever did meet under regular circumstances, there's nothing really stopping them from hitting it off.
that's fine with me, i guess i'll just have to get on board with it. however, we come to Ships That Pass in the Night. it's exactly where the second part of the definition, the "implausible because they've never met or interacted" part, should go. right?
i have no problem with this separation, or with Ships That Pass in the Night being a subtrope of Crack Pairing if we've determined the term is actually used in both ways. BUT! the word "crack" has a natural negative connotation that bothers me. potholing a Ships That Pass in the Night pair to Crack Pairing is likely to make people think that you're calling their ship "crazy" and induce natter, flames and edit wars. y'all know how volatile Shipping is.
it's like saying a crossover fanfic is a Crack Fic. technically it is, because the crossing of those two universes is completely implausible in either canon. but if you go around calling a really serious, well-written fic a Crack Fic, someone is going to jump at your throat because "crack" implies it's crazy or irrational and how dare you because it's such an awesome fic and die you flamer and blah blah blah.
what i'm saying is: would it be possible, for the purposes of reducing shipping wank, to not pothole examples of Ships That Pass in the Night to Crack Pairing? i don't mean not mentioning in the definition (it is a subtrope, so it should be mentioned). just... the potholing. mainly. just potholing them to the correct subtrope is far less inflammatory.