The word 'slash'

[ssk7882 <skelkins@attbi.com>]

John wrote:

> > However, what if one takes a look at more recent media culture. 
> > Would Will/Grace from _Will_and_Grace_ be slash? It would have 
> > to be sourced from the subtext, of course. Similarly, what about 
> > Brian/Melanie from _Queer_as_Folk_? Or Again, it's het, but is 
> > it slash?

Morrigan replied:

> I think you need to get out of my head, John.

I think that you *both* need to get out of my head!

Seriously.  My power went out on Saturday night and has just
now come back on, but just before everything went dark, I had
written this, which I never got the chance to post:

-----------

John wrote:

> I point out that "slash" has been argued to mean any subtextual
> pairing, regardless of the participants' gender(s); for ease of 
> use, however, I take the common definition.

Dating myself here...

When I was last heavily involved with fandoms, back in the '80s,
"subtextual pairing" was indeed the meaning of "slash."  In fact,
when I first encountered the definition more commonly in use here, 
it utterly confused me.  For a long time, I figured that it had to 
be some weird HP thing.  ;-)  Since then, though, I've learned 
that it is becoming the current definition in a number of different 
fan communities.

So two questions about this:

1) Does anyone know when this changed, or how the change happened?

and

2) Would an incontrovertbly canonical non-het pairing still be 
considered "slash?"  How about a subtextual *het* pairing involving
characters canonically established as gay?  In other words, in 
fandoms based on works that *do* deal explicitly with romance 
between characters of the same sex, does the word still retain 
its original meaning, or does it have a new meaning, or has 
it simply fallen out of use?  Any Pern or Darkover fans around 
here who might be able to enlighten me on how (or if) the word
is used these days in those fandoms?

----------

So the consensus seems to be that "slash" still means "subtextual
pairing" -- or, at least, that it *ought* to -- but is this a 
confirmed usage?  In other words, is the term really used this way 
in fandoms of works with explicitly textual non-het pairings?  Or 
is the term simply not used at all in those fandoms?

Any takers?


Elkins