Coming of Age in the Potterverse was Re: Dumbledore as shameless

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 189020

Alla wrote:
> Right so this is the reply to both Pippin and Carol but only on the issue of subverting the jenre. Carol, a question just to make sure I do have the definition straight, what I mean by subversion of the genre and what i hope JKR means is basically flipping the genre inside out, while seemingly following the basic framework of it. I just want to make sure we are on the same page definitions wise. Or like the single book can also be subverted, like Wicked did with Wizard of OZ. <snip>

Carol responds:

Right. I agree with you that she didn't subvert the conventions of the heroic quest genre by making her good characters do bad things. What she did, IMO only, is confuse the issue. It's as if Dark magic is evil when the bad guys use it but okay for the good guys (except Dumbledore, who doesn't need to use it) if the good guys are good enough. (True, we can partially justify the two Imperius Curses through desperate circumstances, but that defense doesn't hold for the Crucio.)

As for giving characters faults, that's standard for any genre, including epic, fantasy, and heroic quest, all of which are blended in this book so as to be hardly distinguishable. (She also blends in other genres, the school story/Bildungsroman and even romantic comedy, but that's not subverting the genre, either.)

So, as far as I can tell, yes, we're on the same page here.

Carol, who thinks that JKR may be too close to her own work (and characters) to see them clearly and that she's not as sophisticated a writer as Pippin seems to think