Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again

[nrenka]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:

> Pippin:
> Maybe I am not following you, but you seem to be saying that
> in a morally ambiguous universe there is nothing very shocking about 
> morally ambiguous characters, while in a world which posits a stark 
> division between Good and Evil, there can't *be* morally ambiguous 
> characters. I think Jo wants to show us  a world of Good and
> Evil in which there *are* morally ambigous characters, where the
> triumph of Good depends on its refusal to micromanage moral
> certainty. I think, by your own definition, that's subversive.

In fantasy as whole, the presentation of a genuinely morally ambiguous 
universe instead of merely nods in the direction of complication--
that's subversive.

Good and Evil with the morally ambiguous is a fair description of 
Rowling, but it's not as subversive (if at all) precisely because the 
bedrock moral constancy behind everything is still there (even if 
people rarely reach it).  I think we're supposed to take Dumbledore's 
speech about the power of love and Harry's "pure heart" at face value, 
as heart-felt and genuine and the expression of the moral sentiments 
underpinning the Potterverse.

No messy cases where love knots seamlessly into the will to power and 
the whole thing ends with everyone burning on stage in this saga, I 
think.  Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it would be more 
subversive.

To boil it down: if being subversive of the genre norms of fantasy can 
be accomplished by having flawed characters against the still-present 
reality of Good and Evil, I guess Rowling's being subversive.  I don't 
think that's too shocking in the genre.

I also don't think the Potterverse survives ironic readings, but that's 
another issue.

Actually, there's a question for the list as a whole: can you take the 
power of love and Harry's pure heart with a completely straight face?  
Does it do anything to the rest of the series thematically or otherwise 
if you don't?

-Nora buys into it for the purpose of reading, but finds herself 
increasingly aware of having to purposefully do it