[the_old_crowd] Re: Genre - Subversion, JKR vs. CSL & Pullman

[Mike Gray]

I've been following an exchange between Pippin and
Nora with considerable interest. Going back to the
start, Pippin parried:

> *She* didn't characterize the fantasy genre that
> way, the author of
> the article did. As far as I know, she stands by the
> quote.
> 
> You don't need to be up on modern fantasy to
> satirize the genre.
> Cervantes reads just as well as a parody of Star
> Wars and LOTR as
> it does of Le Morte Darthur.
> 
> I assume she's read Cervantes. And acres and acres
> of folk tales.
> And Narnia. And Pullman. And  the Alchemical
> whatsit. She's  spent 
> decades  working this stuff out.  Whatever she is,
> she's not naive.

You know, JKR's relations to the CSL's Narnia tales
and Pullman's HDM series is a bit odd.

In some of her earliest interviews I seem to recall Jo
making some very positive statements about the Narnia
books. As far back as 2001, while still avvowing a
childhood read and an adult re-read, she was hedging
her bets: she points out that CSL is metaphysically
hamfisted. In her recent Time interview she goes so
far as to say that she never even finished reading the
series and was trying to subvert the genre. (And
proceedes to talk about the last book in the series
... )

(En passant, when Jo says she didn't finish the
series, I'm wondering if maybe she didn't finish her
*adult* re-read. And when she says "subverting the
genre," I think what she means is "subverting the
expectations raised by a somewhat simplistic reading
of the Narnia stories." She certainly isn't subverting
Avalon, Earthsea or the Dark is Rising, to name a few.
But for non-fantasy geeks - a tribe to which JKR does
seem to belong - Narnia *is* the fantasy genre.)

In the meantime (despite some nutcase fan who actually
wrote a whole piece  - and immortalized it on the
internet - to prove that Pullman was the original
Lockhart) she has always been a big Pullman fan. When,
in the same interview, she takes a shot at CSL for
damning Susan for lipstick and nylons, her statement
is lifted almost verbatim from statements made by
Pullman.

Anyway, I like JKR and I like Pullman, too - but I
think Jo was on a bit of a Pullman high when she did
that interview. I can definitely see why Terry
Pratchett got ticked about it. Poor ol' TP been
stuffing the genre for decades, and then in strides
this  - etc.

* * * * *

While I'm thinking about things:

I still think that Jo - if you leave out TP - is
remarkably ironic about the magic of her secondary
world - which *does* still allow her to count as
subversive. For example, at the end of the Dark is
Rising we are meant to feel a deep sense of loss as we
imagine a world in which the Old Ones will retreat and
magic will fade. Not really all that different from
the diminished world at the end of LotR!

In the Potterverse, otoh, magic just doesn't have
enough of that numinous quality to make it worth
crying over. It's cool - but for Harry Potter to lose
his magic would be more a shame - like me losing my
fancy new laptop - than a direct source of existential
pain - like that REM song about losing your religion. 

That make any sense? Probably not. I'm rambling. Oh
well. Note to self: send this post and GET THE HELL
BACK TO WORK!

Baaaaaaaa,

Mike