Subverting the genre?

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" <carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
>
> 
> Carolyn:
> Enlightening. This in fact, may be the reason her books don't work. 
> Like the most diligent of Mills & Boon authors, she has reduced her 
> output to a formula, with all the dullness that entails. As I recall, 
> DWJ has been rather munificent about JKR, saying something along the 
> lines of 'I don't mind a bit she's got a similar story to mine, good 
> luck.' Which is the right reaction, as JKR has indeed done something 
> very different and original with the ingredients. Not to be compared 
> for a minute.
> 

Formulaic? Isn't that the way fantasy is supposed to be? Heroes and
Dark Lords, Quests and Betrayals, Hardships and Spunky Females
Who Are The Voice Of Conscience?
Maybe I've got wrong all these years. 

DWJ and others (perhaps including JKR- we'll see) understand one
thing very well - their readership, or the major part of it anyway.
Unlike Mills and Boon (which is aimed at putatively adult females), most
fantasy fans are of the age group that worries about spots. And they
just love formula writing, it gives them a feeling of security. The only
variant is which particular formula the various sub-groups favour. 

In TTGTFL DWJ has a gentle dig at these formulae (notably there are
references to the works of the afore-mentioned Pratchett, who I
understand is a drinking buddy of hers at conventions). But you
can't help appreciating some of the more obscure entries. For
example, Ecology stars off with "The Ecology of Fantasyland is in a 
bad way," provides examples for the next page and a half and ends
heartily approving of the fact that given enough  time humans will
find themselves at the bottom of every food chain. There's a similar
treatise on Economy. Werewolves (and Vampires) get short entries,
mostly because these days they've gone over to the Horror Tour where
there are better working conditions and more prey.

Never having read her other stuff I can't comment on it's merits or lack
thereof. All I can say is that IMO TTGTFL is more entertaining than 
most of the fantasies it derives its raw material from. 

> 
> Kneasy:
> He says, "I was very anxious to break the franchise(!) out of this
> goody-two-shoes feel. It's my view that children are violent, dirty, 
> corrupt anarchists. Just adults-in-waiting basically."
> 
> Lord of the Flies meets Lord Voldemort.
> Hm. Do you think Warner Bros know about this?
> 
> Carolyn:
> Now, surely you are tempted to watch this one.. really sounds quite 
> promising! I share his view of children entirely, I mean, I was one. 
> Why parents think they are desirable is entirely beyond me. It's war, 
> from about age 6 months.
> 

Nope. No chance. Mostly because there's no chance that any of 'em will
get a damned good thrashing. It's not allowed anymore. Sad that.
You've missed the point of the (!) too. It's official, HP is now a franchise.
Warner Bros owns all the trademarks and even if Jo stops churning
out the books the HP industry will continue to develop ad nauseam.