Subverting the genre?

[dungrollin]

Bit late, sorry...

Kneasy:
<snip>
I'd have thought that setting out to deliberately subvert a genre
requires a fair appreciation of the norms and stereotypes that infest
too many of the bog-standard multi-volume let's-save-the-world-from-
the-forces-of-evil door-stopper. As most readers are aware, the bog-
standard etc. invariably relies on magic and wizardry to keep the
plot limping along, HP differing somewhat in that just about all the
protagonists have magical powers rather than the infrequent mage or
witch that are obligatory cast members in other epics - a
quantitative rather than qualitative difference. But note that the
Chief Baddy invariably has magical powers, no matter who's penning
the damn thing.

Dungrollin:
A sudden attack of paranoia made me look up a definition 
of 'subvert'. Unfortunately I'm away from all my lovely reference 
books (despite my carefully chosen 40kg baggage allowance flight 
with free 20-hour holiday in Casablanca on the way, they were too 
heavy to bring to Africa). So I had to resort to an online 
dictionary (UK English).

"To try to destroy or weaken something, especially an established 
political system."

I suppose I should come clean and say that my understanding of the 
word was somewhat different, more like manipulating a system from 
within for one's own ends. Apparently I was wrong. Was I bamboozled 
by all those lengthy arguments about subversive readings of HP? Or 
did I just hybridise subterfuge and pervert?

Could someone with an old-fashioned paper and ink version tell me 
whether I'm completely round the twist (only on this subject please, 
general insinuations about my sanity or lack thereof off-list).

Anyhow, this threw me a bit. Did JKR really mean that she wanted to 
*subvert* fantasy? To try to destroy or weaken it? If she didn't 
even know that she was writing fantasy to start with, it seems 
unlikely that HP was a premeditated attack on the genre. I think she 
used the word in the way that I understood it, which makes me think 
that I'm *not* round the twist. 

Which brings me to a question/answer on Philip Pullman's website:

You once said that His Dark Materials is not a fantasy, but stark 
realism. What did you mean by that?

"That comment got me into trouble with the fantasy people. What I 
mean by it was roughly this: that the story I was trying to write 
was about real people, not beings that don't exist like elves or 
hobbits. Lyra and Will and the other characters are meant to be 
human beings like us, and the story is about a universal human 
experience, namely growing up. The 'fantasy' parts of the story were 
there as a picture of aspects of human nature, not as something 
alien and strange [...] I was using the fantastical elements to say 
something that I thought was true about us and about our lives."

Which, to my mind is as good a way of distinguishing literature from 
non-literature as any. So that's good, isn't it? JKR claiming to be 
using the genre for her own ends without giving a fig about the 
traditional swords and sorcerers rules. Makes it sound like she's 
got A Point to make, though that rather goes against the HP is not a 
morality tale, but a tale from which morals can be drawn quote. 
(What's the difference, again?)

Kneasy again:
<snip>
"The Tough Guide to Fantasy Land" provides the
low-down on navigating yourself through the thickets and pitfalls of
a fantasy 'Tour' i.e. any volume of fantasy. Refreshingly cynical,
it's an alphabetical guide that tells you what to expect in the way
of the fictional conventions, any hardware cluttering up the place,
stereotypes posing in fore- or background - and how the plot (if any)
is liable to progress. Not all the elements listed are found in every
story of course - there's usually some pick 'n mix involved, but it
is interesting to consult entries applicable to HP. You never know,
we might find some subversion going on. Or there again.....
<snipping much hilarity>

Dungrollin:
Indeed. So either JKR was out and out lying in the subverting the 
genre quote, or we are waiting for book 7 to shatter one or more of 
your carefully catalogued stereotypes. Is the prophecy is a load of 
nonsense? Are the Weasleys magically mediocre? Or is it simply that 
(*licks lips in anticipation*) she's going to kill off the hero?

I met up with a friend recently who's only just read HBP, so he's 
not a loony like we are, but he's convinced that Harry's going to 
snuff it at the end. I tend to change my mind about whether Harry's 
toast on a regular basis, but suddenly I remembered some words of 
wisdom that I could have sworn came from Arthur, so imagine my 
surprise when it turned out to come from Sirius of all people in 
OotP:

"...this is why you're not in the Order - you don't understand - 
there are things worth dying for!"

Obviously, being DELUSIONAL, I hope that this is something Harry 
will end up understanding with respect to DD's death, but it would 
also be fun if it's a more important Lesson He Must Learn And Put 
Into Practice Before He Can Succeed. Unfortunately it wouldn't mean 
that he has to die, only be prepared to do so. Though that wouldn't 
be at all subversive, would it?

Fingers crossed, eh?


Kneasy also wrote, somewhere else:
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.

Dungrollin:
So you're looking forward to film #8 then? <shudders> And who else 
thinks that if JKR did kill Harry off, WB would change the ending? 


> Carolyn wrote:
> 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.

Dungrollin:
Oh Carolyn, I never expected to hear you sound so sentimental on the 
subject!! The war starts well before birth m'dear, diabetes in 
pregnancy is the little parasite readjusting a woman's (already 
heartily abused) hormones to pinch more of her blood sugar. There's 
a wonderful paragraph in The Extended Phenotype about the 
evolutionary war between mothers and foetuses which I've underlined 
several times and stuck post-it notes around and folded the corner 
of the page down. But it's in England so I can't quote it for you.

Dungrollin
Ramble quibble ramble gibber collapse in a corner muttering.