Subverting the genre?

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" <spotthedungbeetle at h...> wrote:
> A sudden attack of paranoia made me look up a definition 
> of 'subvert'. 
> 
> "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).
> 

Kneasy:
Yep; best one word definition of 'subvert' that springs to mind is
'undermine' i.e. to destroy someone's faith in whatever it is. It does
not carry the implication of replacing with something else, though
that may be the ultimate objective of the subverter once the ground
has been cleared, but subversion per se is purely a destructive action.

> 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:
I get a touch cynical when authors feel the need to tell readers how
their books should be viewed or interpreted - makes me think that
they've maybe failed at what they tried to do as writers. Also it's not
unknown for a story to take on a life of its own and defy authorial
attempts of control - in which  case the author either tries to make
some sort of rationalisation or resigns himself to bemused puzzlement
when the interviews start. IMO it's better that someone other than the
author slaps on the genre labels; not only will they be a bit more 
objective but it could be useful feedback to the author.

So what is traditional fantasy? Aesop's Fables? The Brothers Grimm?
Burnt Njal? Gilgamesh? Or upstarts like LoTR? Well, it all depends...
Fantasy can be a lot more than swords n'sorcery.
Being an opinionated sort of swine, one of the main reasons for my
dismissal of nearly all the stuff labelled 'fantasy' that gets thumped
onto bookshop shelves is that it all owes too much to LoTR; it's
clonic ( or perhaps 'colonic' is a more apposite term), formula
stuff. Occasionally there's something different, but it's rare - parody
seems to be the best way of slipping a new slant under the razorwire.
Stuff like Mary Gentle's 'Grunts', written from the point of view of the
Orcs who *know* that they're destined to get the shit kicked out of 
them by some shining hero - or indeed by anyone considered 'good'. 
Existential despair hits Fairyland. 
Even so, it sticks to what are the accepted premises.
   
> 
> 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?
> 

Only two ways to subvert the fantasy genre that I can see. Either:
a) prove it's all fact
or
b) show that it causes mental illness.

Killing off the hero isn't anything new, Arthur and practically all the
Round Table Knights copped it in the neck (or other squidgy spots)
and Lancelot (true blue hero) had been playing 'hide the sausage'
with the saintly Guinevere anyway. In fact it's quite common for
a fallibility or two to mar the otherwise spotless perfection of the
righteous, death then equals atonement. Very moral.

Personally I can't see how Harry can survive, it'd need some nifty
writing to make it seem credible. Frankly, I don't think Jo is that good.
 
> 
> 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? 
> 

Hardly.
I don't intend seeing any more after the rubbish that was No.3 - and 
certainly not after WB resurrect his 'spirit' from the ruins of where-ever 
he bit the dust and reincorporate it into an all-American boy. 
Wow! We have the (magical) technology!
Yuk.