Subverting the genre?

[Talisman]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:

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.


Talisman, who really does understand Kneasyfs optimistic outlook, 
but nevertheless demurs.

I know I should be using this time to finish up several other posts 
I owe several other people--and I should adopt my usual attitude of 
cheerful contentment when I see folks going off in what I consider 
the wrong direction (this means there's less pressure to get my own 
ideas typed up)--but for some reason I'm tempted to set things on--
what I consider to be--the better path.

There are other definitions of "subvert" which do not entail utter 
destruction, and which, in the literary context, make far more 
sense. "Pervert, misdirect, and "undermine the allegiance of," to 
name a few.

When we say that someone is offering a "subversive reading" of a 
text, we do not mean so much that they have destroyed the text, but 
that they have offered a reading that interprets the elements of the 
narrative so that those elements have "changed in allegiance," i.e. 
where the author may have been trying to make one point, the reader 
asserts that the text makes quite a different point--in whole or in 
part. 

In like fashion, I interpret Rowling's statement as meaning that she 
has taken the perceived trappings of fantasy fiction and caused them 
to serve her own purposes, rather than whatever purposes she 
understands them to serve in a traditional work of the so-called 
fantasy genre.

This comports closely with her statements in the interview (_Time 
Magazine_, 17 July, 2005) from which the "I was trying to subvert 
the genre," blurb has been taken.  In fine, she refers to the fact 
that--unlike whatever it is that she considers to be traditional 
fantasy-- in the HP series, magic does not solve all of Harry's 
problems.  To the contrary, because Harry learns most of his life 
lessons in the WW, there are necessarily ongoing problems in the 
magical realm, problems that correspond to the readerfs RW 
experiences.  

Itfs just about as boring as that.  But not quite.

The HP series is a fantasy about reality--as any good fiction, 
fantasy or not--must be. Indeed that is a seminal difference between 
Literature and tripe: worthwhile fiction cuts closer to the bone of 
human reality than anything in the nonfiction section ever will.

 In that sense, Rowling is hardly unique.  But, she is subversive. 
Readers who constantly bark about conventional morality and ascribe 
subversive readings to others are the ones who have missed the 
point.  She is writing a socially subversive text, and if it goes 
down like childish pabulum for a lot of conventionally-minded 
people, so much the better. That's as good as a Disillusionment 
Charm, any day.

 Rowlingfs ideal reader is the person--probably young, but not 
necessarily so-- who is gmagich i.e. creative, nonconformist, open 
to possibilities, but who is immersed in the conventional gMuggleh 
society and who doesnet quite know how to possess their own power.  
For this reader, the series is very much like Hagrid: an over-sized 
keeper-of-the-keys to another--validating--world, thatfs been right 
under their nose the whole time.

Talisman
P.S.  It pays to remember that, within the series, Rowling uses 
magic as a metaphor for her own creative talents, and witches and 
wizards as a metaphor for people who are just like her.