CT: What if Harry Potter was Low Fantasy?

[espanolbot]

Something that some people don't seem to know is that, like science fiction, there are many different subgenres. Regular Harry Potter is part of the subgenre known as Urban Fantasy, which combines fantasy with modern trappings. High Fantasy, meanwhile, is more along the lines of Lord of the Rings, while Low Fantasy is more of a grungey variety of story along the lines of Berserk.

Because it amused me, I wondered what a Low Fantasy version of Harry Potter would be like. Not entirely accurate though, if it were they'd also be caked in mud, blood and crap as well.


A better definition of the subgenre, via TV Tropes
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LowFantasy

Comments

[fifthie]

ughhhhhghghgghhhhhghghghghg, "gingers"

[fifthie]

I would empty out my bank accounts and set it all on fire if it meant the whole world agreeing to stop that unfunny bullshit and just, fucking, go back to calling them redheads like we did before this brain virus somehow infected everything.

[espanolbot]

Yeah, the anti-redhead thing always bemused me. Particularly since it seems to have reared up again recently.

[valtyr]

I don't get it?

[espanolbot]

Low Fantasy tends to be angled more cynically than other forms of the genre, so all the problems in magical society displayed in the books would still be problems after the physical villain has been defeated.

Yeah, the joke here is kind of esoteric, I guess.

[valtyr]

But all the problems in magical society displayed in the books are still problems after the physical villain has been defeated in the canon? I mean - there's no indication they're dealt with, as Albus Severus, despite being named after a Slytherin and being raised by and among people dedicated to repairing wizarding society, has still absorbed the idea that being Slytherin is Bad. And there's no indication the non-human races aren't still considered subordinate to humans.

[stolisomancer]

I'm not sure that the Harry Potter series could exist as low fantasy as I understand it, but I tend to think of the genre in terms of Matthew Stover and Joe Abercrombie.

[icon_uk]

We have to accept "Word of Author" when JKR says that Hermione went on to improve the lot of House-Elves and removing any remaining pro-pureblood laws, and that Harry (somehow) went on to head a completely revamped Aurors section under Kinglsey Shacklebolt's heavily reword Ministry of Magic. transforming the way the wizarding community looks at itself (Lord knows it could do with it).

At least Slytherin being the home of all evil has several centuries of data to back it up, so it's no surprise it has a bad rep after less than 20 years.

Personally I always wanted to see a reference to a new House being added; Dumbledore, which would welcome any non-humans who wished to study magic, with an aim towards complete assimilation.

[icon_uk]

Oh, and from that same webchat

Natalie: Are house divisions as prevalaent in Harry’s childrens' Hogwarts as in the previous generations?

J.K. Rowling: Slytherin has become diluted. It is no longer the pureblood bastion it once was. Nevertheless, its dark reputation lingers, hence Albus Potter’s fears.

[deleonjh]

What, that's a thing? I thought it was just a joke by now.

[deleonjh]

It could easily be urban fantasy with a teensy shift in emphasis, though Hermione would need sexy scars and a magic tiger or some shit.

[biod]

"Magic tiger"
Is that what the kids are calling it these days? ;)

[biod]

After Hours made the case for just offing any kids that got sorted into Slytherin, since they were guarenteed to be evil.
http://www.cracked.com/video_18244_why-harry-potter-universe-secretly-terrifying.html

[greenmask]

That.. is kind of the problem?

[greenmask]

I just dont think that Harry Potter should/could head any department of anything.

}:[

[icon_uk]

Oh I know, complete flusterfudge on all levels that would be.

[icon_uk]

Well all evil wizards were Slytherin, but not all Slytherin were evil wizards.... most were simply cruel, petty, vicious, bullying, unpleasant backstabbing bastards, just not motivated enough to be truly evil

[greenmask]

I see what you did there!

[icon_uk]

Heh, wish I could say it was deliberate, I was aiming for the more ordinary bowdlerised "clusterfudge" (And I didn't remember Cornelius until after I hit return, honest)

That being said, I do like flusterfudge as a term, I may use it in conversation in the future!

[salinea]

some evil wizards weren't Slytherin either.

[icon_uk]

Sorry, I was basing my opinion on my memory of the comment in the first book that;

"There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin."

forgetting that it was Ron who said that and (love him though I do) he was hardly the best source for accurate information.

Pettigrew is good example of evil Gryffindor, though Quirrel being Ravenclaw is a bit of a grey area, since he was possessed by Voldemort for the entire time we knew him.

[valtyr]

Yes, you'd expect any child labelled 'evil' at the age of 11 and sent to live in a dungeon to turn out just fine.

[salinea]

well, the way I see it, the books do provide an overall narrative that all Slytherins are bad and all bad people are Slytherins, only with a few exceptions here and there, rather than doing the job of presenting it as a narrative and then deconstructing it. Which is very silly. But yeah, we do have some exceptions. There are also a lot of people who are evil who we have no clues as of their House. I cling to my pet theory that Barty Crouch Jr was a Gryffindor, for ex :p

[valtyr]

Well, if we're accepting that, then, it's still the case that defeating Voldemort didn't solve the problems - they had to be worked on independently.

[icon_uk]

Forgot about him, and I agree it's what I always what I assumed he was too.