In the Grimdark fantasy of Grimdark we're all individuals (except for Bakker)

[Galactus]

Okay, it's just something I kind of noticed. A lot of "dark and gritty" fantasies tends to still keep to the same "individuals as be-all of everything" kind of tropes as more classic black-and-white heroic fantasy. Basically, in a lot of heroic fantasies the heroes do good because they are good people and the villains do bad because they are bad people. In Grimdark! (trademarked by Games Workshop, all rights reserved) the heroes are not so very good but the villains are still bad because they're bad people.

I think this is actually a point where 40K (the inventor of the dark Grimdark) is different: In it, while there are bad people, people are generally bad because well, the universe is set to screw them over. People committ genocide casually not because they are but becuase that's the way their societies (and even cosmologies) are set up. Bakker to his credit does the same thing.

Which brings me to the Gundam series, now, warts and all, I think one thing that Gundam (especially the original, actually) manages to do is to present people fighting for a bad cause (and despite what the fanboys say, Zeon is indubitably bad) as well... people. Even the bad guys have people they love, be it lovers or siblings or things. There are a few crazies, yes, but the general impetus is that bad things happen not neccessarily because bad people do bad things but because people who aren't neccessarily bad do.

Take The Steel Remains (caveat: I haven't read The Cold Commands) while Morgan makes some attempt at sketching out societal oppression, he kind of fails by... Well, making everyone an asshole. Oddly enough I think it kind of weakens the point about the Evil Church, because rather than coming across as an ever-present permeating influence that twists society for the worse it's just a bunch of assholes being assholes.

Martin is a bit better, he still have a couple pretty one-note psychopaths, but at least some (like Cersei) manages to be fully developed human beings while still being antagonists.

See what I'm saying here? Basically I think a lot of so-called "darker" fantasy isn't very much more complex than standard good vs. evil fantasy.

[Seli]

The all-sorting power of tvtropes seems to have noticed as well and has created 'Black and Gray morality' and 'Grey and Gray morality' categories.

[The Marquis de Leech]

A quick note about alleged Black/White morality in fantasy:

The thing about the Tolkienian model of fantasy was that while good and evil were theoretical absolutes (or more accurately, good was a theoretical absolute, and evil is absence of good), people themselves were capable of falling all along the moral spectrum. For Tolkien, the likes of Gandalf were good, and the likes of Sauron evil, not because they were inherently coded as such, but because their actions were good/evil.

This was perverted by later authors into situations where the hero can commit murder because he's the hero: actions matter less than which side you belong to.

(I actually have a fondness for Evil vs Evil myself).

[Datepalm]

Thats the theory of the thing, but as a practical point of reader experience, I think a lot of fantasy does put us into uncritically cheering for the frankly immoral by dint of their being protagonists and being sympathetically written or the opposition being dehumanized to the point of inconsequentiality (not in the Tolkien/Jordan sense where there's hoards of orcs to be killed off morality free becuase they're literally not human, just that theres such a vast mismatch of attention, interest, charisma, etc, between victims and perpetrators as to make the reading experience impossible if you try to focus on them.)

Which does raise the question of why we have all this murder and rape and so on if we're not meant to take the morality of it seriously anyway. Thinking of, say, the Hound here, who's murder of Mycah is just a bit of fleshing out of the character. In terms of remaining a sympathetic, redeemable person, it appears to have all the gravity of making a mean joke or something.

[a wooden chair]

Which does raise the question of why we have all this murder and rape and so on if we're not meant to take the morality of it seriously anyway. Thinking of, say, the Hound here, who's murder of Mycah is just a bit of fleshing out of the character. In terms of remaining a sympathetic, redeemable person, it appears to have all the gravity of making a mean joke or something.

"Who is to judge what is right and what is wrong? Great and powerful foes surround us; unknown miscreants gnaw at us from within. We are threatened with total annihilation. In days such as these we can afford no luxury of morality."

Like the above, authors won't sell many novels when they include luxuries of morality. Dehumanization has to be done for most people to make any type of attachment to the characters, right? I don't quite feel this is necessarily a bad thing though. An example that comes to mind is when an opposing force is so dehumanized that it has become an implacable force for the protagonist to be thrown against at the whims of his fellow grimdark humans that become antagonists through sheer mind numbing ignorance and class warfare. It gets to the point where you aren't certain who's truly the antagonist, the non-human race they fight, or themselves. Why not both?

Some themes receive more muted cheer though, like Sandor murdering Mycah, you can always view it as a baseline for how far he has come in redemption. Once he used to murder children, then he falls in love with them, then he tries to sell them off, then-- Wait, that's not redeeming anything! He'll need to be in the series again for me to ever consider his route one of redemption as opposed to blunder after blunder.

[Arthmail]

I'm a defender of this subgenre, if that exists or even means anything. As detractors like to call it grimdark, if i call it realistic will fuses be blown? As a defender of it, i will call it RFF (real-fucking-fantasy).

Anyways. I think the notion that RFF is somehow nearly on par with more traditional fantasy is a little off the mark, at least in terms of complexity. I mean sure, to be completely honest the story lines are pretty similar. They do tend to follow similar ideas, but then again, most books these days do. I think were it shines, however, is in the characterization. As Datepalm and others have mentioned, fantasy for a long time has taken a completely uncritical look at violence, as it pertains to the story. Hacking and slashing is ok, as long as it is done by the good guys. But there is very little concern for the effects that all of that murdering might have done to the characters. They abhor rape, or thievery, or even lying in many cases, and act honorably all of the time - but when it comes down to hacking people apart it's not a problem. Yet violence and sex, along with rampant thievery, have long been tied together in conflicts for much of recorded history. I think if you start to kill people, or if the world around you is full of constant death, i think the moral highground becomes slippery and honestly unrealistic.

The only case that i can really think of someone adhering to some sort of chivalric ideal is with DND's character class, the Paladin. But even then, when i think of a Paladin, what i am really thinking of is a fanatic. More religious than the most ardent priest, far more implaccibly idealistic than the most enraged Templar. I think if i a Paladin were to stick to his guns about being a force for good, for helping women and never raping them, never stealing or plundering the bodies of his fallen enemies or their broken strongholds, what would be left is a fanatic. Practically a grim lunatic.

Where RFF fits a better representation of pre-modern people is that they are, for all intents and purposes, just people. You can't pin them down by putting an alignment on them. Few people are consistantly good, or consistantly evil. Most are grey. Kill someone, pilfer through their pockets. Notable figures throughout history were like this, from Richard the Lionheart to Christopher Columbus. It is easy to look on them with imprecise understanding from five hundred years in the future and not judge them. Cortez is looked at as a monster now, but for his time he was not particularily bad - he was simply presented with an oppurtunity to do what others before him had been doing for a long time, only on a much greater scale.

So notions of good and evil become mute, and are replaced by grey. Some might argue that grey versus evil is unrealistic, but unless we are given a POV of the enemy, by necessity - by the fact that they are the unknowable enemy - they become evil. Chances are they are just as grey and morally comprimised as the protagonists, who are really just points of view.

Traditional fantasy on the other hand, presents people as a little more cookie cutter. They have problems, and angst, and any other number of problems as most people do. But they live by some moral compass that seems either anochronistic, or falsely placed. I am reminded of a book i recently read, by Michael J. Sullivan. Now this guy is unique to start off with, given his path to publication, but that is for another thread. I read the book, and it was definitely in the vein of old school fantasy. Hidden heir, two main characters that go around doing good deeds pretending to be ruffians or thieves (I am sure there is a trope for this. The one character is blatantly good, the other pretends not to be but is, in truth, no less good). It is very standard fair, and i liked the book, though it was certainly fairly simple. The world was not complex, nor were the characters. And while i enjoyed it, it seemed false. I got no sense of the characters living in world where children die of diseases on a regular basis, or that kings are not noble and upright protectors of their people, but were often assholes with too much power.

Now, dealing with child deaths and what have you does not necessarily make a good book or a good story. Nor do traditional fantasy books fail. I mean, my favorite author is David Gemmell, and while he is not entirely vanilla, his characters do tend to follow a redemptive arc. Meaning that they were once bad but are trying to be good, which raises questions of why they would bother in worlds so often filled with unrelenting death. But when i read through history books, and see the unrelenting parade of murder and death, i am less inclined to sit passively by during a book that basically romanticized a very difficult period of human history. Now of course, it is an alternate world, but the foundations are still there. Science is something of a joke, as is medicine, and travelling to the city down the road can be more dangerous than going into combat.

RFF presents characters that have seen the dirt and grim of a world marred by one thing - humans. Humans tend to come along and sully the entire fucking thing. I mean, nothing so much as Bakker, who has taken his characters and rubbed their faces in physical and theological shit, but people have experienced the loss of multiple siblings. Whose kings are often power mad lunatics, who tend to think in ways so far beyond that of the common peasant that they may as well be aliens.

Some people do not like the grey. I understand that. Under Heaven, by GGK, presented something of a more traditional fantasy. The setting was unique, sure, but the relative lack of honest violence was missing. And it was a beautiful book. It was captivating, and captured the flavour of a land so far beyond the grim and dour likes of Abercrombie as to be from another world. But both have their places. I have noticed a back lash against RFF, but i still think the majority of published works are in the vein of GGK.

I also think there is a place for one note psycopaths. As i mentioned in another thread, pertaining to the character of Terez, some characters need not be in depth. I mean, we see the kindly king or sorcerer in so many books, or the greedy merchant. An author can easily just put foward a trope and then go with it. Writing is hard enough as it is. Besides, as i mentioned in the other thread, some people in real life are badly drawn. They are shallow and base and lack depth. Why should it be different in a book?

[Kalbear]

some people in real life are badly drawn. They are shallow and base and lack depth. Why should it be different in a book?

Yeah, this is bullshit. No one is shallow and lacks depth to them. They might appear that way to you, but that isn't the same as what they actually are.

This is the difference between a writer that uses stereotypes and a writer who fleshes things out. One believes that what you see from a PoV is what you get, and they're basically as objectivist as Goodkind; the jailer IS shallow because they appear that way to you, and that's who they are. The other understands or has a good idea of what would make someone appear shallow and has their backstory ready in case it comes up. And this is often my problem with grimdark crap, honestly - the difference between standard fantasy and grimdark fantasy isn't depth, it's just what they focus on. Both are shallow, trope-filled funrides. They aren't trying to push the genre any more than Commando was trying to one-up Star Wars. One is more of a cheesy fairy tale and the other is a cheesy movie with Schwarzenegger, but both don't have characters worth a damn, both don't have particularly special plots and both are mostly about the setting, not the story.

[Arthmail]

No on is shallow and lacks depth? Are you fucking kidding me? There are shallow people in the world, and many lack any real depth - to think otherwise is to be naive.

All writers use stereotypes to some extent. All. I don't know what the hell you read, but they use them. Why? Because stereotypes exist for a reason - for right or wrong. I mean, a stereotype is basically people's inability to take in so many people as individuals. Authors can use this as a way to help their story along, or they can use it as a crutch because not every named character in a book needs to be delved into. Sure, the guy behind the counter at my local store, the cop driving by, the asshole that cuts me off - they all have their own stories. They are all the main characters of their own stories. But they don't need to be given reasons and further depth in my story, nor do they need to be fleshed out by an author. I do not need to know that the conniving innkeeper that betrays the heroes to the law is only doing so because his father was a ruffian that beat a man to death, and so in turn needs to always report things to the law out of a sense of guilt. I don't care. If the innkeeper becomes integral to the story, then fine, flesh him out. If not, keep moving on.

[Grack21]

The all-sorting power of tvtropes seems to have noticed as well and has created 'Black and Gray morality' and 'Grey and Gray morality' categories.

That site is terrible. Wikipedia from 10 years ago was better sourced.

[Kalbear]

No on is shallow and lacks depth? Are you fucking kidding me? There are shallow people in the world, and many lack any real depth - to think otherwise is to be naive.

Can you give me an example of someone in the real world who lacks depth? And why you know that person does so? Just one.

All writers use stereotypes to some extent. All. I don't know what the hell you read, but they use them. Why? Because stereotypes exist for a reason - for right or wrong. I mean, a stereotype is basically people's inability to take in so many people as individuals. Authors can use this as a way to help their story along, or they can use it as a crutch because not every named character in a book needs to be delved into. Sure, the guy behind the counter at my local store, the cop driving by, the asshole that cuts me off - they all have their own stories. They are all the main characters of their own stories. But they don't need to be given reasons and further depth in my story, nor do they need to be fleshed out by an author. I do not need to know that the conniving innkeeper that betrays the heroes to the law is only doing so because his father was a ruffian that beat a man to death, and so in turn needs to always report things to the law out of a sense of guilt. I don't care. If the innkeeper becomes integral to the story, then fine, flesh him out. If not, keep moving on.

You misunderstood me; the point I was making was not that WE see the backstory, but that it exists. And that the author understands that backstory and understands where that person is coming from. Sometimes we'll get more of that if we see that character more, but often we'll get it through other means. For example: Chataya. We're told she's a summer islander. we don't know a lot about that culture, but three books later we find out about their morals about sex and love and whatnot ,which now changes quite a bit about who Chataya is. Was that put in to make Chataya better? No, clearly not. But it happened organically because the author knew what Summer Islanders were like, knew what professions they might be fine with and knew what chataya was like.

Chataya isn't fleshed out or especially talked about, but we now get more expansion of her story just because the author knew where she came from and stayed true to it. Many authors throw in things because...they fit the specific plot they're working on. Did Martin need to make Chataya a summer islander? No, he didn't, but because he understood her it ended up giving his characters depth.

Another way to put it is this: as an author it is very good to treat every character as if you could coach an actor on their motivations. Even the bit characters. If you can't, chances are that you're writing too shallowly. and you don't need to write that in or express it explicitly. It'll happen by default.

[Arthmail]

Can you give me an example of someone in the real world who lacks depth? And why you know that person does so? Just one.

You misunderstood me; the point I was making was not that WE see the backstory, but that it exists. And that the author understands that backstory and understands where that person is coming from. Sometimes we'll get more of that if we see that character more, but often we'll get it through other means. For example: Chataya. We're told she's a summer islander. we don't know a lot about that culture, but three books later we find out about their morals about sex and love and whatnot ,which now changes quite a bit about who Chataya is. Was that put in to make Chataya better? No, clearly not. But it happened organically because the author knew what Summer Islanders were like, knew what professions they might be fine with and knew what chataya was like.

Chataya isn't fleshed out or especially talked about, but we now get more expansion of her story just because the author knew where she came from and stayed true to it. Many authors throw in things because...they fit the specific plot they're working on. Did Martin need to make Chataya a summer islander? No, he didn't, but because he understood her it ended up giving his characters depth.

Another way to put it is this: as an author it is very good to treat every character as if you could coach an actor on their motivations. Even the bit characters. If you can't, chances are that you're writing too shallowly. and you don't need to write that in or express it explicitly. It'll happen by default.

Fuck, i accidentally hit the back button and lost my original response.

My cousin lacks depth and is shallow, two of them are in fact. One of my best friends girlfriend lacks depth and is shallow. I would argue that Paris Hilton or the Kardashians lack depth, as does anyone from Jersey Shore. I think that if your life is limited to partying and tans and what not, you lack depth. By lacking depth, by being shallow, i mean you are interested only in your own little sphere of the world. The rest of what there is means nothing. Now, i cannot know those famous people personally enough to say definitively, and my cousins you cannot know yourself, so ultimately it is all very subjective. It is rough ground to walk on, and would not make for a good thesis, but it is what it is. (EDIT: I would like to note that this does not make them bad people, necessarily. It just means that they value things of so little importance that they are paper thin when you really look at who they are and what they stand for)

As for Chataya, i do not think that knowing where she comes from brings any depth to the character. I mean, all we get is a pidgeon-holed character, a stereotype. She is easy grist for Martin's mill to give her some semblance of a personality, though it is based off of her cultures personality and not really her own. Having her conform to her countries personality, its sense of presence, really only reinforces the stereotype. It is little different than when you see a book where Americans are brash, Canadian are nice, British are stiff upper lipped and all of that. Knowing where they are from gives a sense of something, but i would not say it was depth. I mean, labelling her as a Summer Islander is little different thand David Eddings with his need for entire countries to adhere to an archtype.

As i said before though, why do WE need to see the back story of a minor character that might get only a few minutes of page time? What purpose does it have? I am interested in the main characters, and the primary secondary characters if there are any. I do not need to know that the innkeeper is into combating evil by going out nightly to fight criminals in the underworld unless it is relevant to the plot, or would make for an interesting part of the book. Otherwise its inclusion is just filler. I mean, Jordan was honestly terrible for that, with wildly divergent stories and a focus on clothing that had no relevant point. I do not need to know how the different cultures dress. It can be nice when the author knows, and lets us in on it, but if everyone wears tunics and fights with swords, i don't really care as long as the rest of the story and the characters are good.

[Larry.]

Eh, one's just more influenced by recent cinematrophic portrayals than the other. Neither one, on the whole, really explores the depth of human emotions beyond a few simplistic renderings of a few human traits. When I read epic fantasies these days, what I'm reminded of most is coloring with the 8 color crayon box. The authors could, if they desired, explore much more than what they do. Thing is, they don't. Some find the non-fuck-and-shit-and-blood-and-guts writing to be "unrealistic" because such is not portrayed graphically. Others find the fuck-and-shit-and-blood-and-guts type of stories to be "unrealistic" because that did not constitute quotidian life in the periods being ripped off by writers who hew so closely to various historical periods on this planet.

More can be done with this material, if writers (and readers) wanted more. Thing is, do they? Or do some just grow frustrated with this particular genre and go elsewhere if they want anything approaching realism (a funny thing to be discussing when it comes to fantasies of all stripes, I suppose)?

[Arthmail]

Or, Larry, are your notions of realism flavoured by elitism? Honest question.

Another honest question. If I had one book to choose from to read this year, from all of the books that you have read, what would it be? And it's got to be in English. I'll read it and return with my thoughts, because at the moment, i see you as holding yourself above everyone else in some sort of lofty white tower, and instead of just reading your posts and seeing the snobbish, i want to see something more.

Edit: I dropped in on your blog, and noticed an excerpt from your number one pick for the most notable releases of 2011. The excerpt, for the book, We The Animals:

In the morning, we stood side by side in the doorway and looked in on Ma, who slept open-mouthed, and we listened to the air struggle to get past the saliva in her throat. Three days ago she had arrived home with both cheeks swollen purple. Paps had carried her into the house and brought her to the bed, where he stroked her hair and whispered in her ear. He told us the dentist had been punching on her after she went under; he said that's how they loosen up the teeth before they rip them out. Ma had been in bed every day since – plastic vials of pain pills, glasses of water, half-drunk mugs of tea, and bloody tissues cluttered the floor around her bed. Paps had forbidden us to set foot in the bedroom, and for three mornings we had heeded, monitoring her breath from the doorway, but today we would not wait any longer.

Is this the standard by which you hold fantasy? I mean, is this your definition of realism? I think the hardest part of conflating what has been written above, with fantasy, is that they are addressing two very different issues. First and foremost, i'm sure there are any number of fantasy authors that could write like this. Not all, but more than a few. A fantasy world is ripe for writing such as this, what with plagues and cities getting sacked and what have you. But there are other themes at work in fantasy, other areas of focus.

I guess, ultimately, i want to understand your need to have this sort of thing in fantasy. It may be that this is not what you are looking for, but as your top pick of the year, i thought to use it as a template.

[Spring Bass]

Not to divert the topic too much, but

Or do some just grow frustrated with this particular genre and go elsewhere if they want anything approaching realism (a funny thing to be discussing when it comes to fantasies of all stripes, I suppose)?

When we world-building lovers think of "realism" in fantasy, what we're usually thinking of is

1. Consistency

2. Whether the human characters' reaction to their world is realistic.

[Larry.]

Or, Larry, are your notions of realism flavoured by elitism? Honest question.

Another honest question. If I had one book to choose from to read this year, from all of the books that you have read, what would it be? And it's got to be in English. I'll read it and return with my thoughts, because as at the moment, i see you as holding yourself above everyone else in some sort of lofty white tower, and instead of just reading your posts and seeing the snobbish, i want to see something more.

Edit: I dropped in on your blog, and noticed an excerpt from your number one pick for the most notable releases of 2011. The excerpt, for the book, We The Animals:

In the morning, we stood side by side in the doorway and looked in on Ma, who slept open-mouthed, and we listened to the air struggle to get past the saliva in her throat. Three days ago she had arrived home with both cheeks swollen purple. Paps had carried her into the house and brought her to the bed, where he stroked her hair and whispered in her ear. He told us the dentist had been punching on her after she went under; he said that's how they loosen up the teeth before they rip them out. Ma had been in bed every day since – plastic vials of pain pills, glasses of water, half-drunk mugs of tea, and bloody tissues cluttered the floor around her bed. Paps had forbidden us to set foot in the bedroom, and for three mornings we had heeded, monitoring her breath from the doorway, but today we would not wait any longer.

Is this the standard by which you hold fantasy? I mean, is this your definition of realism? I think the hardest part of conflating what has been written above, with fantasy, is that they are addressing two very different issues. First and foremost, i'm sure there are any number of fantasy authors that could write like this. Not all, but more than a few. A fantasy world is ripe for writing such as this, what with plagues and cities getting sacked and what have you. But there are other themes at work in fantasy, other areas of focus.

I guess, ultimately, i want to understand your need to have this sort of thing in fantasy. It may be that this is not what you are looking for, but as your top pick of the year, i thought to use it as a template.

More like I'm sardonic by nature, but alas, no rap group has claimed that name yet.

As for the story quoted, I suggest you read it and consider why the author wrote such. I'm curious to see how the apparently well-adjusted respond to a story that reminded me so much of what I've seen over my years teaching emotionally/behaviorally disturbed children.

As for the rest of your comment, tastes change. There are also other styles of fantastical writing that don't fit this binary being discussed.

[Larry.]

Not to divert the topic too much, but

When we world-building lovers think of "realism" in fantasy, what we're usually thinking of is

1. Consistency

2. Whether the human characters' reaction to their world is realistic.

Then why not use consistency, if that's what's truly being meant by the use of "realism" in these discussions?

[Arthmail]

Apparantly well adjusted. Nice.

Of course, reading that snippet from the book without context, and considering the father whispering softly into the mother's ear, my first thought was that she had been beaten by someone else.

[Spring Bass]

Then why not use consistency, if that's what's truly being meant by the use of "realism" in these discussions?

Because it's only the first part of the definition. As I mentioned, the human characters having realistic reactions to their setting is the second half of it, and where the best world-building shines.

[Larry.]

Apparantly well adjusted. Nice.

Of course, reading that snippet from the book without context, and considering the father whispering softly into the mother's ear, my first thought was that she had been beaten by someone else.

I don't presume much, considering the nature of my profession.

There's much more I could have quoted, but chose not to for space/copyright reasons.

Because it's only the first part of the definition. As I mentioned, the human characters having realistic reactions to their setting is the second half of it, and where the best world-building shines.

I just don't see that as being anything other than a writer knowing how to develop dynamic characters; it's not unique to any particular literary genre.

[Grack21]

Oh please, no one who posts here is even remotely well adjusted. We're all fucking nuts.