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

[Spring Bass]

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.

I would argue that it's different in fantasy, because you have to sell people on the characters' reactions to a setting that includes elements that don't exist in real life. For example, it's not possible to manipulate the properties of matter a la "sympathy" in the Rothfuss fantasy novels in real life. But if the setting has that, how do the characters (and the fictional society therein) utilize it, and react to its existence?

For that matter, suppose that your fantasy society had the way to tell exactly when the rains were going to come in the following year. If the fantasy society ends up looking exactly like an equivalent real world society, with no explanation as to why this massive game-changer has not heavily shaped it in ways that would likely make it drastically different from a real world agrarian society, it detracts from the setting and characters who supposedly live in it. It makes the characters feel less dynamic, less human - and more like strange puppets going through a forced plot.

[Happy Ent]

We're all fucking nuts.

I admit that I’ve “known” several fruits in that sense in my younger days; but I’ve always drawn the line at nuts. The hard-shelled ovary wall is not as pleasant at it may look.

Pistachios, maybe.

[Seli]

Larry, is it actually possible to do a 'study of the depth of human emotions' in a fantastical setting and still have it called fantasy? Magic realism might cover the subject but is usually appropriated by 'Literature'.

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

I would say that is completely misunderstanding the scope of the site. Wikipedia has the pretence of being objective, with all the sourcing that goes with it. Tvtropes seems to embrace the subjective experience, it is all about the reaction and interpretation of some work by people. Which is I think what makes it valuable, it by design leaves room for multiple and contradicting viewpoints.

[Joe Abercrombie]

It would obviously help a lot to define what books/writers we're really talking about, since everyone will no doubt mean different things by and include different authors as Grimdark - are we comparing Dragonlance to Martin? Eddings to Bakker? Tolkien to Warhammer? When people use grimdark or teh gritty or whatever to describe something I take it to mean that they think it's one-dimensional, excessively unpleasant, revelling in the vile and hopeless, unconvincingly grim, flimsy entertainment with a layer of surface filth and no subtext etc. So to say "I think Grimdark stuff is thin and rubbish" is a bit of a tautology, really.

Different authors one might describe as grimdark have all kinds of different styles and approaches, so it's tough to generalise, but clearly a lot of revisionist fantasy of recent times is a development of and a reaction to classic fantasy, so it's hardly surprising that a lot of it will contain many of the same tropes. Nor is it particularly surprising that it might seem 'unrealistically' harsh, filthy, and morally ambiguous as the intention is to some extent to counterbalance what's already there. In a sense revisionist stuff works best with classic fantasy leaning against it by contrast. 'Realism' isn't always the aim. But I think the cynicism towards power and heroism, the moral ambiguity, the dirtiness of war and costs of violence that are commonplace in some of these books all chime with modern, war-on-terror era sensibilities in a way classic black and white visions possibly don't so much.

Whether there's any deep or thoughtful investigation of issues going on in these books, whatever books they are, I guess that's all going to depend on the reader and the book. It tends to be that if a book works for you, you'll find it thought-provoking, if it doesn't, you'll find it superficial. One reader's profound is another's disposable trash or, for that matter, pretentious twaddle. Incidentally I see no shame in writing something entertaining. Most readers, after all, read primarily for that purpose. Clearly, this stuff strikes some kind of cord with readers, and some of those readers even find it profound, clever, or insightful in various ways. just as many others don't. Does it push the genre? Well, I guess, as with everything else, some books and writers will, in various ways, some won't. As a general tendency, moral ambiguity, dirt and darkness definitely do seemed to have infected the middle-ground of the genre. Otherwise we probably wouldn't be discussing them...

More can be done with this material, if writers (and readers) wanted more. Thing is, do they?

Well it depends what you mean by 'more', really, doesn't it? It seems to me that hundreds of thousands of readers are already getting exactly what they want from it. So what you're really asking is, 'should these books be what I like, instead of what they like?' No, not really.

[Zach H]

It would obviously help a lot to define what books/writers we're really talking about, since everyone will no doubt mean different things by and include different authors as Grimdark - are we comparing Dragonlance to Martin? Eddings to Bakker? Tolkien to Warhammer?

Moorcock vs Moorcock. For the price of one author you can partake in the posturing of both pulpy "grimdark" and "pretentious" literature!

[Galactus]

But I think the cynicism towards power and heroism, the moral ambiguity, the dirtiness of war and costs of violence that are commonplace in some of these books all chime with modern, war-on-terror era sensibilities in a way classic black and white visions possibly don't so much.

But I think the point is precisely that they aren't very effective as criticisms. I'm not neccessarily saying that traditional B&W stories are neccessarily better at it, though.

A lot of the Grimdarkness seems to come out of a sense of well "people are assholes", which isn't very *interesting*. I'm not neccessarily arguing about the truth-value of the statement, but rather it's completeness: Why are people assholes? How? In what situations?

But more specifically I was thinking of Abercrombie, now, Abercrombie is (more than most, I think) writing in direct polemic with traditional epic fantasies: His story thus doesen't have to "make sense" on it's own in the same way, without the framework of epic fantasy to compare it with it kind of falls apart. But the thing is, all the things that happen can basically be traced back to a single individual. Social systems, class oppression, bigotry and religious schism it's all because of a few puppetmasters. Even the banking system! The Heroes is less like that, but in the end the peace settlement still depends on the single mastermind, not either the outcome of the battle or any kind of social, economic, etc. situation. It's just Bayaz playing games with people.

Now, In Abercrombie's case I can look past it, because he's directly engaging with a kind of fantasy where that kind of thing is just the way it is. But a lot of other fantasy seems to think that way too. Religion-as-repressive-structure is replaced by religious-people-as-assholes. And the latter is far less interesting.

[sologdin]

define what books/writers we're really talking about, since everyone will no doubt mean different things by and include different authors as Grimdark

yeah, i've thought that "grimdark" is one of the dumber proposed subgenre designations in a long time--both in terms of the designation itself (i know it's supposed to be a mocking designation, but, seriously?) and in terms of the alleged content it seeks to designate. as to the latter, a subgenre described mainly by rhetorical precision regarding violence and a willingness to foreground unsavory characters doesn't merit its own designation, nor is it necessarily a new thing.

[Galactus]

yeah, i've thought that "grimdark" is one of the dumber proposed subgenre designations in a long time--both in terms of the designation itself (i know it's supposed to be a mocking designation, but, seriously?)

"It is the 41st Millennium. For more than a hundred centuries the Emperor of Mankind has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Earth. He is the master of mankind by the will of the gods and master of a million worlds by the might of his inexhaustible armies. He is a rotting carcass writhing invisibly with power from the Dark Age of Technology. He is the Carrion Lord of the vast Imperium of Man for whom a thousand souls are sacrificed every day so that he may never truly die.Yet even in his deathless state, the Emperor continues his eternal vigilance. Mighty battlefleets cross the daemon-infested miasma of the Warp, the only route between distant stars, their way lit by the Astronomican, the psychic manifestation of the Emperor's will. Vast armies give battle in His name on uncounted worlds. Greatest amongst his soldiers are the Adeptus Astartes, the Space Marines, bio-engineered super-warriors. Their comrades in arms are legion: the Imperial Guard and countless planetary defence forces, the ever-vigilant Inquisition and the tech-priests of the Adeptus Mechanicus to name only a few. But for all their multitudes, they are barely enough to hold off the ever-present threat to humanity from aliens, heretics, mutants -- and far, far worse. To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."

[sologdin]

goodness, an origin in skirmish game terminology makes it even dumber than i had thought.

[Datepalm]

Without endorsing or not the term in itself, I see what it's trying to get at. It's very much not about books with moral grayness or less than adorable characters, but books that deliberately wallow in bodily excretion, violence and immorality (murder, rape, etc) as point of attraction. So very much not Thomas Covenant or Abercrombie. Rather, books (games, etc) where the freedom from morality is a kind of, well, empowering fantasy, away from the sanitized PCness of our boring western lives with all our soul numbing indoor plumbing and functioning legal systems. Lots of rape and child murder is cool, badass, gritty, hardcore, like-so-totally-real-man, etc (and i'll add de-castrating and duck quickly.)

[Shryke]

But I think the point is precisely that they aren't very effective as criticisms. I'm not neccessarily saying that traditional B&W stories are neccessarily better at it, though.

A lot of the Grimdarkness seems to come out of a sense of well "people are assholes", which isn't very *interesting*. I'm not neccessarily arguing about the truth-value of the statement, but rather it's completeness: Why are people assholes? How? In what situations?

I'd say most of the darker fantasy, if that's what we talking about here, is very much concerned with those questions. People are assholes because of the nature of the society they are in and the work they do. I mean, that's sort of the core of the whole "war is hell" type thing that has been going around non-fantasy circles for ages. The idea that war is not glorious or righteous, but dirty and full of killing and moral ambiguity and all that shit.

Abercrombie, to take an example, goes into rather great detail about why his characters are horrible assholes.

But more specifically I was thinking of Abercrombie, now, Abercrombie is (more than most, I think) writing in direct polemic with traditional epic fantasies: His story thus doesen't have to "make sense" on it's own in the same way, without the framework of epic fantasy to compare it with it kind of falls apart. But the thing is, all the things that happen can basically be traced back to a single individual. Social systems, class oppression, bigotry and religious schism it's all because of a few puppetmasters. Even the banking system! The Heroes is less like that, but in the end the peace settlement still depends on the single mastermind, not either the outcome of the battle or any kind of social, economic, etc. situation. It's just Bayaz playing games with people.

Now, In Abercrombie's case I can look past it, because he's directly engaging with a kind of fantasy where that kind of thing is just the way it is. But a lot of other fantasy seems to think that way too. Religion-as-repressive-structure is replaced by religious-people-as-assholes. And the latter is far less interesting.

But Bayaz et all aren't responsible for all of that stuff. It's not like Bayaz engineered class oppression and bigotry, he just doesn't give a shit about it. (and the reason he doesn't is also covered) Just because he controls the systems of power doesn't mean he cares exactly how it works or effects society beyond his specific goals.

[Arthmail]

But I think the point is precisely that they aren't very effective as criticisms. I'm not neccessarily saying that traditional B&W stories are neccessarily better at it, though.

A lot of the Grimdarkness seems to come out of a sense of well "people are assholes", which isn't very *interesting*. I'm not neccessarily arguing about the truth-value of the statement, but rather it's completeness: Why are people assholes? How? In what situations?

But more specifically I was thinking of Abercrombie, now, Abercrombie is (more than most, I think) writing in direct polemic with traditional epic fantasies: His story thus doesen't have to "make sense" on it's own in the same way, without the framework of epic fantasy to compare it with it kind of falls apart. But the thing is, all the things that happen can basically be traced back to a single individual. Social systems, class oppression, bigotry and religious schism it's all because of a few puppetmasters. Even the banking system! The Heroes is less like that, but in the end the peace settlement still depends on the single mastermind, not either the outcome of the battle or any kind of social, economic, etc. situation. It's just Bayaz playing games with people.

Now, In Abercrombie's case I can look past it, because he's directly engaging with a kind of fantasy where that kind of thing is just the way it is. But a lot of other fantasy seems to think that way too. Religion-as-repressive-structure is replaced by religious-people-as-assholes. And the latter is far less interesting.

Traditional fantasy does not address any of the criticisms, at least in regards to violence and the like, it just white washes everything. There is little questioning of violence, it approaches the idea of absolutes with glee when it comes to good and evil (often having the hero only enter any moral ambiguity by it being a mistake, for which he or she angsts about), and the world is exceedingly clean. I mean, there is no context in the world, everything is just relatively idealic. Sure, people die and life is hard, but it's nothing approaching what it was really like. I've read two books recently, one was called City of Fortune (Roger Crowley - probably one of the best books of the year), and Holy War. The first deals with the rise and fall of the Venetian naval empire, the other deals mostly with Portugal looking to find a sailing route around the Cape of Good Hope to reach the spices in India. In each book, there are specific instances of sailing and the long term difficulties it presented. In City of Fortune, it was a storm. In Holy War, it is months at sea. Food goes rotten, water goes stale, men are infected by lice and their clothes are covered in worms. Shit ends up caking everything because they can't always get it off the boats, or it gets washed back on, etc. The point is that life, in those times, fucking sucks man. And as much as it's hard to admit, it was not idealic like we have seen in decades of fantasy.

You are stuck on this notion that the writers are focusing on the fact that people are assholes. In none of these books are they assholes, they are just people. Take away the accountability and laws of modern society, take away our ideas of humanity and the nature of being human, and replace it with darkness and ignorance and religious fear and you have a pretty good picture of someone of that time. They are not all assholes, they are people, living in an imperfect world, doing imperfect things.

Religion as a repressive structure, or religion as as a bunch of assholes - there is no difference. You have a bunch of entitled men that played an end game around the iron-handed nobility by essentially making themselves princes of the church. They have excessive wealth, and they use the fear of damnation to keep themselves and their corrupt institution in power - to keep themselves in a life style to which they have longed and now become accustomed to. If that is not the definition of an asshole, i'm not sure what is.

Without endorsing or not the term in itself, I see what it's trying to get at. It's very much not about books with moral grayness or less than adorable characters, but books that deliberately wallow in bodily excretion, violence and immorality (murder, rape, etc) as point of attraction. So very much not Thomas Covenant or Abercrombie. Rather, books (games, etc) where the freedom from morality is a kind of, well, empowering fantasy, away from the sanitized PCness of our boring western lives with all our soul numbing indoor plumbing and functioning legal systems. Lots of rape and child murder is cool, badass, gritty, hardcore, like-so-totally-real-man, etc (and i'll add de-castrating and duck quickly.)

Then stick with your vanilla fantasy if that is what pleases you. What do you think actually happened in pre-modern times. Hell, women weren't emancipated until recently, comparitvely speaking. It is not cool, or badass, or hardcore. I suppose it is gritty, but like the idiot name that has been given to this...subgenre...it does not actually fit. No more than me saying that other fantasy is vanilla. White-washed would be a better description. I would like to address this point: deliberately wallow in bodily excretion, violence and immorality (murder, rape, etc) as point of attraction, with an except from the book, Holy War, by Nigel Cliff. (As a side note, it mentions the month of August, which is when they set out. They spent a total of 93 days out in open sea, meaning it was not until November when they saw land again - this is on Gama's trip to find the Indian spices and the mystical Prestor John)

"August wore on, and the crews grew sick from the burning heat. What food was left quickly went corrupt. The water began to reek, and the men held their noses while they drank. Strong odors were everywhere. Men hauling sails and anchors in the burning sun worked and slept in the same clothes for months on end. At sea their hair was never cut and seldom washed - seawater was too briny, and fresh water too precious - and their scalps teemed with lice. They squatted between the cables and gear on the forecastle and used an open box as a toilet, but their aim was at the mercy of the waves, storms made it impossible to maintain even that minimum of decorum, and the results invariably ended up being washed belowdecks......When the scorching heat and the storms and calms nears the equator were behind him, a new scourge struck the hapless sailor. Hot rain feel in sheets along the African coast, and he complained, afterwards turned to Worms, if that which was wet was not perfectly dry. It was a wonderful trouble to me, to see my Quilt wet, and Worms crawling all over. These rains are so stinking that they rot and spoil, not only the Body, but also all Cloths, Chests, Utensils, and other Things...for the Fever, with a great pain in the Reims, took me in such a manner, that i had a fit of Sickness, almost the whole voyage."

I mean, that is basically the world in which these people inhabit. It is shitty, and violent, and dangerous as hell for women during war and peacetime. Laws, respect for human dignity, was less just by the nature of pre-modern society and the difficulties it presented.

Traditonal fantasy likes to steal wholesale from history to fuel itself, but its picking and choosing very carefully, and the context for why things were they were, at least in our history, is completely white-washed beneath a comparitvely perfect world. There is something to be said for this new wave of fantasy not addressing the points entirely, or perhaps to everyone's satisfaction, but it is a beginning. Even if it were to become stagnant at this stage, it brings us a much clearer idea of what those times were actually like, unlike traditional fantasy. I mean, unless magic can be used by everyone, for the majority of the population life would be hard, shitty, and then dead. The violence, the rape, and the poverty are all parts of it that should be addressed.

[Spring Bass]

I actually can understand Datepalm's argument with regards to certain settings, though. Warhammer 40K is a good example, since it's nothing remotely realistic and the "chaos will eat us all!" dark elements are deliberately played up, to the point where there is literally no faction that can even be described as "decent". The Imperium is xenocidal and drowning in religious fanaticism, the Eldar are a bunch of ruthless assholes who would murder an entire human colony because some Eldar warrior stubbed his toe there three millenia ago, the Tau are aggressive space communists, Chaos is . .. Chaos, and the Tyranids are going to eat everyone alive.

[Verboten]

I tend to define grimdark as something that includes violence, rape and grime but never does anything with it, it's just there to prove how edgy this book/movie is. Abercrombies First Law trilogy avoids this because the violence is not nearly as important as what the aftermath to it is. Glokta was brutally tortured and is in constant pain, crippled physically and emotionally. His torture essentially shapes his actions for all of the books. The Night Angel trilogy on the other hand has one character be scarred and beaten at the age of eight, being kicked repeatedly in the face and then cut up to 'send a message' and nothing happens. She has scars, but they're superficial and do not twist her facial features at all as she grows, there is IIRC a gigantic scar on her mouth but her smile is not crooked and her lips are not affected.. Her nose is broken, but it magically heals in a not crooked way because I dunno magic or some shit. She is repeatedly kicked in the face and suffers no brain damage, no crippling headaces, she still has all her teeth and apparently wasn't kicked very hard because her cheekbones and jaw are not affected in any way. In short the author tried to engage with a mature subject by having a child be severely beaten by another child because of kid gang politics but failed miserably because he was not willing to include any consequences as a result of these actions. They're just there to show how CRUEL the world is to his gary stu, how GRITTY he is and how much a fourteen year old deserved to have both of his ears cut off before apparently drowning. That book is terrible by the way.

TL;DR, violence and rape should only really be included in books if you are willing to show the consequences. Also if you can't do something well don't do it at all.

[Shryke]

I actually can understand Datepalm's argument with regards to certain settings, though. Warhammer 40K is a good example, since it's nothing remotely realistic and the "chaos will eat us all!" dark elements are deliberately played up, to the point where there is literally no faction that can even be described as "decent". The Imperium is xenocidal and drowning in religious fanaticism, the Eldar are a bunch of ruthless assholes who would murder an entire human colony because some Eldar warrior stubbed his toe there three millenia ago, the Tau are aggressive space communists, Chaos is . .. Chaos, and the Tyranids are going to eat everyone alive.

Which is where the term "grimdark" originally comes from, as someone already pointed out.

I find many people seem to want to apply it to all sorts of other types of fantasy that are on the darker side, but I think it's kinda silly to try and lump them all together.

[Arthmail]

I think the term is ridiculous. I also think that the notion of not approaching a subject at all until it meets someones preconcieved notion of what works is also a disservice, as with most things there is usually a progression, an organic model of growth. People are harping on darker fantasy because it fails to reach the levels of accountability that they hold it up to, but have less problems with traditional fantasy simply ignoring it entirely. I think white washing accomplishes nothing more than present filler, entertainment without meaning. There is always more that darker fantasy can do, but it has set itself along a good path.

And there will be books that fail. The Night Angel Trilogy is not a good example for many things, let alone dealing with complex issues. And for everyone that calls it gritty, i think they've just missed the boat entirely. It is said like it is a bad thing, like how Republicans and Conservatives see intellectuals as a bad thing. It is a baseless insult that has no meaning, but which appeals to the masses who already dislike that sort of thing anyways. I am reminded of an inuslt from grade five, when the word pickle was used against people with a sneer. To everyone else, grimdark and "teh" gritty seem like pedantic ravings.

It does nothing to address the underlying issues, which authors are actually trying to address after decades of simply ignoring them. But i suppose some would prefer if you can't do it well, better to not do it at all, and continue on in willfull ignorance.

[Sonic The Hedgehog]

She is repeatedly kicked in the face and suffers no brain damage, no crippling headaces, she still has all her teeth and apparently wasn't kicked very hard because her cheekbones and jaw are not affected in any way.

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but IIRC, Dollface does actually lose teeth when she's attacked as a child, but when Azoth (I think that's his name?) encounters her again she's a teenager, and thus has her adult teeth.

That's not to say those books weren't dissappointing. I remember reading the interview of Weeks included in the back of one of the books, and he mentioned GRRM as an inspiration for his work, saying something like Martin taught him if you main or kill a character early on, it makes the reader care more the next time a character is in danger. I agree that he forgot to include consequences for such incidents though. Dollface even goes on to become deeply religious and her being a "pure virgin" is actually a source of conflict for Azoth. She exists purely to be a love interest. The whole story actually strongly reminded me of the kind of stuff I'd write when I was 11, and has made me reluctant in picking up any of Weeks' other books.

[Mathis Waters]

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)

Many people aren't particularly ambitious or devoted to abstract principles, and have tastes that are coded as lower class, sure - but that's orthogonal to shallowness in the sense that was being discussed here. I've never seen the Jersey Shore or met your cousins, but I'm quite certain that those people have complex emotional lives, even if your impression that they don't dwell on them much is accurate.

[Callan S.]

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

I think it depends if you continue caring about any of the characters.

The more you care, the more complex it gets.

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

Speak for yourself. I'm pefectly adjusted to walking into the outer blast radius of a unimaginably large nuclear explosion and calling it "A nice day"!

[Serious Callers Only]

I don't think it's unrealistic at all in most cases. I know bad shit happens in real life too. Modulo the super(hero|villain)(s|es|ism) that fantasy narrative seems to love, there is nothing unrealistic about most "grimdark" (except exaggeration for effect, like KJ Parker). But i don't have to like it, and i will be vocal about it.

Hell, just recently a boy was tortured and killed in Syria by the regime, the photos leaked out and the parents forced to do a photo op with the dictator. More "grimdark" than that is difficult.

Why should i care about the first person narrative of a otherwise normal "hero" or not placed on a situation where he commits atrocities because of the "circumstances". I'm sure the Syrian guy never thought he would be covering up for kids torture either when he wanted to be a dentist. Or Kissinger was fantasying about bombing Cambodia with agent orange when he was a teenager. Or Obama about citizen assassinations.

Sometimes, reflecting on circumstances is ethically null effort, and any book character that tries to do that to me gets beyond my moral horizon, and thus indifference (or hostility, that kinda works, depending on the reader).