The Grimdark Appreciation thread II

[Ser Drizztos]

As for The Barrow: Yes, what you say is correct. But The Barrow is intended to be part of a series of novels, not a standalone, and Smylie is currently writing the next two books, tentatively titled Black Heart and Bright Sword. He also has a published short story that directly follows after the epilogue of The Barrow, and it appears in the anthology Blackguards: Tales of Assassins, Mercenaries, and Rogues; it's titled Manhunt. 

I see. Well, I guess it could be expected he wouldn't give up on his characters so readily. I was actually hoping that

 

all of them would perish in the barrow. Now that would have been deliciously grimdark. As it stands, the main and most honorable protagonists who, as I just realized, also happen to appear on the cover live to adventure another day. You missed your chance, Mr. Smiley.

Oh, and one more thing

 

Where's the moral ambiguity of the characters, allegedly a prerequisite for grimdark? I guess you could make a case for Godewyn who's pretty much an asshole but on the other hand loyal to his crew. Erim and Stjepan are quite clearly the good guys of the story, IIRC they aren't ever shown to do something nasty, even out of necessity, while the Nameless traitors are very much of the muahaha evil sort, even explaining their whole plan at the end in traditional comic book villain manner. Sure, Stjepan has a secret agenda and is made out to be all kinds of mysterious, but overall it's a far cry from the truly morally ambiguous characters in ASOIAF/TSA, no?

[Puntificator]

DUPLICATE POST

[Puntificator]

Ser Drizztos:

As I assume you know, the expression "morally ambiguous protagonists" refers to the notion that the protagonists are neither pure good heroic, honorable characters or pure evil, malignant, dark ones; antiheroic might be a better term. So, first of all, Stjepan, Godewyn, and Erim are thieves. That alone should count for moral ambiguity and being antiheroes. I could end with this, but there is more. Godewyn is the easiest. His moral code is driven largely by greed and revenge; he knocks Stjepan unconscious with a spade; he leaves Erim lying on the floor when she asks for help while virtually dying; when he is about to fight Arduin, he mentions that he acquired the nickname Red-Hand because he is a killer and he also threatens to rape Arduin's sister. Stepjan casually lets people die; he demonstrates a kind of hidden, snarling, berserker, "Logen Ninefingers"–type, violent streak when he kills Rodrick Urgoar; he is secretive with a shady past that may include murder; his best friends are almost all sleazy and include a morally perverse brothel owner; he engages in morally questionable sexual activity (as does Godewyn)—and I am not referring to his sexual orientation. Erim shoots Godewyn with a crossbow bolt as he is slowly riding away—not exactly heroic behavior. And she is is not driven by an honorable moral code. She is full of self-doubt, and her moral compass is driven by the people she hangs with, not by a sense of pure good or rightness. She is also a morally deceptive person; her posing as a male may be a form of self-defense, but it is still deception. But again, they are all thieves. Sure, they possess good attributes as well. That's why they are not considered evil, but morally ambiguous.  

[peterbound]

There have been several mentions by posters of a definition for grimdark. I just want to mention that Grimdark Magazine defines "grimdark" as "grim stories told in a dark world [with] morally ambiguous protagonists." The magazine has only published speculative fiction so far, so one may reasonably assume that by "stories" the magazine's definition really means "speculative fiction." Given the unique position of the ezine as supposedly being a publisher of exclusively grimdark fiction, I think their definition should be given greater weight than other definitions (at least for the present), since essentially they have become de facto the flagship for the non-pejorative use of the term.  

Among other things, this definition makes no mention of the degree of magic in the story, nor does it require: bleakness or hopelessness; nihilism; extreme violence; a cynical worldview; fantastical elements; or "over-the-topness." It also enables us to see such things as how a horror story can be either grimdark or not. A horror story without morally ambiguous protagonists would not be grimdark. [This is in reference to a question raised earlier in the thread.]

IMHO, R. Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing/The Aspect-Emperor Trilogy, ASoIaF, The Traitor Baru Cormorant, and The Barrow (which, by the way, is NOT a standalone book) all fit this definition, which is why I included them as grimdark, despite some reasonable objections from others. 

Wasn't Grimdark magazine started as some sort of tongue in cheek attempt to capitalize on the uptick of the novels?  Hard to take that kind of publication seriously. Now I know that the term was coined, again, as a bit of a joke about the current crop of writers that take an less than clean approach to their novels.  

Also, not sure why the need to define it?  Like porn, you kind of know it when you see it. 

And Punt?  Speculative Fiction?  Little pretentious.  Just say fantasy. 

 

And goddamn the Barrow was terrible.  Don't lump that piece of shit with the other books. 

[Puntificator]

Since the definition of grimdark got the last thread shut down, Puntificator, I'm going to simply state that I have no interest in discussing the issue with you on this thread. If you want to open a thread about "What is grimdark" I think that would be a better place for it. I'd really like to keep this thread open as it's been doing fine. We can discuss the conversations I had with Adrian Collins (Grimdark Magazine's Editor) about our different definitions of what qualified as grimdark and how both of our opinions changed.

 

But as stated by you, this is the grimdark appreciation thread and it's mostly here to celebrate dark fiction not get bogged down in minutia.

The definition is not what got it shot down. In any case, the discussion about its definition had already started, with several other posters offering their views on what grimdark is, including you. I think it is thus equally allowable for me to do so. My addressing of the definition in the post you are responding to was simply based on my having listed several books as being grimdark that others said they didn't agree with as being grimdark, so I offered my justification for calling those books grimdark. That seems to me to be completely appropriate. Also, if the thread is here to celebrate dark fiction, then there should be no problem with discussing horror either, since that genre clearly consists of dark fiction; yet you implied it wasn't germane to this thread.

Just saying (to quote you)...

 

[Darth Richard II]

Eh, people still can;t agree on what and what isn't scifi. And I HATE the term speculative fiction. Never seen it used by an author in any case except when they're trying to weasel there way out of saying they write scifi.

[Puntificator]

Wasn't Grimdark magazine started as some sort of tongue in cheek attempt to capitalize on the uptick of the novels?  Hard to take that kind of publication seriously. Now I know that the term was coined, again, as a bit of a joke about the current crop of writers that take an less than clean approach to their novels.  

Also, not sure why the need to define it?  Like porn, you kind of know it when you see it. 

And Punt?  Speculative Fiction?  Little pretentious.  Just say fantasy. 

 

And goddamn the Barrow was terrible.  Don't lump that piece of shit with the other books. 

No, Grimdark Magazine was not "started as some sort of tongue in cheek attempt to capitalize on the uptick of the novels." According to its editor, It started out by identification of a gap in the niche ezine market coupled with an obsession by him for (serious) grimdark. 

The main reason there is a "need" to define it is because unlike porn, apparently you don't kind of know it when you see it; hence, all the arguments over whether certain books are or are not grimdark. Actually, I don't think it's a need; I think it's a convenience.

Speculative fiction is not pretentious. It includes more than fantasy. It also includes science fiction and horror, as well as things like slipstream and weird fiction.

I think I get why you might think The Barrow was terrible; that's a value judgment that I happen to feel differently about, which is just fine. I've had plenty of people tell me the same thing about ASoIaF, Mark Lawrence's The Broken Empire trilogy, R. Scott Bakker's The Prince of Nothing/The Aspect-Emperor Trilogy, etc., and my tastes disagree with those people's as well, so I am used to the vitriol. 

[Puntificator]

Eh, people still can;t agree on what and what isn't scifi. And I HATE the term speculative fiction. Never seen it used by an author in any case except when they're trying to weasel there way out of saying they write scifi.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KI2UKI2?colid=34CKFJIIKGAH8&coliid=IDJTC0M6TSQ2B&ref_=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl

[The Marquis de Leech]

Attempt at definitions:

- Science-fiction: weird shit is happening, but the text pretends there's a rational basis for it.

- Fantasy: weird shit is happening, and the text doesn't pretend there's a rational basis for it.

- Horror: weird shit may or may not be happening, and the text clearly intends to scare (or at least unsettle) the reader.

- Speculative fiction: weird shit is happening.

Speculative fiction serves as a useful umbrella term.

[Puntificator]

 

Speculative fiction serves as a useful umbrella term.

This. ^

[Puntificator]

Part of what I think cements my opinion grimdark fiction should not just be purely morally ambiguous characters is we do have definite protagonists who maintain our sympathy wholly in the genre. 
 

Who says morally ambiguous characters can't maintain our sympathy wholly? In fact, I think the opposite is true. Many morally ambiguous characters maintain our sympathy because they remind us so much of ourselves. Most of us are not pure good or pure evil.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah I've just had some annoying experience with people who use the term speculative fiction. And the people who I'm talking about would never consider SFF/horror as Spec Fic. It would be to long to explain on my phone, but to them SFF is crap while spec Fic is real literature. I'm not agreeing with them but it's why I have such a knee jerk reaction when I see the term used. 

[C.T. Phipps]

Not trying to shoot you down, Puntificator. I just think it was an interesting thread topic in itself, "What is grimdark?"

Consider the subject dropped on my end. Your participation here is certainly welcome.

Moving on, I also tend to speak kudos for grimdark magazine. It's not a huge production and whether or not its the be-end-all of grimdark authority is debatable but I have nothing but respect for Adrian Collins, his devotion to the subject, his co-writers, and everything they've done for the grimdark fandom. I really recommend people pick up copies of the magazine. He's not doing it for the money, boy is he not doing it for the money, but he's doing it for the love of the subject as are all the others.

Also, I really like the short-fiction they've done for it. Top quality stuff.

 

[Darth Richard II]

Like, I've actually been told at one point, "it's not fantasy, it's speculative fiction". Shit, I think we were talking about ASoIaF too. But if you guys have ever seen the Is. GoT really SFF threads you know the type.  

 

Not to knock you guys use of it, just, it's like a trigger for me sometimes.

[SkynJay]

Attempt at definitions:

- Science-fiction: weird shit is happening, but the text pretends there's a rational basis for it.

- Fantasy: weird shit is happening, and the text doesn't pretend there's a rational basis for it.

- Horror: weird shit may or may not be happening, and the text clearly intends to scare (or at least unsettle) the reader.

- Speculative fiction: weird shit is happening.

Speculative fiction serves as a useful umbrella term.

Just to poke at this a bit.  Does this mean that Name of the Wind and Mistborn are science fiction because they set up a rational system with rules to make weird shit happen?

I like the term Speculative Fiction myself; it allows books like City of Stairs and the Craft series to just be without any crazy wrangling of terms.

 

[C.T. Phipps]

Who says morally ambiguous characters can't maintain our sympathy wholly? In fact, I think the opposite is true. Many morally ambiguous characters maintain our sympathy because they remind us so much of ourselves. Most of us are not pure good or pure evil.

I'm referring more to the fact that grimdark protagonists who are good man in horrible settings can have their own personal narratives which underscore the brutality as well as bleaknes of the worlds.

As mentioned, Ned Stark's nobility gets him killed and he's never morally compromised except for being willing to do to save his daughters' lives--which is so small a moral indiscretion as to be all but nonexistent. The grimdarkness of Westeros becomes solidified as Ned Stark's morality becomes both a flaw as well as a source of strength.

Geralt of Rivia is a figure who is tortured and ruined by the world around him. "Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling... makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definitions blurred. If I'm to choose between one evil and another, I’d rather not choose at all." He can't choose the lesser evil so he struggles against everything the world throws at him.

No one is purely good in the First Law Trilogy or The Broken Empire admittedly. Prince Orrin is a hero antagonist in the narrative of the latter, being a noble and heroic soul who is opposed to the ruthless antihero. Cohm West is the single most noble soul in the First Law Trilogy but even he has a frightening anger which drives away his (seeming) potential love-interest.

But I maintain bright heroes in the darkness have a place in grimdark.

It's just there is a price to be paid for nobility and it doesn't win you fame, success, or hope.

[C.T. Phipps]

Like, I've actually been told at one point, "it's not fantasy, it's speculative fiction". Shit, I think we were talking about ASoIaF too. But if you guys have ever seen the Is. GoT really SFF threads you know the type.  

Not to knock you guys use of it, just, it's like a trigger for me sometimes.

R.A. Salvatore did an opening for a book of essays on A Song of Ice and Fire I recently purchased. His basic gist was, (paraphrased) "The greatest thing George R.R. Martin gave us was that he helped shove fantasy up in the face of academics and snooty literature types in a way not seen since Tolkien." I, thankfully, went to a permissive university drenched in Beowulf, Tolkien, Lewis, and even classes on superheroes but it's still a hard road for many people to take fantasy and sci-fi seriously.

Which is ridiculous.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Just to poke at this a bit.  Does this mean that Name of the Wind and Mistborn are science fiction because they set up a rational system with rules to make weird shit happen?

I've never read Mistborn, but The Name of the Wind is easy - it's got magical critters, and Naming Magic is inherently irrational. Could Sympathy be considered science-fiction? I'd still say no - there's no attempt to cosmetically tie it back to real-world scientific phenomena (i.e. it takes the weird shit as a given, rather than an extrapolation). Mordant's Need by Stephen Donaldson is another example: the magic of mirrors is worked out in an extremely coherent way, but there's no attempt to explain why mirrors could serve as teleportation devices in our universe. 

[HexMachina]

Like, I've actually been told at one point, "it's not fantasy, it's speculative fiction". Shit, I think we were talking about ASoIaF too. But if you guys have ever seen the Is. GoT really SFF threads you know the type.  

 

Not to knock you guys use of it, just, it's like a trigger for me sometimes.

I understand what you mean about the speculative fiction thing. Both in the ASOIAF context ( but it's good how can it be fantasy?) and in other stuff. This year, for example, I read Salman Rushdie's Two Years Eight Months and Twenty Eight Nights which smacks to me of more or less straight up fantasy, yet I can well imagine it's rarely labelled as such. A quick Google shows it listed as "magical realism" on random house so *shrug*

[The Marquis de Leech]

R.A. Salvatore did an opening for a book of essays on A Song of Ice and Fire I recently purchased. His basic gist was, (paraphrased) "The greatest thing George R.R. Martin gave us was that he helped shove fantasy up in the face of academics and snooty literature types in a way not seen since Tolkien." I, thankfully, went to a permissive university drenched in Beowulf, Tolkien, Lewis, and even classes on superheroes but it's still a hard road for many people to take fantasy and sci-fi seriously.

Which is ridiculous.

Yes, it is.

Incidentally, the one term that really does make me want to throw something - literary fiction. If we regard literary fiction as "quality Literature with a capital L", then it cannot be a genre in its own right, any more than "really bad fiction" is a genre. Literary fiction by that definition transcends genre. If, however, literary fiction is meant to refer to modernist and post-modernist character-driven and experimentalist texts, people should refer to it by its actual descriptor. Calling it literary fiction is simply reinforcing pro-modernist bias at the expense of other forms of fiction.