ASoIaF and Grimdarkness, black like the color of your soul

[peterbound]

Title says it all.  Available for discussions with regards to ASoIaF and how grimdarkey it is.  Characters, tone, writing.. the whole smash.  

 

You're welcome Lit friends. 

[C.T. Phipps]

Honestly, I think the modern conception of grimdark is based around George R.R. Martin's writings. When the concept was first posed as an adjective to refer to anything outside of Warhammer or Warhammer 40K, it was George R.R. Martin's work (back when it was a pejorative).

"His work is too grimdark for me"

"George R.R. Martin is grimdark."

Then it gradually become a compliment or a genre descriptor for people like George.

[Puntificator]

Honestly, I think the modern conception of grimdark is based around George R.R. Martin's writings. When the concept was first posed as an adjective to refer to anything outside of Warhammer or Warhammer 40K, it was George R.R. Martin's work (back when it was a pejorative).

"His work is too grimdark for me"

"George R.R. Martin is grimdark."

Then it gradually become a compliment or a genre descriptor for people like George.

Agree mostly. Where I disagree is that I think it was specifically ASoIaF that it was based on, not GRRM's work in general, and it became a genre descriptor for works like ASoIaF, rather than for people like GRRM. Therefore, when defining grimdark, which is a perennially thorny problem, the definition should be one that includes ASoIaF, but is not so general in its inclusiveness as to make the use of the word grimdark redundant/unnecessary or to be a definition that includes works that are "too different" from ASoIaF; the problem of course is how to make such an abstract statement concrete and understandable, and deciding what "too different" reasonably means.

[The Reckoner]

ASOIAF isn't grimdark. The people who apply that term to the series. without any irony,  just haven't read anything beyond Dragonlance and Drizzt. I first read this series back in junior high and never felt like it was all that grim or dark. Brutal, honest, but not grim or dark.

[Puntificator]

ASOIAF isn't grimdark. The people who apply that term to the series. without any irony,  just haven't read anything beyond Dragonlance and Drizzt. I first read this series back in junior high and never felt like it was all that grim or dark. Brutal, honest, but not grim or dark.

I've never read Dragonlance or Drizzt, and I think ASoIaF is grim and dark. Anything that's brutal is by definition grim. It also is dark if you use the Oxford Dictionary's definition of dark as "characterized by great unhappiness or unpleasantness." 

[The Reckoner]

That encompasses a whole slew of lit that you wouldn't find under the fantasy genre. My point is, I think it has to do with how well read someone is. Whether or not their literary experience is limited to fantasy, or branches into SF and the literary genre. By literary genre, I mean anything you'd have read in a college lit course. But I've not felt great unhappiness or unpleasantness while reading. Anticipation, yes - I'm currently anticipating Ramsay and his cohorts being burned in a nightfire to R'hollor, rooting for Victarion to get his dragons thereby taking his shenanigans to the next level.

[Puntificator]

My point is, I think it has to do with how well read someone is. Whether or not their literary experience is limited to fantasy, or branches into SF and the literary genre. By literary genre, I mean anything you'd have read in a college lit course. But I've not felt great unhappiness or unpleasantness while reading. 

I'm quite well read in fantasy, SF, and what you call the literary genre. Been reading for about sixty years.

And "dark" is not about you feeling great unhappiness or unpleasantness; it's about the characters in the story feeling that way.

As for it encompassing a whole slew of lit not under the fantasy genre, that's because being grim and dark is not a sufficient definition of grimdark; being grim and dark is only a necessary part of being grimdark.

[SeanF]

ASOIAF isn't grimdark. The people who apply that term to the series. without any irony, just haven't read anything beyond Dragonlance and Drizzt. I first read this series back in junior high and never felt like it was all that grim or dark. Brutal, honest, but not grim or dark.

I think I'd need to reserve judgement until the series ends. If it were to finish up with say:-

Dany ruling Westeros as Aerys III, hunting down anyone associated with the families that overthrew her father,

Tyrion gaining Casterly Rock over a heap of bodies (including his brother and sister) and becoming a bitter alcoholic,

Jon Snow going into hiding to escape his murderous aunt,

Sansa surviving as a murderous lying hypocrite,

Arya becoming a professional assassin and torturer,

I think I'd say that was grimdark, notwithstanding all five main characters surviving.

[FuzzyJAM]

I'm quite well read in fantasy, SF, and what you call the literary genre. Been reading for about sixty years.

And "dark" is not about you feeling great unhappiness or unpleasantness; it's about the characters in the story feeling that way.

As for it encompassing a whole slew of lit not under the fantasy genre, that's because being grim and dark is not a sufficient definition of grimdark; being grim and dark is only a necessary part of being grimdark.

Linking into this discussion, as far as I can tell, "grimdark" just means "fantasy that is somewhat close to 'real' literature", though I wouldn't make it quite so simple as genre fiction vs. literary fiction.

A huge amount of fantasy is fairy tales for grown ups.  Which is totally cool, and doesn't necessarily mean they're lacking in complexity or brilliance - Tolkien is a good example of an author whom I feel writes meaningfully and movingly in a (very deliberately) mythical style.  In contrast, any fantasy which attempts to depict the "real" side of their subject matter is going to be "grimdark" rather than have that traditional fairy tale or mythical quality.  War is horrible and has rapes and disfigurement and murdered peasants, our own ethics are clearly different from those of the past and so characters in other epochs would hold values and act in ways we deem immoral, the good side doesn't always win, real wars have very rarely been fought between clearly good and clearly bad anyway, and so on.  To include all this is apparently what "grimdark" means.  

[The Reckoner]

 

I think I'd need to reserve judgement until the series ends. If it were to finish up with say:-

 

Dany ruling Westeros as Aerys III, hunting down anyone associated with the families that overthrew her father,

 

Tyrion gaining Casterly Rock over a heap of bodies (including his brother and sister) and becoming a bitter alcoholic,

 

Jon Snow going into hiding to escape his murderous aunt,

 

Sansa surviving as a murderous lying hypocrite,

 

Arya becoming a professional assassin and torturer,

 

I think I'd say that was grimdark, notwithstanding all five main characters surviving.

Fuzzy - that is my understanding of it as well. Some authors may chose to bring their own ethics, or even certain sets of modern day ethics, into their world for thematic purposes.

Sean - That would be an interesting outcome, though I don't interpret it as Grimdark. Danaerys is just protecting what's hers, Jon protecting what's his, Tyrion's already halfway there (I feel like he kept a lid on his bitterness until his trial for Joffrey's murder; its still present during the first half of his journey in ADWD) but isn't perpetually bitter, and Sansa's doing what many would say our current leaders do. It certainly sounds villainous, but I suspect it isn't all that horrible if it works for Sansa and her subjects. They prosper, at the very least. It is an unpleasant truth, but it isn't far from reality either.

Puntificator - The only time I've come across a character feeling "dark" would be the Drizzt journal things and the one Wulfgar book. Salvatore had a tendency to make the dark elf go on at length about the darkness in his soul. My only defense for reading the Drizzt books - at the time I was deep into organic chemistry, botany, and physics; they were quick brain breaks. While characters like Logen, Jezal, Glokta, Ardee, Jorg, Monza, Ringil, Egar, and Archeth go through brief periods of darkness, as do we all, none of them lingered in it. Though they come from the three authors of the Grimdark Trinity, the characters strive to reach a better place. Some do, some are still trying. I've never gotten the impression while reading that they lingered in their "darkness."

[Taenqyrhae]

It's not what I'd call grimdark - tone-wise, it's fairly typical gritty low-magic fantasy so far.  So far it hasn't had anything happen that is too outside of what would be historically realistic - we haven't had any mad emperors sacrificing a million slaves or sorcerous weapons consuming entire cities and sending the souls of all inhabitants to a torturous plane of punishment - just some typical medieval warfare, humans being humans pretty much.  There's not really many characters who "embrace evil" or even think of themselves as being particularly evil - even the bad guys are fairly typical villains who think their actions are justified. There's humor, friendship, love, all kinds of light aspects to the story to keep it from being grimdark, and so far we've really only had one major protagonist die.

[SeanF]

Fuzzy - that is my understanding of it as well. Some authors may chose to bring their own ethics, or even certain sets of modern day ethics, into their world for thematic purposes.

Sean - That would be an interesting outcome, though I don't interpret it as Grimdark. Danaerys is just protecting what's hers, Jon protecting what's his, Tyrion's already halfway there (I feel like he kept a lid on his bitterness until his trial for Joffrey's murder; its still present during the first half of his journey in ADWD) but isn't perpetually bitter, and Sansa's doing what many would say our current leaders do. It certainly sounds villainous, but I suspect it isn't all that horrible if it works for Sansa and her subjects. They prosper, at the very least. It is an unpleasant truth, but it isn't far from reality either.

Puntificator - The only time I've come across a character feeling "dark" would be the Drizzt journal things and the one Wulfgar book. Salvatore had a tendency to make the dark elf go on at length about the darkness in his soul. My only defense for reading the Drizzt books - at the time I was deep into organic chemistry, botany, and physics; they were quick brain breaks. While characters like Logen, Jezal, Glokta, Ardee, Jorg, Monza, Ringil, Egar, and Archeth go through brief periods of darkness, as do we all, none of them lingered in it. Though they come from the three authors of the Grimdark Trinity, the characters strive to reach a better place. Some do, some are still trying. I've never gotten the impression while reading that they lingered in their "darkness."

I think it would be sad and depressing outcome, similar to the end of The First Law. It might make excellent literature, but it would be a pity to see characters we were invested in come to that end.

[The Reckoner]

The only sad ending, in my mind, was for Glokta's boss. Of course, its all up to one's interpretation.

Taen - how are into the series are you? I felt that with ADWD, the magic started verging on fairly high. To my mind, low magic is what you have in First Law Trilogy. It's there, but rarely is it really noticeable or flashy. In contrast, you have Moqorro and a few others...