The Grimdark Appreciation thread II

[Spockydog]

Wait, so horror can't be grimdark?

 

Stephen King's The Mist says that's nonsense.

 

[C.T. Phipps]

1. You missed the point. This isn't about realism, this is about story-telling. A character can be completely accurate, yet fail at a narrative level. And Ladisla fails simply because he isn't interesting. He lacks depth, which in characterisation is a far greater sin than lacking redeeming features.

2. Shakespeare wrote an entire play based on the complexity of Richard II - he'd struggle to do that about Ladisla. Meanwhile, King John was one of the most competent administrators in English history. 

*First Law Trilogy spoilers* (I need to figure out how to hide text)

I'm not going to argue 2# given John's Robb Stark-esque foibles and questions of administration. However, I disagree with you regarding Ladisla. I think Ladisla serves an excellent function in relationship to Collem West. Ladisla is rescued by West and it seems very likely it's going to result in West achieving fame and fortune by saving the spoiled, pampered nobleman or that, perhaps, Ladisla might go on a similar journey to Jezel. In fact, of course, it's actually just a subversion where West ends up killing him and committing the ultimate act of treason against his nation.

Which plays into the larger subversion that West does it for a woman who is uninterested in him sexually and dies soon afterward. No, Ladisla is a flat character but narratively, his purpose is helpful in the same way the Mountain's is. He serves as a way to move our character's own arcs forward.

 

 

[C.T. Phipps]

Wait, so horror can't be grimdark?

And yeah Giger man, goddamn.

I think I shared this link earlier in the thread but it got lost in the Tolkienisms.

Horror vs. Grimdark - an essay

[Spockydog]

*First Law Trilogy spoilers* (I need to figure out how to hide text)

 

Highlight the text, then click on the eye in the toolbar. (I think). 

 

[C.T. Phipps]

But it does need more than sex and horror elements to qualify. Regular (dark) fantasy has these after all.

Grim dark needs to be darker than dark, beyond dark. Which either ends up on the cheesy and comical end of the spectrum or the deeply disturbing and bleak (although Sranc and Inchies are admittedly borderline).

Honestly, I've never liked dark fantasy as a label and I think grimdark should be a label which encompasses the spectrum of dark fantasy to complete utter soul-crushing bleakness.

Mostly because dark fantasy is a term which leaves so terribly much open.

"Darker than WHICH fantasy?"

Basically.

[Darth Richard II]

I would argue Alien isn't 100 percent horror though. There's definitely a lot of scifi elements in it as well. Not that it didn't, you know, scare the living fuck out of me.

[C.T. Phipps]

I would argue Alien isn't 100 percent horror though. There's definitely a lot of scifi elements in it as well. Not that it didn't, you know, scare the living fuck out of me.

Alien being sci-fi horror was considered quite revolutionary at the time.

Which I felt was silly (despite being a kid at the time) given the 1950s and 60s were full of sci-fi horror.

[C.T. Phipps]

To be fair, Noomie's character says that the aliens making humanity does not preclude God making them.

 

[Spockydog]

Now Prometheus, that was grimdark.

 

No. That was just grim, in every sense of the word.

 

 

[C.T. Phipps]

No. That was just grim, in every sense of the word.

I prefer to think of it as a comedy of errors where a company which specializes in developing faster-than-light travel spaceships and androids has a potential CEO who can't see the potential value of alien artifacts and existence but still thought the trip was worth taking solely to fulfill an obscure clause in her father's will.

I suspect that's very much WHY he didn't want to leave the company to you, Charlize.

[Darth Richard II]

Well, I also heard shes a super bitch in real life.

[Ser Drizztos]

Honestly, I've never liked dark fantasy as a label and I think grimdark should be a label which encompasses the spectrum of dark fantasy to complete utter soul-crushing bleakness.

Mostly because dark fantasy is a term which leaves so terribly much open.

"Darker than WHICH fantasy?"

Basically.

Dunno, anything that comes off as sufficiently dark in tone to set it apart from generic fantasy so people looking for that kinda stuff have an easier time finding it. I don't see a point in genre labels otherwise. Grimdark is just dark taken to the extreme. If you want to get more specific you need to add more tags.

[SeanF]

Start with her first book as Hobb; Assassin's Apprentice. That is the first in the Farseer Trilogy. Then read the Liveships Trilogy (as an aside, Hobb has recently said on social media that she has a problem with her latest book, trying to make a particular scene make sense to those who havent read Liveships without using a big info dump) which imo is arguably my favourite of her work. It is also different to her Firz books because it isnt first person POV but hops between characters. Particularly brilliant for its characterisations and strong, well developed females. Then Tawny Man Trilogy, then the Wilful Princess and the Piebald Prince novella, then Rain Wilds Chronicles, and finally Fitz and thr Fool Trilogy. Thats if you want to go whole hog, if you skip any, i would skip the novella and Rain Wilds, though thr latter seems likely to be very relevant in the upcoming book.

I can also recommend her Megan Lindholm books that i have read - Alien Earth and The Reindeer People. Not quite as good, and not very "grimdark" (though the Reindeer People touches some dark themes) but still good stuff

Many thanks (and to R Collins).

[Ser Drizztos]

Oh and what to read next after The Barrow (which thankfully stands on its own rather than as the beginning to a never-ending series). I have Abercrombie (First Law) and Lawrence (Broken Empire) on my list - which would I enjoy more given that I love Bakker (allegedly a little too) much?

[Jo498]

I have only read the "Prince of Thorns" but Lawrence even "lower fantasy" than Abercrombie, that is a more regional quest, less magic etc.

In terms of asshole protagonists, Abercrombie's are at least a little more sympathetic than the others. So having read all 9 full-length Abercrombie novels but only the first by Lawrence (and the first 2.5 of Bakker's), the two former are closer in style, tone, type of characters and plot elements to each other than either is to Bakker. And both are probably easier (and funnier) reads for most than Bakker (but do not expect the "depth" or world building of the latter).

[C.T. Phipps]

I have only read the "Prince of Thorns" but Lawrence even "lower fantasy" than Abercrombie, that is a more regional quest, less magic etc.

In terms of asshole protagonists, Abercrombie's are at least a little more sympathetic than the others. So having read all 9 full-length Abercrombie novels but only the first by Lawrence (and the first 2.5 of Bakker's), the two former are closer in style, tone, type of characters and plot elements to each other than either is to Bakker. And both are probably easier (and funnier) reads for most than Bakker (but do not expect the "depth" or world building of the latter).

Really? I thought Lawrence's books were dripping with magic.

It was all in the hands of the bad guys but the hundreds of zombies, necromancers, mind-control, and "ancient builder tech" said otherwise.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Really? I thought Lawrence's books were dripping with magic.
It was all in the hands of the bad guys but the hundreds of zombies, necromancers, mind-control, and "ancient builder tech" said otherwise.

I thought they had a good deal too. Yet, Bakker is full of magic. Close to Erikson. Bakker apparently was a D&D nut and where a lot of inspiration comes from for his story.

Ser Drizztos, as other have pointed out Abercrombie is full of Dark humor. I loved it. And while there is magic its just not as straight in your face as TSA. Same with Lawrence. Their both good series, by great authors. I dont see where you can go wrong, tbh.

ETA: Oh, Abercrombie writes some of the best battle scenes I've ever read. I think its The Heroes that has an epic scene, switching view points and taking you through the whole battle.....just awesome.

[First of My Name]

I liked Prince of Thorns and hope to read the sequel soon. 

 

ETA: Oh, Abercrombie writes some of the best battle scenes I've ever read. I think its The Heroes that has an epic scene, switching view points and taking you through the whole battle.....just awesome.

That was indeed The Heroes, and it was indeed awesome. Especially how each of the one-off POVs is killed by the next one.

[Ser Drizztos]

Mhh then there's also A Land Fit for Heroes by Richard K. Morgan which comes highly recommended with superlatives such as:

This series is probably the darkest, most gritty grimdark reads in the entire genre. Seriously, you don't know dark and depressing till you start reading these books. Some readers may not be able to handle this, so be warned.

[Jo498]

As I said I only read "Prince of Thorns" and this one has almost no magic. Anyway, Bakker is clearly "High Fantasy", regardless of the "darkness": huge battles, powerful magicians, superheroes and the world at stake (it's not called Second apocalypse for nothing) whereas "Prince of Thorns" has a comparably "local" quest. This may change in later volumes that I have not read.