The Grimdark Appreciation thread II

[Mark Lawrence]

As I said I only read "Prince of Thorns" and this one has almost no magic.

Except (and there will be spoilers)

Ghosts.

Mind control.

Dream magic.

A telepath with precognition and glowing skin.

Shape-shifting necromancers.

An animated skeleton horde.

Magically reduced temperature.

Another necromancer and more ghosts.

A child absorbing power from an explosion.

An angel.

Necromancy that allows the survival of mortal wounds.

A sleep spell.

More mind control.

A child reducing soldiers to burning husks with fire-bolts.

[Hello World]

Except (and there will be spoilers)

Ghosts.

Mind control.

Dream magic.

A telepath with precognition and glowing skin.

Shape-shifting necromancers.

An animated skeleton horde.

Magically reduced temperature.

Another necromancer and more ghosts.

A child absorbing power from an explosion.

An angel.

Necromancy that allows the survival of mortal wounds.

A sleep spell.

More mind control.

A child reducing soldiers to burning husks with fire-bolts.

Yeah... no. Sounds like you didn't even read it.

[C.T. Phipps]

Listen, Mark Lawrence, you clearly know nothing about Mark Lawrence books!

[Jo498]

I swear that I read "Prince of Thorns" all through!

I admit that I forgot quite a bit but as I recall it I had thought that all/most of the "magic" things were finally grounded in odd (maybe somewhat exaggerated) effects of nuclear radiation and the obsessions of the protagonist with the necromancer had been hypnosis or so. Apparently, I was wrong or some things got mixed up in my memory.

Sorry, for giving a false impression. Still, I think it is correct that the "feeling" of that book is very different from the "high fantasy" of Bakker, regardless how much "magic" (or hitherto unobversed effects of prolonged exposition to nuclear radiation) is in there.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

I'm in the middle of Stover's Blade of Tyshalle. Its dark, and im enjoying the story, yet its sort of a hard read. I read 30 or 40 pages then I just find myself slogging through. Definitely part of the genre IMHO.

A Land Fit for Heroes, is an excellent read and would probably be the series I would point anyone to who wanted a sampling of Grimdark. It has everything the OP requires to fit the bill of the genre. Ringil is the best example I've seen of the archetype character of Grimdark. His sense of justice, and reasons for his actions make any decision a double edge sword. And, there are some scenes that are truly nightmares. Some of the darkest, scariest Fantasy I've ever read. I believe its a must read for any Grimdark fan.

[C.T. Phipps]

I've decided The Steel Remains and Prince of Fools are next on my reading list.

*Spoilers for The Broken Empire Trilogy*

I'm hoping we'll see Chel again in this next series since the ending for the Broken Empire Trilogy left me very interested in what happened to everyone's favorite necromancer psycho mummy girl.

 At last! I know how to hide text so I can discuss spoilerific material!

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah who does that Mark Lawrence guy think he is? Mark Lawrence?

[Spockydog]

Robin Hobb has some super creepy sexual stuff in her books too. The first time I read Royal Assassin I kind of glazed over the scene where

Hidden Content

 

Um, what? Did that really happen? If so, I must have blanked it out.   

[Darth Richard II]

Um, what? Did that really happen? If so, I must have blanked it out.   

Yeah I don't remember that either but 1. I read it when it was released and 2. It would explain a few things in the recent book.

[Spockydog]

Yeah, it was after

Hidden Content

And Hobb does love her parallels...

Ew. That's disgusting. 

Nighteyes. What a hound.

 

[HexMachina]

Verity and Fitz also mentally share each other's sexual encounters once or twice, which is...weird to say the least.

[Puntificator]

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. 

[Ser Drizztos]

While I don't necessarily disagree with their rather broad definition of the term, I object to the suggestion that a some magazine should be the default authority on a subgenre simply by virtue of covering it exclusively.

The Barrow (which, by the way, is NOT a standalone book)

I understand the author also publishes comics and RPGs in the same setting, but to my knowledge it's his only actual novel so far.

[Puntificator]

While I don't necessarily disagree with their rather broad definition of the term, I object to the suggestion that a some magazine should be the default authority on a subgenre simply by virtue of covering it exclusively.

I understand the author also publishes comics and RPGs in the same setting, but to my knowledge it's his only actual novel so far.

I understand your objection about the magazine. But it seems to me that if we want to use the non-pejorative definition of the term in the way it is actually being used, then the best way to do so is to go to a source that is actually using it that way on a regular basis. In any case, with all due respect to C.T. Phipps, I see even less reason to use it the way he defines it, and I know of no one else who actually uses it the way he does, yet his definition seems to me to be the one most posters in this thread are referencing when deciding what is or is not grimdark, which can lead to (in my opinion) incorrectly designating certain books/authors as being grimdark. The title of this thread is after all "The Grimdark Appreciation thread II" (sic), not "What is grimdark?" so It helps to have a definition that we are all working from but that at least has some provenance from a publisher using the term to choose its material. Otherwise, I'd be arguing for the definition I posted earlier in this thread (which I believe is better than Grimdark Magazine's). 

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. 

[C.T. Phipps]

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.

For example; Adrian wanted me to change for my essay, the discussion of Grimdark Heroes in "Who is the Grimdark Hero" that I included ones who were actually moral men in an immoral world. Then he pointed out that absolutely evil men didn't exist in grimdark for the sequel essay, "Who is the Grimdark Villain." He pointed out that Moral Ambiguity was the defining trait of Grimdark in his magazine's opinion. I argued that Michael Moorcock's Chaos, Gregor Clegane, Post-Eclipse Griffith, and Leo Bonhart were absolutely evil with no redeeming qualities. Also, that characters like Ned Stark and Geralt of Rivia were entirely noble and existed as a contrast to the setting. Basically, points of light which illuminated grimdark. In the end, Adrian was persuaded that I had a point and let me keep it in both essays. There's a lot of fun stories about that sort of stuff there and he helped broaden my understanding of grimdark.

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.

[C.T. Phipps]

Yeah I also disagree.GDM is a relatively new and very small ezine. While I like their stuff, they don't speak for the community as a whole. Plus any description that's being used to sell a product, which is what every magazine is doing on some level, is obviously to be taken with a grain of salt.

I tend to think of Grimdark Magazine as something which has gone a long way to codifying grimdark as a concept versus something which fans are arguing over the definitions of. It's an ezine which I have a lot of respect for and while definitely more people should buy it, I also note that grimdark itself is a relatively new concept as something non-pejorative and really has only existed as a coherent fandemical term in the past few years.

Just Saiyin.

[C.T. Phipps]

Anybody familiar with a graphic novel called Hack/Slash? I've been following it since like the first one-off back in 2004, and recently started flipping through some of my old issues. It's kind of a satirical take on the slasher genre that reads like grimdark Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Oh yes, very much so.

Cassie Hack is pretty much my teenage self's dream girl.

Sadly, it was never the same once they lost Vlad.

[C.T. Phipps]

I'd like to take a moment to speak of Scott Lynch's work in the Gentleman Bastards series which is what I tend to think of as a lighter-shade of gridmark. It's an interesting contrast putting a lovable trickster rogue in the middle of such an utterly [censored] up world as the city-states of Lockeland.

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. The aforementioned Ned Stark, Geralt of Rivia, and I think Locke himself qualify. Logen Nine-Fingers, Jezal, and Jaime Lannister are certainly characters with equal parts good and evil within them but they're not the whole of the protagonists.

I'm not alone here, probably, in thinking the original Lies of Locke Lamora is the best of the books so far and really didn't need a sequel (I've had that applied to Esoterrorism by critics as well as publishers alike--which is kind of annoying as I intended it to be a series so forgive me Scott!) but I'm glad he made the sequels. I actually just could not get into Red Seas under Red Skies and had a kind of "Stannis in Season Six" feeling regarding the ending.

The book ends with the Archon suffering a horrific fate which is supposed to be uplifting, I suppose, but, ultimately I didn't think he was noticeably worse than anyone else in the book. The fact Requin gets away with not even having his property pilfered and the pirates also enjoy no comeuppance kind of left me feeling I was supposed to think they were the "good" guys in all of this which didn't come across at all.

RSURS actually felt like a book where everyone WAS morally ambiguous and thus one suffering worse than everyone else felt off-kiler. I would have preferred an ending where everyone gets screwed over except Locke and Jean or the pair just leave them all to fight over their petty differences-uncaring at the result.

I liked the Republic of Thieves a great deal because I think it did an excellent job of being feminist fantasy in a book which is starring a male protagonist in the first person narrative. One thing I like in Patrick Rothfuss' work (which I tend to consider "Reconstructive High Fantasy" and an antidote to too much grimdark in your life) is that he manages to nicely use the 1st Person Narrative to show Kvothe's major flaws. Here, Scott Lynch did an excellent job of doing the same with Locke as Sabetha repeatedly and continuously undermines Locke's attempts to make her into his love-interest.

Not just as his actual romantic partner but narratively. She's a woman who deserves to be star of her own series and won't settle for being Locke's ornament. Which Locke can't deal with. If the play flashback had been a bit punchier then I would have enjoyed this every bit as much as Lies. Instead, the only part I really liked about that was the "Weekend at Bernies" part and damned if that didn't forgive a lot itself.

I hope Scott Lynch's troubles pass (or can be treated successfully). He's brought a good deal of joy to my life these past few years.

[C.T. Phipps]

Never change, Peterbound.

You're part of the reason I keep coming around here. I'll always love your posts and enjoy your insightful commentary into subjects like urban fantasy as well as grimdark.

Love your avatar too.

*bro fist*

[C.T. Phipps]

Another series I strongly recommend for grimdevourers (I think this is a good name for fandom and better than "grimdorks" or "grimmers") is the Witcher series by Andrjez Sapkowski. The books aren't entirely released in English, which is a shame but the ones which have been released are ones I strongly recommend.

There's a story I'll share about their release which is actually rather frustrating but I'll get to that.

For those familiar with the video games, this is nothing new but the premise of the books is Geralt of Rivia is a mutant monster-hunter living in a low fantasy setting populated by humans brought by something called "The Conjunction of Spheres." Geralt inhabits the North, which consists two dozens postage-stamp nations constantly at war with each other for the old standbys of land, glory, and feudal privilege.

Geralt is somewhat unique in his perspective being one of the few humanist characters in a world of superstition, racial prejudice, misogyny, and causal brutality. A man who desperately wants to be a heroic knight, he's been beaten down by the world and struggles to get up in the morning to try and do something with his life. The games are slightly different than the books as in the books, monsters are mostly extinct by the modern day so even Geralt's calling as a monster-hunter is becoming pointless. Whereas, video games being what they are, there's thousands of monsters for Geralt to rescue locals from.

The publishers of the English translation did something very peculiar by publishing, essentially, the first and the third book simultaneously. The Witcher and The Blood of Elves look like an unrelated collection of short stories and the beginning of the "novels" but the book between them, The Sword of Destiny introduces many of the plots as well as characters which are an intregal part of TBOE.

Personally, the short stories can be a trifle silly to me and often mock popular fairy tales like Beauty and the Beast or Snow White but I think the novels are breathtakingly dark as well as gritty. The haunting depiction of the Riverlands after the War of Five Kings is about the only thing I can think of which is similar to the depiction of Medieval warfare in The Time of Contempt. I've read the fan translations thereafter but look forward to reading the official versions.

Ciri of Cintra in both the games and books remains a favorite female character in Sci/Fan for me.