The Grimdark Appreciation thread III

[C.T. Phipps]

I like the series but...........

We discussed how most of the nobility in the The First Law come over as caricatures.  I felt much the same in this series (there are exceptions, such as the Spider, or Don and Donna Salvara), but these are people who buy kittens for their children to torture (!) and enjoy watching members of the lower classes being beaten within an inch of their lives at Salon Corbeau.  That's not really like Braavos at all.  Braavos is the most economically advanced society in Martin's world, and one of the few places where the lower classes can openly make fun of their social superiors.  I couldn't really understand why Locke would care whether such an outrageously decadent bunch were reduced to the status of vegetables.

That said, I really like the portrayal of the criminal underworld, which seems convincing and authentic to me, even down to the description of fellow criminals as "the Right People" (an expression used by Tony Soprano).

Well, if given the choice between portraying the nobility as virtuous champions of good and justice or portraying them as gross caricatures and monsters, I know I prefer the latter every time. History has a rather perverse nostalgia for the days of feudalism and slavery-in-all-but name. The treatment of the peasantry and lower classes as subhuman may be exaggerated in Lynch's world but it's not exactly ridiculous either given the privileges as well as causal abuses of actual history. Even then, the depiction of the nobility in Locke's world isn't universally horrible as the two primary nobles we meet are more misguided buffoons rather than actually awful people. Despite this, the treatment of the nobility as monstrous and corrupt is one of the reasons I'm drawn to grimdark fiction as the lack of nostalgia and, indeed, inversion of it is something I find quite refreshing and more in line with my RL beliefs.

 

[HexMachina]

Well, if given the choice between portraying the nobility as virtuous champions of good and justice or portraying them as gross caricatures and monsters, I know I prefer the latter every time. History has a rather perverse nostalgia for the days of feudalism and slavery-in-all-but name. The treatment of the peasantry and lower classes as subhuman may be exaggerated in Lynch's world but it's not exactly ridiculous either given the privileges as well as causal abuses of actual history. Even then, the depiction of the nobility in Locke's world isn't universally horrible as the two primary nobles we meet are more misguided buffoons rather than actually awful people. Despite this, the treatment of the nobility as monstrous and corrupt is one of the reasons I'm drawn to grimdark fiction as the lack of nostalgia and, indeed, inversion of it is something I find quite refreshing and more in line with my RL beliefs.

 

Why a choice of either/or? I'd much rather read something where there are good, competent, virtuous nobles, but also horrible, corrupt or incompetent nobles, and also those who are average/unremarkable. Depicting the entire class of nobility in one way is a sure fire way to turn me off a book.

[SeanF]

Well, if given the choice between portraying the nobility as virtuous champions of good and justice or portraying them as gross caricatures and monsters, I know I prefer the latter every time. History has a rather perverse nostalgia for the days of feudalism and slavery-in-all-but name. The treatment of the peasantry and lower classes as subhuman may be exaggerated in Lynch's world but it's not exactly ridiculous either given the privileges as well as causal abuses of actual history. Even then, the depiction of the nobility in Locke's world isn't universally horrible as the two primary nobles we meet are more misguided buffoons rather than actually awful people. Despite this, the treatment of the nobility as monstrous and corrupt is one of the reasons I'm drawn to grimdark fiction as the lack of nostalgia and, indeed, inversion of it is something I find quite refreshing and more in line with my RL beliefs.

 

I don't think it has to be either or.  I see them in real life as having been a mix of the good, the bad, and the indifferent.

Although, I suspect that Scott Lynch is more satirising our societies, than Renaissance societies.

[C.T. Phipps]

Why a choice of either/or? I'd much rather read something where there are good, competent, virtuous nobles, but also horrible, corrupt or incompetent nobles, and also those who are average/unremarkable. Depicting the entire class of nobility in one way is a sure fire way to turn me off a book.

For me, I would very much like the book to make it clear the system is corrupt and unsalaveable as well as grossly immoral. It's not a case of "oh, these nobles are bad people." It's the case, "being a noble will turn you into a bad person." That it's a corrupt institution that panders to the egos of individuals on the backs of others at best and actively enslaves others at worse. This is a preference, of course, I know which is not shared by many. Then again, I'm of the Medieval historian school which subscribes to the idea the feudal military class was a protection racket and nothing more.

And yes, I'm totally sounding like this guy:

But REALITY has nothing to do with my preferences in fiction. Why are the cops always incompetent, corrupt, Jim Gordon, or just plain absent in Gotham City? Because if Gotham City had good cops then we wouldn't need Batman would me? Grimdark fiction is a pretty dark and twisted world which we've dumped our antiheroes and they should have to deal with that corruption from the authorities above them because it helps create the mood of "everything in this world sucks."

[C.T. Phipps]

I think it has more to do with a fascination of the warrior aristocracy than it does with the way the lower classes were treated. If anything most of the popular stories about knights and samurai completely bypassed the mistreatment of the common folks until rather recently.

Precisely.

Isaac Asmiov was once asked why he didn't write fantasy and it went something like this:

"Wouldn't it be great to live in the time of kings, princes, and horseback riding knights?"
"No, because I would have been the guy cleaning up their stables."

It's a similar joke I made about Downton Abbey.

A major attraction to George R.R. Martin I've had is he gives lip service to this even if the vast-vast majority of his characters are nobility. Honestly, I'm kind of saddened about that because I was really rooting for the High Sparrow and the TV show seems to indicate that, no, he's supposed to be the bad guy. I was like, "Alright, finally, someone is going to SPANK those damned nobles for all their horrors."

And no, it's, "Oh, religious fundamentalist! EVIL!"

[SeanF]

 

Well, it's certainly true that a lot of the times that are most fun to read about are times one wouldn't have wanted to live in.  And, many of the world's most interesting people are people one would never wish to encounter.

But, allowing for the fact that past societies were much poorer than ours, that they were vulnerable to famine, war, and natural disaster in a way that our societies aren't, I'm not really convinced that their leaders were either worse, or better, than ours on average.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Regarding the nobility, I like to see to see a wide spectrum of morality. Making a point about a corrupt system is all well and good, but I think that turning every noble into Gilles de Rais or the Elizabeth Bathory is the wrong way to go. History has its sickos, but turning an entire class into bloodthirsty sadists outside of a crisis or conflict situation strikes me as unrealistic.

If ever there was someone screwed by history, it's poor old Elizabeth Bathory (no, she did not bathe in virgin blood. Not least because blood coagulates - you'd need a shower system set up). 

[C.T. Phipps]

Well, it's certainly true that a lot of the times that are most fun to read about are times one wouldn't have wanted to live in.  And, many of the world's most interesting people are people one would never wish to encounter.

But, allowing for the fact that past societies were much poorer than ours, that they were vulnerable to famine, war, and natural disaster in a way that our societies aren't, I'm not really convinced that their leaders were either worse, or better, than ours on average.

Well, as I mentioned above but I want to reiterate, it's not that I think an utterly corrupt nobility of psychotic mouth-breathing incest-babies like Joffrey or Viserys is particularly realistic. I just am noting that corrupt nobility and causal brutality from the system is something I like to see in my grimdark fiction.

Westeros' depiction of violence during the War of Five Kings isn't that far from the Anarchy (nor, obviously, is the Dance of Dragons) and probably better than the Thirty Years War but its certainly worse than most periods of Medieval history. Dunk and Egg is probably closer to how Medieval life was for the majority of people in peace-time.

The darkness of Westeros and other grimdark fantasy is entertaining in part BECAUSE of how hopeless it all is. While a lot of people read fiction to get away from the darker elements of reality, quite a few people read it to explore how people cope with genuine horror or fantastic terrors.

I mentioned Gotham City but another treatment of the nobility as complete pants is Geralt of Rivia's adventures in The Witcher. While Geralt has some friends, almost despite himself, among the nobility, the vast majority of them are selfish self-centered near-psychopaths only interested in their legacies or position. One of my favorite moments is when Geralt is part of a team of dragon-slayers due to the Young King having been promised the hand of a neighboring Queen if he could bring her a dragon's head.

At the end, after a comedy of errors, the King goes, "**** it! I have a bigger army than her anyway. She can marry me or get conquered."

The darkness is entertaining and part of the fun of grimdark. Watching people survive in these Medieval dystopias.

[Richard Writhen]

I didn't like TLOLL because the faux Italian world wasn't working for me. His characterizations were good. I may or may not give it another go. I also started Gardens Of The Moon and wasn't feeling it at all either, so maybe I'm too jaded or something. Beyond Redemption's getting better and better as I get further into it though.

[Puntificator]

Beyond Redemption's getting better and better as I get further into it though.

And there is no noble class in it either. Power comes from delusions and people's belief in them, and the most powerful are the insane. That's refreshingly original. 

[kuenjato]

Well, if given the choice between portraying the nobility as virtuous champions of good and justice or portraying them as gross caricatures and monsters, I know I prefer the latter every time. History has a rather perverse nostalgia for the days of feudalism and slavery-in-all-but name. The treatment of the peasantry and lower classes as subhuman may be exaggerated in Lynch's world but it's not exactly ridiculous either given the privileges as well as causal abuses of actual history. Even then, the depiction of the nobility in Locke's world isn't universally horrible as the two primary nobles we meet are more misguided buffoons rather than actually awful people. Despite this, the treatment of the nobility as monstrous and corrupt is one of the reasons I'm drawn to grimdark fiction as the lack of nostalgia and, indeed, inversion of it is something I find quite refreshing and more in line with my RL beliefs.

 

Yeah, but it's too much. I see it in Abercrombie, in Erikson, and in Lynch: a borderline fetishization of the lower class, particularly with the depiction of aristocracy as fools and hierarchal systems as idiots all-the-way-up... but that's not really how it works, or has ever worked. The vast majority are not monstrous nor particularly stupid (given that education was the privilege of the 1% until very recently), and if they do evil, it is usually out of the mentality of the era, masters and servants being a God-granted system and a necessary balance. A nuanced approach -- which is what we see in Martin's work, in Bakker's work, and in Abraham's work -- is far more effective, and an understanding of it separates the A-list from the B-list, or more complex works from more pulpy. Martin and Bakker definitely stray into Grimdark at times, but they also comprehend history (and thus its fantastical depiction) through an educated, rather than propaganda-centric, lens.

 

(I'm fairly left, btw, and have succumbed to "stupid nobles" for humor or plot advancement more than once in my own writing. But using it as a crutch--as Erikson does in the Chain of Dogs, or Abercrombie all over the First Law--reduces, IMO, the lasting quality of the work)

[The Marquis de Leech]

I'm fairly left, btw, and have succumbed to "stupid nobles" for humor or plot advancement more than once in my own writing. But using it as a crutch--as Erikson does in the Chain of Dogs, or Abercrombie all over the First Law--reduces, IMO, the lasting quality of the work)

I'm *very* left, and I think you can have your cake and eat it too. The key, I think, is to have everyone, not just the nobility, buy into social assumptions without thinking. I've got a noble in my own writing - he's incredibly affable and inquisitive, a bit aspergery in his obsessiveness, and tolerant of the foibles of others. He also literally cannot comprehend a world without servants. My protagonist by contrast likes to think of himself as a suffering pleb, but is really lower-middle-class in an economic sense (and top third or so in a social sense - this society places a premium on education).

[SeanF]

I'm *very* left, and I think you can have your cake and eat it too. The key, I think, is to have everyone, not just the nobility, buy into social assumptions without thinking. I've got a noble in my own writing - he's incredibly affable and inquisitive, a bit aspergery in his obsessiveness, and tolerant of the foibles of others. He also literally cannot comprehend a world without servants. My protagonist by contrast likes to think of himself as a suffering pleb, but is really lower-middle-class in an economic sense (and top third or so in a social sense - this society places a premium on education).

I'm fairly right, and I'm quite happy to see fictional depictions of harsh and unfair social systems. But, not everyone who benefits from such social systems should be depicted as a moustache-twirling villain, who loves to see the poor suffer, and who buys animals for his children to torture, or else as a buffoon who can hardly tie his own shoelaces. As you say, most people buy into the assumptions of such societies.

[C.T. Phipps]

As stated, it's just a personal preference as I have been exposed to a lot of "nobles are awesome" fiction over the years so it's nice to balance out the ratio a bit by showing pretty craptacular ones.

I will state I am very fond of the "Jaime Lannister Paradox", though. The one which, of course, deals with the whole problem of actually trying to be a perosn who lives by the code the nobility professes to hold themselves to and how that can and does be something which severely screws with one's life. Brienne of Tarth, Dunk, and Ned to a lesser extent all have great character arcs dealing with their struggles to rise above the causal hypocrisy of their station (Ned being, of course, the only one actually entitled to it).

Oddly enough, my first exposure to this idea was Worf from Star Trek: The Next Generation. The character of Worf was constantly trying to do the honorable thing according to his textbook-learned version of Klingon honor but every show centered on Worf had him slamming into someone trying to discredit him, exile him, or shame him. This isn't because his understanding was incomplete but the fact he actually tried to be honorable and everyone else paid nothing but lip service to the concept.

Something I'm playing around with in a current book I'm writing (which I won't mention the title of out of respect to peterbound--this is about the idea) is doing something similar with a character who desperately wants to frame the narrative of being a heroic knight struggling against tyrants. The actual story, though, is considerably murkier with the moral compromises necessary just wearing her down. I also have a novella I may expand into a full one with a Galactic Empire-style government the protagonist is a part of, only to deal with the consequences when the war ends and the government is exposed as Space Nazis.

I actually find the Jaime Lannister paradox to be something even better for making nobles look like complete bastards than if every single noble is just evil. The exceptions to the rule making the entire system more awful. A favorite use of it being Akira Kurosawa's "The Seven Samurai" where we have six heroic samurai (and one guy pretending to be one) fighting for peasants. Unlike the Magnificent Seven remake, its fairly clear the peasants and samurai hate each other to an extent.

What do you think of farmers? You think they're saints? Hah! They're foxy beasts! They say, "We've got no rice, we've no wheat. We've got nothing!" But they have! They have everything! Dig under the floors! Or search the barns! You'll find plenty! Beans, salt, rice, sake! Look in the valleys, they've got hidden warehouses! They pose as saints but are full of lies! If they smell a battle, they hunt the defeated! They're nothing but stingy, greedy, blubbering, foxy, and mean! God damn it all! But then who made them such beasts? You did! You samurai did it! You burn their villages! Destroy their farms! Steal their food! Force them to labour! Take their women! And kill them if they resist! So what should farmers do?

 

[Richard Writhen]

And there is no noble class in it either. Power comes from delusions and people's belief in them, and the most powerful are the insane. That's refreshingly original. 

I finished it. Yeah, the whole psychology = magick system works rather than doesn't. It kind of echoes real life tenets about perception = reality and "everything's psychological". It became very complex and deep at times too.

Also, the syntax creation was pretty great. A few of the proper names went crazy but I guess that would be appropriate in context ... 

[C.T. Phipps]

Been watching Jessica Jones on Netflix over the break. Great show, but so dark I can't believe it's connected with he MCU. Probably the darkest superhero thing I've seen since The Dark Knight.

Yeah, I only regret they only focused on the Purple Man vs. other villains + Killgrave.

[SeanF]

Precisely.

Isaac Asmiov was once asked why he didn't write fantasy and it went something like this:

"Wouldn't it be great to live in the time of kings, princes, and horseback riding knights?"

"No, because I would have been the guy cleaning up their stables."

It's a similar joke I made about Downton Abbey.

A major attraction to George R.R. Martin I've had is he gives lip service to this even if the vast-vast majority of his characters are nobility. Honestly, I'm kind of saddened about that because I was really rooting for the High Sparrow and the TV show seems to indicate that, no, he's supposed to be the bad guy. I was like, "Alright, finally, someone is going to SPANK those damned nobles for all their horrors."

And no, it's, "Oh, religious fundamentalist! EVIL!"

Life wasn't necessarily so great, even if you were the one doing the riding, rather than the mucking out. Again, I think ASOIAF shows this clearly, through the story arcs of Sansa, Catelyn, and Ned.

Chivalry and ransom value will offer nobles some protection which isn't given to the Smallfolk. OTOH, nobles are also targets, in ways that the Smallfolk aren't. Heiresses get kidnapped and wed at sword point; wealthy wards are financially and sexually exploited by their guardians; death in battle, assassination, or execution are occupational hazards. One moment, you're admiring your works of art and silverware. The next, you're being dumped in the Tiber (with weights attached) or garrotted in a dungeon.

[TheRevanchist]

Yeah, but it's too much. I see it in Abercrombie, in Erikson, and in Lynch: a borderline fetishization of the lower class, particularly with the depiction of aristocracy as fools and hierarchal systems as idiots all-the-way-up... but that's not really how it works, or has ever worked. The vast majority are not monstrous nor particularly stupid (given that education was the privilege of the 1% until very recently), and if they do evil, it is usually out of the mentality of the era, masters and servants being a God-granted system and a necessary balance. A nuanced approach -- which is what we see in Martin's work, in Bakker's work, and in Abraham's work -- is far more effective, and an understanding of it separates the A-list from the B-list, or more complex works from more pulpy. Martin and Bakker definitely stray into Grimdark at times, but they also comprehend history (and thus its fantastical depiction) through an educated, rather than propaganda-centric, lens.

 

(I'm fairly left, btw, and have succumbed to "stupid nobles" for humor or plot advancement more than once in my own writing. But using it as a crutch--as Erikson does in the Chain of Dogs, or Abercrombie all over the First Law--reduces, IMO, the lasting quality of the work)

Agree with all of this.

I love Abercrombie books, but I think that they are more meant to be satire rather than believable. Pretty much everyone in his books is a monster, a dick and an idiot, while Bayaz, Yarvi and Glokta are just monsters and dicks while being smart. Everyone in Union's army is completely incompetent.

In reality, it isn't how it works. You have those who are really nice people but idiots, nice people in addition to being smart, dicks and idiots, and dicks who are smart. With the vast majority being somewhere in between. Which is why I rate ASOIAF higher than any other fantasy saga, cause it has a very balanced set of characters that feels more real than in any other fantasy saga I read.

[SeanF]

Agree with all of this.

I love Abercrombie books, but I think that they are more meant to be satire rather than believable. Pretty much everyone in his books is a monster, a dick and an idiot, while Bayaz, Yarvi and Glokta are just monsters and dicks while being smart. Everyone in Union's army is completely incompetent.

In reality, it isn't how it works. You have those who are really nice people but idiots, nice people in addition to being smart, dicks and idiots, and dicks who are smart. With the vast majority being somewhere in between. Which is why I rate ASOIAF higher than any other fantasy saga, cause it has a very balanced set of characters that feels more real than in any other fantasy saga I read.

I think that in real life the number of genuinely good, kind, decent people who make it to the top in politics, or business, is limited, since the nature of politics and business works against it. I think the number of complete bastards operating at that level is greater, but by no means a majority. But, I think most business and political leaders fall somewhere on a spectrum in between.

I always liked one summary, given by an HR specialist, of people in positions of leadership. Owl, Fox, Donkey, and Sheep. Owls are clever and ethical (eg Hermione Grainger); foxes are clever and unethical (eg Littlefinger); donkeys are unintelligent and unethical (eg Wormtail); sheep are unintelligent and ethical (eg Ser Edmure Tully).

[The Marquis de Leech]

I always liked one summary, given by an HR specialist, of people in positions of leadership. Owl, Fox, Donkey, and Sheep. Owls are clever and ethical (eg Hermione Grainger); foxes are clever and unethical (eg Littlefinger); donkeys are unintelligent and unethical (eg Wormtail); sheep are unintelligent and ethical (eg Ser Edmure Tully).

There was a Prussian military officer who categorised people as:

- Clever and hard-working.

- Clever and lazy.

- Stupid and hard-working.

- Stupid and lazy.

The officer claimed that clever and hard-working people are ideal General Staff, clever and lazy people are ideal Commanders (they know how to delegate), and that stupid and lazy people are good for the rank and file. The truly dangerous ones are the stupid and hard-working ones - they do damage without realising it.