The Grimdark Appreciation thread III

[C.T. Phipps]

Wow, almost an entire thread without arguments.

*blood feud immediately breaks out after he says that*

*Klingons battle Mandalorians*

Well, crud.

[Puntificator]

I could be wrong (correct me if I am, Monsieur Phipps), but I think his point is that many if not most books are difficult to fit completely into one genre. 
*Mind you, YA isn't a genre really, but we often treat it as if it were, so...

I totally agree that most books are difficult to fit completely into one genre. But I don't look for a complete fit. All I need to know initially is if the book has those elements in it I am interested in (e.g., fantasy), and doesn't concentrate on or have those I am not interested in (e.g., paranormal romance). And I can almost always get this from genre labels. I don't stop with the genre; I just begin there. Also, fortunately, sites like Goodreads will give multiple genre labels for books, based on the varying perceptions of readers, publishers, etc., which helps avoid overly restrictive categorization.

And, with all due respect, YA is most definitely a genre. A genre is defined as: "A particular style or category of works of art; esp. a type of literary work characterized by a particular form, style, or purpose." [Oxford English Dictionary]

[peterbound]

Didn't you just read The Gunslinger, bitch about it across like three threads then quit?

Why would I read any more? I'm not going to 'work through' some shitty book for more of the same.  

Bad, bad shit.  

[Puntificator]

 

Yeah, but those are marked by objective criteria. It has space ships? It's definetly SF(not all SF has space ships mind you). But with grimdark are there any objective criteria?   A great amount of graphic violence? How do you measure the violence? Is there a point from where it's grimdark and before it wasn't? Take Mark Lawrence's books. The violence isn't that graphical IMO. But he's still considered one of the pillars of grimdark.

 

Then if you actually find the criteria, it would be a too narrow definition for me. I'd like a specific subgenre of books set in a secondary world, restricted to a particular town and. with politics playing an important role. There are many books that would fit, but isn't it a ridiculous subgenre?

No criteria are obiective. They are all subjective—they are open to interpretation. As for your example with spaceships, as you point out, not all SF has spaceships; thus, having spaceships is NOT a criterion. And even it were, space shuttles are space ships; but a contemporary novel that included one would not necessarily be a SF story. Nor would a fantasy story with a wizard who enchants a truck that he/she then uses to travel to the moon. So since a spaceship is defined as a "vehicle used for space travel," your assertion that if a story has spaceships, it's definitely SF, is incorrect.  

[Puntificator]

 

But with grimdark are there any objective criteria?   A great amount of graphic violence? How do you measure the violence? Is there a point from where it's grimdark and before it wasn't? T

 

Then if you actually find the criteria, it would be a too narrow definition for me. I'd like a specific subgenre of books set in a secondary world, restricted to a particular town and. with politics playing an important role. There are many books that would fit, but isn't it a ridiculous subgenre?

The way to avoid the problem you are specifically addressing is to not use abstract quantifiers or measures in the criteria. For instance, the definition of grimdark initially used by Grimdark Magazine is "grim stories told in a dark world [with] morally ambiguous protagonists." Using this definition, or one similar, you don't have to worry about how grim, or how dark, or how morally ambiguous the story/world/protagonists are. BTW, I'm not saying this is the best definition (it's not) or that it can't be improved (it can); I'm just using it to illustrate an answer to one of your concerns.

I do agree with you totally that we need to avoid definitions of grimdark (or any genre/subgenre) that are too narrow, which is why I don't like ones for grimdark that use phrases like "a totally bleak world without any light or hope." IMHO, these types of definitions eliminate virtually every fantasy book I've read (I can always find some potential hope, even if it doesn't actualize), or at best would be limited to way too small a universe of books. We also need to avoid definitions that are too general; they are useless for the opposite reasons. This is why I respectfully disagree with my good friend C.T. Phipps's definition of grimdark.

Let's also remember that determining a genre for a book is not a test question with a "yes" or "no" answer. Even saying something like "I'm not sure if this book is grimdark, but it comes close," conveys a lot of information. Someone like me would still be interested in finding out more about the book. Genre definitions need to be useful, not perfect or perfectly precise.  

[Darth Richard II]

Well, I read the first dark tower when i was like 12, so, who the fuck knows.

Regarding The Subtle Knife. I consider it the worst seuqel of all time, and yes I'm including all three Star Wars prequels and Indiana Jones 4. HE took Lyra and made her into a little timid bitch would needed rescuing from the strong BOYSCOUT MAIN CHARACTER LOOK AT MY MUSCLES ugh. I am ranting and half awake.

[Darth Richard II]

Maybe. But I am also reading a lot of great books that I wouldn't/couldn't be reading if I were expending the time I use to read them on YA or paranormal romance instead. My TBR list is huge; I need some filters to minimize its growth. With YA in particular, if a book is aimed at the tastes of, or what's fitting for, young adults, well I am the wrong target. I might still like it if I read it, but I have better odds for that to be true if I read a book not aimed at the YA group, especially since I like complex plots and prose.

...I don't think you know how YA works.

[Puntificator]

...I don't think you know how YA works.

That's entirely possible. What I do know are such things as, that according to Wikipedia: "Other characteristics of Young Adult Literature include: (1) Characters and issues young readers can identify with; those issues and characters are treated in a way that does not invalidate, minimize, or devalue them; (2) Is framed in language that young readers can understand; (3) Emphasizes plot above everything else; and (4) Is written for an audience of young adults." And Goodreads starts its explanation of YA with "Young-adult fiction (often abbreviated as YA) is fiction written for, published for, or marketed to adolescents and young adults, roughly ages 13 to 21." So what else do I need to know about YA that overshadows these statements?

[Puntificator]

I probably should have mentioned that character-driven stories and character development and depth/complexity of characters are all very important to me.

[Darth Richard II]

The Gunslinger was probably the weakest Dark Tower book. Maybe tied with Song of Susannah. I think Peter's exaggerating a bit, but yeah, it's not good. Most of the fanbase considers it an outlier in an otherwise good (but not perfect) series. Call it King's A Feast for Crows.

I actually really like AFFC.

[Puntificator]

I have read books that some consider YA, but I think of as borderline to the genre, like Uprooted and The Queen of the Tearling, and felt afterwards, shall I say, like I didn't belong to the intended readership and failed to appreciate why they garnered as much attention as they did (especially Uprooted). I felt like I had wasted my mortality when I could have been reading The Dread Wyrm instead.

[Puntificator]

I actually really like AFFC.

So do I.

[Darth Richard II]

Uprooted is not YA, not even a little bit, and I don't know why it keeps getting labeled as such.

 

Edit: Also, if you depend on goodreads for genre definitions...well, don't.

[Puntificator]

Uprooted is not YA, not even a little bit, and I don't know why it keeps getting labeled as such.

 

 

Well, since I agreed that it is not YA maybe I do know something about how YA works.  Anyway, I think it keeps getting labeled as such because it's a coming of age story. Also, because once again, we have still another example as to how confusing criteria for genre labels other than grimdark are. 

And I don't depend on Goodreads for genre definitions. I don't depend on this site for them either. 

[Darth Richard II]

You said it was borderline. I in no way consider it borderline.

[polishgenius]

And, with all due respect, YA is most definitely a genre. A genre is defined as: "A particular style or category of works of art; esp. a type of literary work characterized by a particular form, style, or purpose." [Oxford English Dictionary]

All YA really means is that something is aimed at teens. What that often boils down to is the age of the protagonists, and that they're often coming-of-age stories (but not all coming-of-age stories are YA, obviously). Sure the language is not going to be too complex, but that's true of most adult books too. You can't even say it's about 'darkness' or adult themes, because Hunger Games makes your average grimdark look like sunshine and roses and goes into some pretty heavy ideas of social responsibility, being a leader, PTSD, all sorts of shit, and it's definitely YA.

Beyond that, every single YA story will fit into some other genre too.

[Puntificator]

You said it was borderline. I in no way consider it borderline.

I said "I have read books that some consider YA, but I think of as borderline to the genre," meaning it was not YA in my view (though it was in the view of others), but exterior to the genre near (i.e., just outside) its border. Given that I've been saying I don't read YA, and the context of my sentence, this should have been clear. And I refer to it as being near the border because of the coming of age aspect I mentioned. I think any coming of age story rests near being YA, and I think there is pretty near general agreement on this. But, again, the key thing is that I consider it not to be YA, regardless of how close it is. If a town in Texas is near to the borderline of Mexico, it absolutely still makes it not in Mexico.

[Darth Richard II]

Yes, I am claiming the town you think is in texas is not in texas, but in Maine.

[Puntificator]

Yes, I am claiming the town you think is in texas is not in texas, but in Maine.

Well then your Maine point is ludicrously wrong. 

[Puntificator]

All YA really means is that something is aimed at teens. What that often boils down to is the age of the protagonists, and that they're often coming-of-age stories (but not all coming-of-age stories are YA, obviously). Sure the language is not going to be too complex, but that's true of most adult books too. You can't even say it's about 'darkness' or adult themes, because Hunger Games makes your average grimdark look like sunshine and roses and goes into some pretty heavy ideas of social responsibility, being a leader, PTSD, all sorts of shit, and it's definitely YA.

Beyond that, every single YA story will fit into some other genre too.

 

I pretty much agree with everything you've said. But none of this changes the fact that YA is a genre by definition, which started this exchange.

That it is aimed at teens is enough for me not to want to read YA. As an analogy, if I need to learn something about sex to help with my sex life, I am not going to watch a high school health education video on sex aimed at teenagers. And I don't know that it's true that most adult books are going to have language that is not going to be too complex, but I do know that I am very unlikely to like such an adult book either. I also know that I have been able to find an awful lot of non-YA books that have a satisfactory level of language use, so I have no reason to change course on that account. Of course, I may not know in advance the level of complexity of language used, but I do know that in the case of a YA book it's extremely likely to not be too complex prose-wise (unless the genre undergoes a radical transformation). And darkness (or even grimdarkness) by itself doesn't interest me. A book that takes an immature or gratuitous approach to violence, for instance, is not one I want to read at all. A dark book aimed at teens probably won't be either. The Harry Potter movies bored the hell out of me. So did the Twilight movies. But a well-written dark book with great prose, characters, plot, and world building that I find immersive and emotionally engaging is book Nirvana for me.

Also, every single grimdark story will fit into some other genre too.

Please don't misunderstand me. I appreciate your viewpoint and think I comprehend it. I just don't appreciate YA and don't comprehend why the category exists.