The Grimdark Appreciation thread III

[Puntificator]

Morally ambigueous villains, for example, aren't really indicative of dark or grimdark fantasy. To me they're just a part of good writing in any genre.

 

In effect you are saying that Lord of the Rings is not good writing, considering Sauron is not morally ambiguous.

[Puntificator]

Dark fantasy                   Grimdark

Standard heroes            Flawed / Morally ambiguous heroes

Standard villains            Lighter / Morally ambiguous villains

Little humour                 An ass-load of black and gallows humour

Some optimism             A profound lack of hope, optimism, solution

Some deaths                Slasher-film-esque body-dropping

Less graphic                 More graphic / visceral

I think dark fantasy is usually considered to be fantasy with elements of horror. On the other hand, grimdark is being (and has been) used not just to describe a type of fantasy story; after all, its original use was with science fiction stories. When applied specifically to fantasy, a story can be both a grimdark and a dark fantasy story, or belong to just one of these categories.

Also, C.T. Phipps has declared that in his view, dark fantasy and grimdark are identical (a point of view I strongly disagree with). Since this is his thread and he made up the rules for the topic, we are "supposed" to be discussing/showing appreciation for dark fantasy = grimdark. 

[Magnar of Skagos]

LotR no, but the Silmarillion? I'd say for sure.

As is The Children of Hurin.

[Puntificator]

Dark fantasy                   Grimdark

Little humour                 An ass-load of black and gallows humour

 

I take it then that you do not consider R. Scott Bakker's The Prince of Nothing and The Aspect-Emperor books to be grimdark?

[The Marquis de Leech]

In effect you are saying that Lord of the Rings is not good writing, considering Sauron is not morally ambiguous.

There's also a distinction between moral ambiguity and moral complexity - Gollum is an example of the former, whereas Sam (who is clearly a sympathetic character) is morally complex in that he cannot comprehend Gollum's path to redemption.

I'd also point out that having grey characters pre-supposes having black and white morality - you can't have a middle ground without acknowledging the existence of extremes.

[Puntificator]

There's also a distinction between moral ambiguity and moral complexity - Gollum is an example of the former, whereas Sam (who is clearly a sympathetic character) is morally complex in that he cannot comprehend Gollum's path to redemption.

 

Yes, there is a difference between moral ambiguity and moral complexity, but the post I responded to only mentioned moral ambiguity, and that therefore was what I was addressing. Sauron is not morally ambiguous.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah I wasnt actually saying Tolkien is grimdark, I was joking a bit there. Just that Tolkien is a lot more morally complex than stupid authors of shitty books with Elric in them give them credit for.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Yes, there is a difference between moral ambiguity and moral complexity, but the post I responded to only mentioned moral ambiguity, and that therefore was what I was addressing. Sauron is not morally ambiguous.

Agreed. I wasn't so much responding to your point as making a wider comment. 

[Puntificator]

 

I'd also point out that having grey characters pre-supposes having black and white morality - you can't have a middle ground without acknowledging the existence of extremes.

You are correct in saying having gray characters presupposes black and white morality, but it does not presuppose having the existence of actual morally black or white entities. The concepts do not require the existence of those who actually adhere to them. More importantly, having gray characters does not presuppose the existence of black or white characters in the story.

[The Marquis de Leech]

You are correct in saying having gray characters presupposes black and white morality, but it does not presuppose having the existence of actual morally black or white entities. The concepts do not require the existence of those who actually adhere to them. More importantly, having gray characters does not presuppose the existence of black or white characters in the story.

What I meant was that a grey character can only be grey in a setting with objective morality (regardless of whether or not all parts of the spectrum are represented). The much-hyped "subjective morality" of grimdark is a mirage - you can have grey characters, or you can have subjective morality, but you can't have both. Martin himself has a quite clear moral framework - characters like Gregor Clegane and Ramsay Bolton are quite clearly supposed to be evil.

[Puntificator]

What I meant was that a grey character can only be grey in a setting with objective morality (regardless of whether or not all parts of the spectrum are represented). The much-hyped "subjective morality" of grimdark is a mirage - you can have grey characters, or you can have subjective morality, but you can't have both. Martin himself has a quite clear moral framework - characters like Gregor Clegane and Ramsay Bolton are quite clearly supposed to be evil.

I think when people discuss the morality of characters in grimdark (when morality is used as part of the definition), they are simply trying to say that there are no perfectly pure (ideal) morally white or morally black protagonists within the story. Where we (I) get into trouble is when we attempt to use terms like morally ambiguous or morally complex or gray or amoral to describe this attribute; this is a problem because these terms are either too restrictive or have connotations and denotations other than what is being intended in this context. Similarly, the term antihero is often misunderstood (because of the "anti" prefix); many people seem to think it refers to someone who lacks goodness or who isn't a hero, when it simply means a protagonist who is notably lacking in heroic qualities.

Also, in my opening sentence I italicized the word protagonists, because grimdark doesn't prohibit the presence of perfectly pure good or evil characters in the story, nor does it refer to the moral nature of the world itself.  

[Puntificator]

It's also somewhat nebulously defined.

You can define sci-fi and fantasy or Western or horror much easier.

Grimdark is more a tone.

It's not always nebulously defined; it's just defined differently by different people, and some of those definitions are quite specific and others are no more vague than the definitions for science fiction, fantasy, and Westerns, all of which have a number of different definitions as well; they are no easier to define than grimdark.

Calling it a tone does not preclude it from being a genre. It's also an incomplete view of the way most of us seem to perceive it; it is much more than tone. And actually horror is more of a tone. I've also seen people say the same about fantasy.

[SeanF]

History is full of sex, violence, and people being complete ass****s to a level Martin can only vaguely hint at. One element I enjoyed about The Tudors is HBO wanted a sexy program about a decadent monarch and kept running into the horrific murders and wholesale atrocities which were part and parcel of Henry's court.

Or, as I explained, "The history part of the Old Testament can basically be summarized as Badass Warrior Race offends god with sex and worshiping other gods. They make atonement by slaughtering people."

[emoji4]

The Book of Judges reads like a horror story at times.

There were even *worse* places than Henry's court. The court of Alexander VI for example, or James V of Scotland. He framed Lady Douglas on charges of witchcraft, because he coveted Glamis castle, and burned her alive, while *forcing her young son to watch.*. I've always thought that's the inspiration for Rhaenyra's death.

[Puntificator]

That's part of why I consider A Song of Ice and Fire and The Malazan Book of the Fallen to be dark fantasy rather than grimdark, because a lot of the darkest scenes are there to take you to a lighter place in the end. 

Except that the non-pejorative sense of the word was developed and gained momentum because a huge number of people became enamored of ASoIaF and were looking for a way to categorize it so that they could find or recommend other similar books to read. Whatever definition of grimdark might be used, it needs to include ASoIaF. It's reverse engineering—if ASoIaF doesn't meet your definition of grimdark, then it's the definition you're using that's at fault. I can make up several reasonable definitions of grimdark that don't include ASoIaF, but that would defeat the primary purpose of its invention and acceptance.

  

[Puntificator]

 

The Book of Judges reads like a horror story at times.

From my perspective, the work that is popularly referred to, somewhat erroneously, as The Old Testament is a dark fantasy, but it is not grimdark. 

[Puntificator]

To be fair, I think the nature of a genre is only fully defined when someone can say, "I'm sitting down and writing a Western/Sci-Fi novel/Fantasy novel/Horror novel."

How many someones does it take? There are writers who do exactly this with grimdark. So by your claim this would make the grimdark genre fully defined, which is odd, since I thought you had been arguing the opposite viewpoint.

[Joe Abercrombie]

There's also a distinction between moral ambiguity and moral complexity - Gollum is an example of the former, whereas Sam (who is clearly a sympathetic character) is morally complex in that he cannot comprehend Gollum's path to redemption.

I'd also point out that having grey characters pre-supposes having black and white morality - you can't have a middle ground without acknowledging the existence of extremes.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to look for moral complexity or ambiguity in Lord of the Rings. I mean, I love Lord of the Rings pretty much above all things, but part of its appeal is that it's morally very simple and clear cut. There's no question that Sauron is evil. Characters are pretty much either good or bad and not very difficult to separate into one camp or the other. There's wrong in the form of personal failings - the pride of the elves, the greed of the dwarves, but generally the right thing to do is always to resist Sauron, the wrong thing is to be tempted or corrupted by him. So Gollum is only ambiguous in that a small part of him still wants to resist Sauron (and the ring). When Boromir is tempted to use the ring, we are in no doubt that it's a really big mistake. We are in no way invited to sympathise with Saruman's decision to become a mini Sauron. It's wrong. There are shades and wrinkles of character in many of these people, there are struggles and doubts and weaknesses, but the right thing is never really in doubt. 

The nature of the setting and story in something like ASOIAF is very different. Ned seems to me a basically good, principled character with a firm moral compass, but he keeps being put in positions where the right thing to do is very hard to divine, both for him and for the reader. There is no explicitly right side, only many factions, and people must constantly compromise. Characters are forced to make difficult choices according to their own versions of the prevailing morality. I don't think you can say you can't have grey characters in such a setting, though. The reader is always there, making their own assessment of characters' actions and motivations. Westeros is a quagmire of grey, but that doesn't mean we can't admire some people or decisions, or condemn others.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to look for moral complexity or ambiguity in Lord of the Rings. I mean, I love Lord of the Rings pretty much above all things, but part of its appeal is that it's morally very simple and clear cut. There's no question that Sauron is evil. Characters are pretty much either good or bad and not very difficult to separate into one camp or the other. There's wrong in the form of personal failings - the pride of the elves, the greed of the dwarves, but generally the right thing to do is always to resist Sauron, the wrong thing is to be tempted or corrupted by him. So Gollum is only ambiguous in that a small part of him still wants to resist Sauron (and the ring). When Boromir is tempted to use the ring, we are in no doubt that it's a really big mistake. We are in no way invited to sympathise with Saruman's decision to become a mini Sauron. It's wrong. There are shades and wrinkles of character in many of these people, there are struggles and doubts and weaknesses, but the right thing is never really in doubt. 

It's clear cut, but not simple.

OK, we start with "resisting Sauron". Within that we have:

(1) Gandalf's view. Destroy the Ring. The view of the hopeless idealist.

(2) Denethor's view. Don't use it - keep it hidden, beyond use, until everyone is dead anyway. The view of the prudent realist.

(3) Boromir's view. Use it to save the world. The view of the manichean - Evil is external.

(4) Tom Bombadil's view. Keep to yourself and let others do their thing. The view of the anti-manichean - Evil is internal.

(5) The send-it-over-the-Sea view. Let's hope for Divine Intervention.

(6) Saruman's view. Let's collaborate with the rising power. The Ends Justifies The Means.

Tolkien explores all of these viewpoints, going on to note that if the Ring really were an allegory for the Atomic Bomb, it'd have certainly been used. Also note that what, on the surface, appears morally simple (the destruction of the Ring) is anything but. For starters, the Quest is a suicide mission - Gandalf wants to send the most powerful weapon in Middle-earth into Mordor, in the clutches of one small hobbit. Gandalf isn't stupid - he knows full well that Sauron getting the Ring means Eternal Darkness for the entire world. For another thing, Frodo is clearly incapable of destroying the Ring - he can't even throw it into the fire at Bag End, and he is certainly unable to destroy it at the Crack of Doom.  

What you're seeing with The Lord of the Rings isn't a simple "resist Evil" message, it's a detailed musing on how to go about it. Tolkien (obviously) goes with the view that one must reject power, but he clearly acknowledges that Evil is something that acts both externally and internally. He trusts in providence (via the power of mercy), but realises the matter simply can't be entrusted to those over the Sea - one must be active oneself. And so on. Note also the fate of Denethor - the arch-realist, who views everything in terms of the good of Gondor, but who fails even as he rejects Sauron.

There is an awful lot of complexity going on in The Lord of the Rings, and it's only clear-cut in the sense that Tolkien actually reaches a conclusion after considering the alternatives.

[SeanF]

It's clear cut, but not simple.

OK, we start with "resisting Sauron". Within that we have:

(1) Gandalf's view. Destroy the Ring. The view of the hopeless idealist.

(2) Denethor's view. Don't use it - keep it hidden, beyond use, until everyone is dead anyway. The view of the prudent realist.

(3) Boromir's view. Use it to save the world. The view of the manichean - Evil is external.

(4) Tom Bombadil's view. Keep to yourself and let others do their thing. The view of the anti-manichean - Evil is internal.

(5) The send-it-over-the-Sea view. Let's hope for Divine Intervention.

(6) Saruman's view. Let's collaborate with the rising power. The Ends Justifies The Means.

Tolkien explores all of these viewpoints, going on to note that if the Ring really were an allegory for the Atomic Bomb, it'd have certainly been used. Also note that what, on the surface, appears morally simple (the destruction of the Ring) is anything but. For starters, the Quest is a suicide mission - Gandalf wants to send the most powerful weapon in Middle-earth into Mordor, in the clutches of one small hobbit. Gandalf isn't stupid - he knows full well that Sauron getting the Ring means Eternal Darkness for the entire world. For another thing, Frodo is clearly incapable of destroying the Ring - he can't even throw it into the fire at Bag End, and he is certainly unable to destroy it at the Crack of Doom.

What you're seeing with The Lord of the Rings isn't a simple "resist Evil" message, it's a detailed musing on how to go about it. Tolkien (obviously) goes with the view that one must reject power, but he clearly acknowledges that Evil is something that acts both externally and internally. He trusts in providence (via the power of mercy), but realises the matter simply can't be entrusted to those over the Sea - one must be active oneself. And so on. Note also the fate of Denethor - the arch-realist, who views everything in terms of the good of Gondor, but who fails even as he rejects Sauron.

There is an awful lot of complexity going on in The Lord of the Rings, and it's only clear-cut in the sense that Tolkien actually reaches a conclusion after considering the alternatives.

Even if you think good will prevail in the long run, no one knows how long that run may be. For all that Gandalf knows, Sauron may actually be *meant* to win this particular war. After all, he was ruler of all but a tiny fraction of Middle Earth for much of the Second Age.

[Bjornbert]

Yeah, the morality is a bit more complex,  but we as the readers are never supposed to doubt that Gandalf's way is the best. The books explicitly show that the other solutions are flawed. I may be wrong in my interpretation of the author's intentions obviously, but I think this shows the lack of moral ambiguity because the right path is known(basically what Joe said)