The Grimdark Appreciation thread III

[The Marquis de Leech]

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)

But the point is that Tolkien explores why Gandalf's way is the best. The book is (amongst other things) a case for the rejection of power.

I'm arguing that Tolkien is morally complex, not morally ambiguous - clear-cut, but certainly not simple.

[Mark Lawrence]

I have to pimp my own blog posts? Oh, Westeros, why hast thou forsaken me?

http://mark---lawrence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/is-grimdark-thing.html

This caused a fair smattering of inexplicable (to me) rage on another forum where some seemed to take the argument that the Broken Empire didn't appear to fit the Wikipedia definition of Grimdark as somehow a condemnation of people who enjoyed books that do.

[C.T. Phipps]

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.

Actually, I'm of the mind it's becoming more of that every day and the fact more authors are doing that is a great step in that direction. Mark Lawrence, Martin, and Abercrombie didn't set down to do it nor did Glenn Cook or others but there's a few authors who have stated that from what I understand.

Which is a giant step toward legitimacy.

My view about grimdark is the genre is still in flux to an extent but it's about 75% formed and it will reach 100% in a few years after more books are published with the authors talking about how they wanted to write grimdark, like grimdark, and can point to their influences un-ironically.

I have to pimp my own blog posts? Oh, Westeros, why hast thou forsaken me?

http://mark---lawrence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/is-grimdark-thing.html

This caused a fair smattering of inexplicable (to me) rage on another forum where some seemed to take the argument that the Broken Empire didn't appear to fit the Wikipedia definition of Grimdark as somehow a condemnation of people who enjoyed books that do.

Self-promoter!

FOR SHAME!

[Darth Richard II]

But the point is that Tolkien explores why Gandalf's way is the best. The book is (amongst other things) a case for the rejection of power.

I'm arguing that Tolkien is morally complex, not morally ambiguous - clear-cut, but certainly not simple.

That. That's what I was trying to get at. Me not so good with words.

[Richard Writhen]

GRRM didn't generate the grimdark subgenre. He just made it popular. Everything you just mentioned that he did Robin Hobb did the year before, and she wasn't the first either.

Well, if 2% of new fantasy was like that before, and then 18% post-GRRM, then I would call that generation. 

[Richard Writhen]

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?

I have not read Bakker's stuff. It's on the list.

[Richard Writhen]

I mean, I like Martin's writing as much as the next member on this board, but he's not God in miniature. Although it has to be said, the Bible is pretty fucking grimdark  

Unless you are saying that he writes as an omniscient narrator, which is not true either iirc. 

I didn't say he was god, lawl. Obviously not. His writing style emulates existence in that there are a myriad of simultaneously existing viewpoints each with totally different mindsets. Also karma is involved.

 

Take for instance the two chapters which are Jon and Sam of the same scene. Real life is like that.

[Puntificator]

First of all no, saying that creating morally ambiguous villains is indicative of good writing does not necessarily imply that it's a requirement of good writing.

And Lord of the Rings isn't as black and whit as  people often make it out to be. Gollum, Saruman, Grima Wormtongue, Boromir, etc. But I see this has already been gone over.

First of all, yes: I carefully used the qualifying phrase, "In effect..." And in the context of your statement, while it's true that "indicative of good writing" does not necessarily imply it's a requirement, it does strongly imply it's a requirement; hence my use of in effect, which is synonymous with "virtually."

Second: We were not talking about how black and white The Lord of the Rings is as a story, but how morally ambiguous its main villain Sauron is. In LotR, he's as morally black as they come in fantasy.

Edit: And you didn't say "creating morally ambiguous villains is indicative of good writing." What you actually said was, "Morally ambigueous (sic) 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."

[Puntificator]

Mark Lawrence, Martin, and Abercrombie didn't set down to do it nor did Glenn Cook or others but there's a few authors who have stated that from what I understand.

 

 

One of them is you. On Facebook you said (underlining added by me): "So, as I write a dark science fiction novel and try to make it grimdark, what are the keys to grimdark SCI-FI and how it differs from grimdark FANTASY?"

In fact, if you look through the postings of other members of the Grimdark Fiction Readers & Writers group, you'll see several writers asserting their intent to write grimdark.

Also, as much as some here might want to poke fun at Grimdark Magazine, I would think that most writers wishing to submit fiction to it, set out to write grimdark.

[Ser Drizztos]

I have to pimp my own blog posts? Oh, Westeros, why hast thou forsaken me?

http://mark---lawrence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/is-grimdark-thing.html

This caused a fair smattering of inexplicable (to me) rage on another forum where some seemed to take the argument that the Broken Empire didn't appear to fit the Wikipedia definition of Grimdark as somehow a condemnation of people who enjoyed books that do.

Pretty sure it's been linked before ITT.

Anyway, how can one take that wiki entry seriously when it doesn't even mention Bakker, given that he is the seminal author when anything grim or dark, let alone grimdark, is concerned.

[Bjornbert]

What I can observe is that the number of good fantasy books every year goes higher and higher. Does it matter what arbitrary subgenre they belong to?

[Puntificator]

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.

in an earlier version of this thread, I tried to make this point about Ned, but raised the ire of many people here who disagreed with me. This was my fault, since I used terms and phrases like morally ambiguous, morally complex, antihero, having moral agency, etc. to describe his moral behavior and situation. You did a much better job of stating what I was attempting to say, for which I thank you. 

[Puntificator]

Duplicate post deleted.

[Darth Richard II]

Pretty sure it's been linked before ITT.

Anyway, how can one take that wiki entry seriously when it doesn't even mention Bakker, given that he is the seminal author when anything grim or dark, let alone grimdark, is concerned.

because he's not?

[Puntificator]

That is some pretty backwards logic you've got there. That's like taking the phrase "all rats have long tails" and accusing the speaker of claiming that all long-tailed animals are therefore rats.

I said that I consider it good writing to have morally complex villains. That does not in any way imply that all good writing must have villains that follow that mold.

No, what I said is not analogous to the logical fallacy you address. if you had said "all writing with morally ambiguous villains is good writing" and I then accused you of saying "all good writing has morally ambiguous villains," then you'd be right. But that's not what happened. You didn't even use a universal statement. 

Furthermore, you didn't even originally say, as you now claim, that "creating morally ambiguous villains is indicative of good writing." What you actually said, was "Morally ambigueous (sic) villains, for example, aren't really indicative of dark or grimdark fantasy." That's an entirely different claim. You followed this with (which is what I responded to), "To me they're just a part of good writing in any genre," which sure sounds like you mean to imply that it's a requirement of good writing to have morally ambiguous villains.

Even if you now say that "I consider it good writing to have morally complex villains" in the context in which you addressed this, then there is nothing illogical about drawing the assumption that you believe not having morally complex villains is a sign of bad writing, else why make your statement at all? 

You're taking my statements and yours out of context, and misstating what you said originally, and are creating a strawman argument. But there is no point in arguing this further, as it will take us too far off-topic and waste more time than is necessary on what has become a trivial issue. You have clarified what you meant, and that is sufficient.

[Puntificator]

Anyway, how can one take that wiki entry seriously when it doesn't even mention Bakker, given that he is the seminal author when anything grim or dark, let alone grimdark, is concerned.

I agree with you in principle. No definition of grimdark should exclude Bakker's fantasy novels, which is why I disagreed earlier with Wrychard Wrycthen's well-intended attempt to describe grimdark when he listed as one of its criteria, "An ass-load of black and gallows humour," which I don't think characterizes Bakker's work. 

[Richard Writhen]

I agree with you in principle. No definition of grimdark should exclude Bakker's fantasy novels, which is why I disagreed earlier with Wrychard Wrycthen's well-intended attempt to describe grimdark when he listed as one of its criteria, "An ass-load of black and gallows humour," which I don't think characterizes Bakker's work. 

It was well-intended dammit!

 

Lawl, no he's on the TBR but it's about a kajillion lines long so ... one of these days.

[David Selig]

Isn't like 80% of his fanbase on this forum?

ROFL.

Anyway, IMHO Grimdark is the dumbest subgenre name ever, I hope it dies a quick death.

[C.T. Phipps]

One of them is you. On Facebook you said (underlining added by me): "So, as I write a dark science fiction novel and try to make it grimdark, what are the keys to grimdark SCI-FI and how it differs from grimdark FANTASY?"

In fact, if you look through the postings of other members of the Grimdark Fiction Readers & Writers group, you'll see several writers asserting their intent to write grimdark.

Also, as much as some here might want to poke fun at Grimdark Magazine, I would think that most writers wishing to submit fiction to it, set out to write grimdark.

Oh yes, I definitely want to write grimdark fiction. I have a series coming out which I think qualifies.

However, anecdotal evidence is never a good source for an argument.

I'm actually not arguing with the fact people are sitting down to write grimdark. It's a really good thing they are as well.

[Darth Richard II]

ROFL.

Anyway, IMHO Grimdark is the dumbest subgenre name ever, I hope it dies a quick death.

yeah that's how I felt about paranormal romance ...