Fantasy Book Club discussion
General Chit-Chat
>
Is fantasy getting darker?
Bev wrote: " ... I want to be entertained, and I want to know there is someone out there fighting the good fight and trying to make his world a better place. I do, often, feel as though I am alone in the crowd. ..."Bev, I dont think you are alone. Several people I know feel like you do. One wants choice.
Well...various people are entertained by various things:)I am definitely gonna go and check out that upsetting book Lauren mentioned;) I have trouble finding things that are upsetting enough.
But all in all, I think it would be best if both black/white & grey would continue. Being limited is never a good thing.
I was quite young (maybe 13) when I read Empress so you probably won't find it as traumatising as I did. :)
I remember lots of sex, violence and blood sacrifices though, so it might shock you.
I remember lots of sex, violence and blood sacrifices though, so it might shock you.
Kevan wrote: "Bev wrote: " ... I want to be entertained, and I want to know there is someone out there fighting the good fight and trying to make his world a better place. I do, often, feel as though I am alone ..."That is exactly the point. I like a good dystopian fantasy as much as the next person but when I look on the fantasy book shelves it seems to have been pushed aside to make room for YA and paranormal romantic pish wash.
Pish wash? lol...that summons it up quite nicely.YA and Paranormals fly down conveyer belt by the kilos...Good thing they have their own category, so they are easy to avoid.
Kris43 wrote: "Pish wash? lol...that summons it up quite nicely.YA and Paranormals fly down conveyer belt by the kilos...Good thing they have their own category, so they are easy to avoid."
Haha
Sonja wrote: "I also think we are inundated with antiheroes - which I think more accurately defines what most people think as "dark" fantasy...Once upon a time, heroes, while not perfect, at least had good motivations. That seems to no longer be the case."That's a great working description, Sonja. Thanks.
I agree about wanting stories about characters who are "fighting the good fight", in a place where goals and obstacles are both more clear-cut. That's the original draw of fantasy for me (come to think of it, fairy tales as well), and it seems--especially from the discussions here--that that's a shrinking commodity.
Sumi wrote: "Sonja wrote: "I also think we are inundated with antiheroes - which I think more accurately defines what most people think as "dark" fantasy...Once upon a time, heroes, while not perfect, at least ..."not really... but as any genre, not all fantasy authors feel that fantasy should always be that way... of course the brand of fantasy where you have good vs evil has its place and all, but I am not against the vein of authors like GRRM, Erikson and such who, yes, their stuff is pretty dark, but then, they also seek IMO to bring fantasy into a more, how to say it, into a more serious area, where it gets darker, and in a way closer to historical fiction
I like this "new" current in fantasy (meaning the authors I just mentioned as some of foremost) also because it has a good chance to make at least some ppl take fantasy more serious as a genre of literature and not just some outsider's geekiness (no offense meant, but some ppl just see it that way meh)... and it might also bring more literary scientists/researchers to come and examine fantasy a bit more and maybe finally give fantasy a more firm place in literary pantheon - as I feel there havent been too many books dedicated to a more serious approach to fantasy works, as in other genres
Razmatus wrote: "Sumi wrote: "Sonja wrote: "I also think we are inundated with antiheroes - which I think more accurately defines what most people think as "dark" fantasy...Once upon a time, heroes, while not perfe..."Good points there Raz.
Razmatus wrote: "I like this "new" current in fantasy (meaning the authors I just mentioned as some of foremost) also because it has a good chance to make at least some ppl take fantasy more serious as a genre of literature and not just some outsider's geekiness (no offense meant, but some ppl just see it that way meh)... and it might also bring more literary scientists/researchers to come and examine fantasy a bit more and maybe finally give fantasy a more firm place in literary pantheon - as I feel there havent been too many books dedicated to a more serious approach to fantasy works, as in other genres "See. While I believe you are totally justified in this POV, and that it is widely shared, I just don't care. :) I have been outside of what is appreciated for long enough that it just doesn't matter to me. I just wish to be entertained. And, rarely, do I find what others consider "art" to be entertaining. And, I am ok with that. I also believe there is room for both.
Unfortunately, it appears *to me* that publishers will only publish what *they* think will sell. And, that appears to be copycats of what has sold. They don't seem to stop and see what made really made things sell, they only see things superficially. For instance, in Twilight it is NOT the vampires and werewolves that make this series popular - it is the relationships (ok there seems to be a love triangle everywhere as well - but it really isn't much of a triangle in Twilight).
So what we HAVE isn't really NEW - it ends up being retreads - until someone comes along that makes a REAL difference - such as GRRM - much as I can't read his works, I certainly recognize his talent and skill and appreciate his works for their value in the genre.
I honestly believe the current trend of self-publishing really helps with this. It allows people who wish to write outside the current trend to share their works. Unfortunately, much like people who cannot sing audition for competition shows, those who cannot write can still publish - so we are left with having to weed through the weeds to find rose. Fortunately, it doesn't take long to discover we only have weeds.
Sonja wrote: "Razmatus wrote: "I like this "new" current in fantasy (meaning the authors I just mentioned as some of foremost) also because it has a good chance to make at least some ppl take fantasy more seriou..."Many people like to see themselves as outsiders but that doesn't always make them cool or anti-cool.
I personally think that all these self published authors are flooding the market with a load of old tosh. There are some few good self published authors but there are many many more bad ones. The self publishers are much more likely to keep re hashing the same done to death rubbish, over and over. George Martin and the like work through publishers and so the quality shows.
I think Raz has a point about the majority of fantasy fans wanting good quality books and I dont think geekiness helps that process nor does being anti establishment.
Bev wrote: " I dont think geekiness helps that process nor does being anti establishment. Wow. Just wow. I am totally NOT anti-establishment. But, I don't think you can have it both ways. In one voice you say Many people like to see themselves as outsiders but that doesn't always make them cool or anti-cool. and then you finish with the first quote. If one way is establishment, then by very definition if one is anti-establishment, she is an outsider.
But, in your attack, you totally miss the point. SPA help fill a void that publishers are either unwilling or unable to fill. I do not disagree, in fact I pointed out, that this also allows for some absolutely awful books to be published. I do, however, feel that this are relatively early discovered. I also said that this trend helped to resolve a particular issue. And, all things have good points and bad. Writing is an art form. Publishing is a business. Therein lies the difference.
And, if you all agree one way and *I* another . . . where does that put me? Outside? Inside? I am really not sure. I never said that her viewpoint was wrong. I even point out the validity of it. Just that it wasn't mine. So, I guess I am . . . wrong?
Publishing may be a business, Sonja, but these publishers whom you decry are not making up peoples' minds for them. They are reacting to the realities of the book consumer's market, and they are attempting to publish what they believe will sell. They're not inventing the demand for this sort of fantasy, either. There is a strong demand for darker fantasy these days, and, like it or not, the publishers are simply attempting to capitalize on it. As soon as the publics' tastes change, what the publishers are pushing will change too.As far as self-publishing is concerned, my views on this are mixed. I am someone who has very strong anti-establishment views on a good number of topics, but I am not embracing self-publishing wholeheartedly either. In my view, there is always a much smaller percentage of gems than there is dross. This holds true across genres, and even across artforms. Self-publishing has proliferated the skill of writing greatly, but it hasn't changed the ratio of good literature to bad literature; it has merely increased the number of books of both types. There is also the matter of how much the independant authors are paid for their work, as e-literature is extremely cheap for comsumers to purchase, and there is a sort of expectation and entitlement that many seem to hold these days that all art should be cheap(if not free) and easy to get a hold of. As a struggling artist myself, I can assure you that although it is easier than ever before to get your name out there, it is as hard, if not harder than ever before to actually have your name noticed by anyone. The old publishing system had a great number of flaws, and I wasn't fond of it, but self-publishing is not an answer to it, merely a change, neither positive nor negative.
Bryan wrote: "Publishing may be a business, Sonja, but these publishers whom you decry are not making up peoples' minds for them. They are reacting to the realities of the book consumer's market, and they are a..."Sigh. I'm done. Evidently, you all do not want to discuss. I realize publishers respond to what they view as public demand. I even stated that. Several times. Maybe not at that specific time. But, I did. I also recognized, several times, the validity of ALL viewpoints. Evidently, I am the only one who thinks wrongly.
I also did not state that self publishing was a panacea. Only that it provided an outlet for authors who wished to write stories that may be outside of the mainstream and that which publishers desire to publish.
This topic is very dear to me - BECAUSE I do not like the current trends in fantasy. And, I have been reading for a long time. A VERY long time. I realize that most readers enjoy this trend. Or, by its very definition, it WOULD NOT BE A TREND. Then, I was told I was anti-establishment and thought I was COOL because I SAW MYSELF as an outsider.
I simply stated my opinion without attacking those of others. In fact, I concurred that I saw evidence of that opinion in many ways at many times.
Just because the majority has an opinion does not make it correct or those who think otherwise wrong. These are just opinions. Neither right nor wrong. Evidently, you all just want repetitiveness in this thread. So, I will leave and you can all agree with each other and never realize others may feel differently.
PS: Your comments on self publishing are very interesting and you bring up very many good points. I repeat that there are good things and bad things to every thing under the sun.
For the main topic:I read a lot of books in various genres. Fantasy has always had a "dark" element to the writing. Is it stronger now? Is there more of it? I don't think so. I've read books that are over a hundred years old that is starkly violent & dark. There are only a handful of "true" anti-heroes. However, personal understanding of a definition certainly carries a lot of weight on how you will define that label. A true anti-hero will never make choices based on what is good for all but on choices that are good for the character. The popular anti-hero are characters who are seen as "evil" or "wrong" and yet end up saving the city, kingdom, town, etc. There's definitely a lot of that kind going around.
Conflict causes tension & rise of emotions. The more passionately a reader responses to a story, the more likely the book is to be popular. I think that's drawn into a story regardless of genre.
Personally, I like books that don't mind showing different sides to their characters. A well written novel can have me loving and hating a character with passion! That's a great thing for a writer. My pet peeve is when a character goes through something traumatic & ends up glossing over the event like nothing happened.
For all the side notes:
Personally, I think publishers try to balance giving out work that will engage the public interest and providing quality work that will last a long time as a good work of fiction. Do I agree that what's widely accepted as awesome work as being something awesome? More than likely, I roll my eyes and go off to read something else. In Fantasy, it's nice to see that most of the books that I love to read are also beloved by others.
Being able to self-publish is not a new situation. People seem to forget that the world of literature we know today is based on countless small publishing houses that cranked out a ton of work. We're just in another step in the evolution of publication with ebooks. Like with any other change, we have the good and the bad. The rules for self publishing is in the works and it's already become an "establishment" in itself for several large companies.
Is it awesome that a person can get themselves published if they want to? Yes! That's wonderful! I'm glad that it's possible.
Is there a ton of bad writing out there because access has become more accessible? Yup! There's a ton of crap released into the book world but that doesn't mean you have to read it. You can drop that piece of crap and move on to something that really appeals to you.
Paranormal is a sub-genre of Fantasy. The fact that Paranormal Romance genre has become wildly popular does not negate the fact that Paranormal Romance is a sub-genre of Paranormal. I love PNR and I've read a ton of books from that genre because it's a huge selection. However, I did get peeved when I realized that people lump Paranormal with PNR. That's not true. You can have a great Paranormal story without the current sexy romance of PNR. Erotica is another genre all by itself. That genre has exploded in the last ten years. Please do not confuse PNR with Erotica. Of course the two can cross genres like others but one does not necessary mean the other.
LOTR is not a light piece of work and it has a ton of dark elements. I don't know how anyone can read that series and come away saying otherwise. That's just weird in my opinion. Please note that is my opinion.
All ideas & patterns have been done by someone in the crazy world of writing. That said, I am engaged, entertained and enthralled when a writer turns out a story in a manner that catches my interest & have fun reading. If I dwell on the fact that it's all been done before, I should stop reading.
I think that the lines between YA and "adult" fiction has become more blurry over the past few years. Maybe that's the way it should be. Young Adults should have a mix of child-like and adult-like books. A genre in which you transition from one to another. I would label a YA novel as one that can give a good story with less words. (I am not a good example of what is good for a person to read at what age. I devoured Shakespeare, several Bibles, LOTR, mythologies & more when I was in 5th grade.)
Sonja brought up several times that she reads for entertainment and would like to see more books with some sort of humor or a lighter atmosphere. That would be cool too! Like I said, I like diversity. I'm glad we're in an age where I can indulge in diversity without too much censor.
Sonja wrote: "Bryan wrote: "Publishing may be a business, Sonja, but these publishers whom you decry are not making up peoples' minds for them. They are reacting to the realities of the book consumer's market, ..."I thought we were discussing.
Sonja, please don't take offence at anything I say merely because I'm responding to your post and not areeing with you. I don't think you're stupid or wrong just because you happen to disagree with me. Quite the contrary. I look forward to having people with views that contradict my own elucidating their positions in an intelligent, respectful manner. That is the nucleus of discussion/debate.
About the whole paranormal thing. There are a lot of people that are a bit prejudiced of that term. Meaning, that the moment you say 'paranormal' they are going to have, in their mind, a picture of a naked dude's chest.The term paranormal has almost become the synonym for paranormal romance.
Would you agree that the term 'supernatural' means more or less the same thing? That is what i use when i want to categorize that kind of story, but without the whole romance thing. And supernatural is also a sub-genre of fantasy.
Bryan wrote: "I thought we were discussing."Sigh. You are absolutely right. Too much going on around me. I read what you said entirely wrong, and I need to QUIT THAT!
Discussing is rarely fun if everyone agrees. On that, I think we definitely agree. :)
Kris43 wrote: "About the whole paranormal thing. There are a lot of people that are a bit prejudiced of that term. Meaning, that the moment you say 'paranormal' they are going to have, in their mind, a picture of..."To me, supernatural deals with spirits and ghosts. It does not necessarily deal with witches, werewolves, gods, etc. By definition, it alludes to that which isn't visible in relations of God, devil, spirit, etc.
Whereas, paranormal deals with that which is not considered part of the norm. By definition, it means something that is not scientifically explainable.
I think paranormal has a broader base to jump from than supernatural. I just get grumpy when people automatically assume PNR is the whole of the Paranormal genre. We could just call it Fantasy and that would be accurate as well. =D
Soo wrote: "I just get grumpy when people automatically assume PNR is the whole of the Paranormal genre. We could just call it Fantasy and that would be accurate as well. =D ."Rofl. No wonder we don't agree as to the whereas and whyfores of dark fantasy. We can't even universally define "fantasy". Or "dark". I think we can agree on the definition of "book" . . . but, then, maybe in today's world, we would not! ;)
I have never really thought about the definitions of Paranormal, Paranormal Romance, or Supernatural, and, should we toss in Urban Fantasy? I tend to lump all of the above into Urban Fantasy. Which, to me, is probably more accurately defined as a Fantasy set in today's time - rather than Medieval times (traditional fantasy, Victorian times (steam punk) or the future (sci fi).
One of my very favorite book series of all time, (Lisa Shearin's Raine Benares) gets lumped into the UF genre. This ticks me off - because it makes it very hard to find books of a similar nature. To me - it has wizards and magic and is set in a different world - which has had no industrial revolution - fantasy, right? Why on earth is it Urban?
Soo wrote: "I just get grumpy when people automatically assume PNR is the whole of the Paranormal genre. We could just call it Fantasy and that would be accurate as well. =D ."I also think readers of a more traditional fantasy (um, no technology?), whether it be light OR dark or even gray, get frustrated to browse through the fantasy section to find only covers with bare chested men or women licking their blood red lips and very little else. Except, of course, Jordan and GRRM. :D
Sonja wrote: "One of my very favorite book series of all time, (Lisa Shearin's Raine Benares) gets lumped into the UF genre. This ticks me off - because it makes it very hard to find books of a similar nature. To me - it has wizards and magic and is set in a different world - which has had no industrial revolution - fantasy, right? Why on earth is it Urban?"You're kidding, right? Lisa Shearin - Urban Fantasy!? I second your question: "Why on earth is it Urban?"
I think this is a great discussion.I'd like to discuss a separate but related topic - that of the quality of writing (prose) in fantasy. Rather than expand this thread, I've started a new thread at http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1....
I've initiated the discussion with the handling of emotions by fantasy writers. Would love to hear your views on that too. Do jump in!
Sonja wrote: "Soo wrote: "I just get grumpy when people automatically assume PNR is the whole of the Paranormal genre. We could just call it Fantasy and that would be accurate as well. =D ."Rofl. No wonder we ..."
That's really considered Urban Fantasy? Uh. That's really strange.
Sonja wrote: "Soo wrote: "I just get grumpy when people automatically assume PNR is the whole of the Paranormal genre. We could just call it Fantasy and that would be accurate as well. =D ."I also think reader..."
I read everything and even I think Romance when I see scantily clad women or men on the cover of a book. Hahahah! I mean, the picture on the cover should have something to do with the story, right?
One of the darkest Fantasy stories series I've read is Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant series. Talk about depressing! Thomas is definitely an anti-hero. You can lump the Dark Tower series into that as well. There has been discussion about why, when, what & etc on Fantasy becoming "darker". I'd like to hear more examples on that instead of just naming book titles.
Thomas has a terminal disease, lives a very pitiful life, falls into a world unlike our own that is full of magic and learns & abuses powers he has never had before. He does some despicable things too. Not really a role model for hero of the year.
Comic book heroes may be praised as "good guys" that strive for the right, blah blah blah. I've read plenty of background info on those heroes and most of them aren't clean cut good guys but people with conflict & flaws who attempt to do what they think is right. Yet, what's right for one is not right for all.
Soo wrote: "I read everything and even I think Romance when I see scantily clad women or men on the cover of a book. Hahahah! I mean, the picture on the cover should have something to do with the story, right? "Yep. This is why I have normally skipped over these covers. The *amount* of romance, however, varies. As I have said elsewhere, I don't mind a little romance in my fantasy, but I do not want a little fantasy in my romance. In this day and age, I find covers much less likely to have any real resemblance to the novel and much more to some interpretation of what will help the book sell. Take, for instance, the covers of Moira J. Moore's heroes series. Worst. Book. Covers. In. The. History. of. Publishing. Seriously. Every review comments on it. If I had had to actually purchase the DTE, I think I would have been embarrassed. :)
Soo wrote: "One of the darkest Fantasy stories series I've read is Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant series. Talk about depressing! Thomas is definitely an anti-hero. You can lump the Dark Tower series in..."This would be why I have not read this series. It has been on my list but reviews have shown me I should stay away. Far, far away. Depressing books leave me depressed for days - or even longer. I mean seriously. I have been known to break out in tears for absolutely no reason except the bleakness with which a book has left me.
Comic book heroes may be praised as "good guys" that strive for the right, blah blah blah
The difference between a hero and an anti-hero to *me* is the motivation. Their backgrounds may be identical. But, the hero strives to do things because they are right, to improve the current and/or future situation of the world. The anti-hero does it for personal gain. A character without flaws or conflict would be rather dull and un-entertaining.
Sonja wrote: "Soo wrote: "I read everything and even I think Romance when I see scantily clad women or men on the cover of a book. Hahahah! I mean, the picture on the cover should have something to do with the s..."I checked out the covers and they are hilarious, but so are the titles!
Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "I checked out the covers and they are hilarious, but so are the titles! "Eh, ya got me there. ;)
Sonja wrote: "Bev wrote: " I dont think geekiness helps that process nor does being anti establishment. Wow. Just wow. I am totally NOT anti-establishment. But, I don't think you can have it both ways. In one ..."
I wasn't attacking you at all. With regards to the outsiders comment just read your own post first. You have a POV but so do I. This is a discussion and not personal so no need for the sarcasm thanks.
Sonja wrote: "Soo wrote: "I read everything and even I think Romance when I see scantily clad women or men on the cover of a book. Hahahah! I mean, the picture on the cover should have something to do with the s..."I went to look that up and when I saw the cover, I laughed! It doesn't seem that bad to me! Mwahahahahahah! That one didn't immediately strike me as romance due to the poses of the male & female. I feel like it was intentionally snarky. Hehehehehh
Yeah, I noticed that. I'm depression prone to begin with so I can't read dark books. Makes it hard to read always being afraid a books going to disturb you.There are some positive fantasy books out there though. I read Dawn of the Knight, its realistic, the characters aren't beaming with happiness all the time (neither am I every day) but its a positive feeling story. Kinda gives you hope that things will be happy in the real world.
K.J. wrote: "Yeah, I noticed that. I'm depression prone to begin with so I can't read dark books. Makes it hard to read always being afraid a books going to disturb you. There are some positive fantasy books o..."K.J., I have a question for you and Sonja--actually, for anyone who gets depressed/sad when they read 'dark' books. Is it a bad outcome for the sympathetic character/hero that stays with you emotionally, or is it the things they've had to do/endure in order to get to a positive outcome? Major character (though not the lead, obviously) death? Or the graphic sex and/or violence that was being discussed as a component of 'darkness' earlier in the thread?
I'm curious in terms of narrative construction--in terms of how positive outcome relative to negative/depressing/sad plot action affects readers' perceptions of 'darkness'.
[For me personally, if there's an overall good (as with Tolkien), then the story doesn't usually strike me as being completely heartbreaking. Though, to stick with Tolkien, I first read LoTR at 11 and mourn Boromir and Frodo to this day.]
Sumi wrote: "Is it a bad outcome for the sympathetic character/hero that stays with you "Ya know, I have been talking about this in a couple places and really thinking about it. Some things just don't bother me . . . others do - So I am trying to determine just actually what it *is* that upsets me. I actually think it is the emotion of the person about whom I am reading. If he/she is very upset by the situation, then I am. If it seems to roll of her back and move on, then I will. If it is a bad situation (eg. rape) and they are trying to deal with it, I can cope.
The first half of Rosemary and Rue depressed me a great deal. Even though the book finishes in a much more snarky heroine kind of way, I have no desire to read further because of the emotions that the first half had.
Does that help?
Sumi.I can't talk for other readers, but for me 'darkness' in fiction means too much suffering for the characters. Even if the outcome is positive, if the road to it is too hard for the heroes, I don't want to read the story. Life is too hard as it is, and I read to escape my problems, not to add to them.
I think too often writers invent obstacles, even pile them on their heroes not because those obstacles are organic to the story but because they were taught in writing classes that a hero should have obstacles to overcome for a story to be successful.
Alas, as a writer, I'm occasionally susceptible to such an attitude myself, although I try to resist.
Sonja wrote: "I actually think it is the emotion of the person about whom I am reading. If he/she is very upset by the situation, then I am."Olga wrote: "...for me 'darkness' in fiction means too much suffering for the characters. Even if the outcome is positive, if the road to it is too hard for the heroes, I don't want to read the story."
I see; Sonja, Olga, thank you both for answering my question. This is obviously a highly subjective area, so it's hard to generalize. Is it fair to say that it's the characters' subjective, emotional experience of the suffering they endure to reach a goal that makes the difference?
And Olga, I know what you mean about obstacles which are organic to the world/storyline and those which are simply added if it seems that the hero/ine has it too easy. Striking a balance between true dramatic tension, the demands of the definition of 'hero', and forcing characters to endure prolonged suffering is difficult, and I'm sure every writer approaches the mix differently.
Thanks again for giving your opinions.
If the characters can't handle the trials they face, then thats not the book for me.I like characters that you wish you could be as strong as
Olga wrote: "Sumi.I can't talk for other readers, but for me 'darkness' in fiction means too much suffering for the characters. Even if the outcome is positive, if the road to it is too hard for the heroes, I ..."
Like Olga, I too dont like it when the character suffers too much, and without a credible reason. Now, how much is too much? Subjective. Frodo suffered in LOTR, but that was not depressing to me. The obstacles meshed well with the storyline - he had to go past those obstacles. And the achievement at the end was well worth it.
But take Kvothe for instance. It looks like the author continues to place obstacles in his path for its own sake (especially in Book 2). Many obstacles didnt seem to mesh with the storyline much - they could be removed without affecting the overall story much. I know that its a popular series, and I may be in a minority here. I loved Book 1, but disliked Book 2.
If a story ends with a world that is better than it was at the beginning, it provides much relief. Then, the protagonist's suffering has achieved something. There was some purpose behind it. Misery for misery sake is depressing.
I dont like graphic sex and gore as I think they invariably detreact from a story. I think a story can be told more elegantly with subtler shades of passion and aggression . I can skip the graphic scenes, and I often do. But when misery and hopelessness is woven into the DNA of the plot, you cannot skip it.
Then, there is the issue of the world itself being iniquitous. Like Drizzt's birthplace - Menzoberranzan. I dont think I want to read another story set in Menzoberranzan. Too dark.
K.J. wrote: "If the characters can't handle the trials they face, then thats not the book for me. I like characters that you wish you could be as strong as"Kevan wrote: "But when misery and hopelessness is woven into the DNA of the plot, you cannot skip it."
Thanks for answering, K.J. And Kevan, I agree about there being a difference between a character enduring suffering and it being integral/central to the plot or world. I also feel better if, when the protagonist has finished the journey/quest/battle, the suffering s/he's endured is in some way balanced by the hero's achievements.
To me, an author's writing skill and imagination are more crucial than the tone(light or dark) of the piece of writing. This is why I can enjoy thoroughly The Hobbit and The Wizard Of Oz and still love Martin's Seven Kingdoms, Leiber's Nehwon, and Mieville's Bas-Lag.
Bryan wrote: "To me, an author's writing skill and imagination are more crucial than the tone(light or dark) of the piece of writing. This is why I can enjoy thoroughly The Hobbit and The Wizard Of Oz and still..."Thanks, Bryan. *grins* Good to know that the tricky business of balancing suffering with accomplishment has a good deal more 'give' for some readers than others. (Which is predictable, I suppose; but the wide range of views here has still been very educational.)
Bryan wrote: "To me, an author's writing skill and imagination are more crucial than the tone(light or dark) of the piece of writing. This is why I can enjoy thoroughly The Hobbit and The Wizard Of Oz and still..."Agree! While a lot of literary stuff is about some sort of misery, the high quality writing makes all the difference.
Just found this great quote:“Now it is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway.”
-J.R.R. Tolkien
Bryan wrote: "Just found this great quote:“Now it is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are unc..."
Interesting. Tolkien may have considered LOTR dark for the age he wrote in.
Kevan wrote: "Bryan wrote: "Just found this great quote:“Now it is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while thing..."
Love the quote. I think LOTR is pretty dark.
I agree that LOTR is a dark story. The Shire is a happy place to provide a contrast to the trials the Hobbits go through but the tone of the story and the events that are occurring as well as many of the themes of sacrifice and the hopelessness of the struggle and the quest make it a pretty dark story in my opinion.
I do think there is a current trend of more sex, more gore, more shocking darkness in modern fantasy--an example I would include would be Anne Bishop's series. Sexual torture is brutally described; rape and madness are common every day occurrences in the world of her books. That's a different kind of dark than Mordor. Mordor was ruthless seeking of power and pollution of the land, but it didn't hit some of those moral and ethical buttons people may have. In terms of sex or sexual violence, LOTR was clean.
Kathy wrote: "You have to admit there there aren't many places as dark as Mordor though."True. There is also the question of how much it is described, and in what fashion. That makes a difference to the perception/feeling of darkness from a reader's viewpoint. Tolkien didn't spend too many words on Mordor, and often referred to it in characters' conversations. That's not the case with many new books - the are quite explicit and detailed. That changes the feel of a book.
Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Song of the Beast (other topics)Song of the Beast (other topics)
The Belgariad, Vol. 1: Pawn of Prophecy / Queen of Sorcery / Magician's Gambit (other topics)
Witch World (other topics)
Magic Bites (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Robert Lynn Asprin (other topics)Robert Lynn Asprin (other topics)
Robert Lynn Asprin (other topics)
Robert Lynn Asprin (other topics)
Joe Abercrombie (other topics)
More...
As far as realism is concerned, is Drizzt or Keisier or Kvothe any more (or less) real than Gandalf or Argorn or Frodo? Personally, I would like both versions - black/white & grey - to continue so that the reader can make a choice what he/she wants to read when.