Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Achive
>
How dark is too dark?
date
newest »

message 51:
by
Greg
(new)
Mar 22, 2014 01:04PM

reply
|
flag

We generally want to feel satisfied at the end of a story. Suffering along the way make the happy ending feel more valuable, because it was earned, a price was paid.
You can have a sad but satisfying end, where the hero loses, but something is accomplished. this is harder to pull off, but it can be done, and done well.
I know I have no interest in reading a book that subjects the protagonist to horrible suffering and then kills him off anyway and nothing good comes of it.
"Life sucks, then you die" has never been a very successful elevator pitch.


But there is frivolously dark.
That line's a keeper.
"Dark" ought to be a part of the story: have a reason, show its consequences, have the right fit o..."
The more productive value of a "life sucks" story, I think, is to build empathy. If the human condition is overall a painful and unhappy one, it means more when we try to comfort those around us, and it also means maybe we need to think a little more before we judge people. Or, in the case of some apocalyptic stories, and maybe tragedies in general, is "it doesn't have to end up this way, but it will if we just let things run on autopilot."
The flipside of happy endings is that they often support a just world hypothesis. It discounts the actual chaos and injustice that is a part of real life and gives us the feeling that "everything will be alright" because "there's a plan" and all that.
These are the kinds of things people want to hear, but sometimes it's good for people to encounter something closer to the truth. And the truth may not be all pain and suffering, but there's definitely a lot there and endings are never really tied up neatly.
Too much positivity is an opiate that numbs us to the pain of others and often to our own problems.

But there is frivolously dark.
That line's a keeper.
"Dark" ought to be a part of the story: have a reason, show its consequences, have the..."
The more productive value of a "life sucks" story, I think, is to build empathy. If the human condition is overall a painful and unhappy one, it means more when we try to comfort those around us, and it also means maybe we need to think a little more before we judge people. Or, in the case of some apocalyptic stories, and maybe tragedies in general, is "it doesn't have to end up this way, but it will if we just let things run on autopilot."
The flipside of happy endings is that they often support a just world hypothesis. It discounts the actual chaos and injustice that is a part of real life and gives us the feeling that "everything will be alright" because "there's a plan" and all that.
These are the kinds of things people want to hear, but sometimes it's good for people to encounter something closer to the truth. And the truth may not be all pain and suffering, but there's definitely a lot there and endings are never really tied up neatly.
Too much positivity is an opiate that numbs us to the pain of others and often to our own problems.
I don't need dark to build my empathy. I don't think most of us do.
I've lived poverty, unemployment, the marines and now 14 years as a paramedic. I'm all set with the dark reality of life. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. I don't need the bleak rubbed in my face in my entertainment. I'll be back to it soon enough.
As the Dread Pirate Roberts so wisely said, "Life is pain. Anybody who says different is selling something."
The corollary of which is, sometimes, we just want to be sold something.

While it certainly sounds like the stories that examine the human condition "is overall a painful and unhappy one" are not to your taste, it doesn't mean they don't have value for others. I too work in the health field (cancer nurse) and I run into experiences all the time that emphasize this message. My choice of reading material tends to reflect the fact that I do not need that kind of pathos in my escape/entertainment/intellectual challenges. But it doesn't mean I don't occasionally enjoy it, or looking at a spin on it in another direction doesn't bring something to me. Joe Abercrombie's Glodka character is a prime example of that--the skill in creating such a flawed but so-very-human person was amazing, and reminds me that there are deep shades to the shades-of-grey philosophy. My best reads grab that and weave it into a story that includes the "light" things as well such as humor, love, beauty.

But there is frivolously dark.
That line's a keeper.
"Dark" ought to be a part of the story: have a reason, show its consequen..."
But keep in mind one of the reasons you have empathy on your own is through painful experiences.
There are some studies that suggest "happier" people (always a problematic thing to measure, but in this case the self-assessed definition makes sense) are less empathetic and it's long been found that poorer people are more likely to tip waiters and waitresses well. Some people are effectively isolated from pain, either in sheltered youth or growing comfortable as adults and forgetting.
A lot of times we simply do not think about people who have it worse than us or who have it bad in a different way, and literature is one way for us to experience that.

But the tragedy porn that gets accolades reminds me of people who only like a band before they're successful. It's somehow a badge of honor to like a book that ends in tragedy and a happy ending is just lame and mainstream.
Most people since the dawn of time live a struggle, and when we get a free moment for entertainment, we want a story that makes us feel better.
I don't speak for everybody. If you like a hero who struggles through life's slings and arrow only to fail and die cold and alone, that's fine and I wish you the best. I don't care for that. I'll see enough of it, live enough of it. I want to see struggle rewarded in my daydreaming.
To pull an example, I know George R R Martin's books are well written, but I gave up when I kept running out of people to root for. If I want a fascinating story of war and betrayal and tangled threads and wasted lives, I can read about the actual War of the Roses. If I'm reading a made up story for pleasure, I want to see justice done.
Again, I'm not speaking for everybody, just for me.

But the tragedy porn that gets accolades reminds me of people who only like a band before they're successful. It's somehow a badge of honor to like a book that ends in tragedy and a happy ending is just lame and mainstream.
Most people since the dawn of time live a struggle, and when we get a free moment for entertainment, we want a story that makes us feel better.
I don't speak for everybody. If you like a hero who struggles through life's slings and arrow only to fail and die cold and alone, that's fine and I wish you the best. I don't care for that. I'll see enough of it, live enough of it. I want to see struggle rewarded in my daydreaming.
To pull an example, I know George R R Martin's books are well written, but I gave up when I kept running out of people to root for. If I want a fascinating story of war and betrayal and tangled threads and wasted lives, I can read about the actual War of the Roses. If I'm reading a made up story for pleasure, I want to see justice done.
Again, I'm not speaking for everybody, just for me. "
QUOTED FOR TRUTH

Yeah, a hero's death doesn't necessarily make it dark, and really it's the difference in the details that makes darkness. For example "I am Legend" (view spoiler) .
I think when there is never a light at the end of the tunnel, we can end up at a point where darkness is blunted. Darkness needs hope in order to thrive... and in most cases, there should be some sense that things *could* have gone differently (even if it's outside the hero's control).

It would seem that there are many factors to consider: the strength of the characters, plot, writing, etc. If any of these are lacking then the 'darkness' becomes harder to bear. The length of a book will make a big difference on the 'darkness' factor too, for sometimes all the grief, blood, depression and death can become an indulgence rather than a necessity, and not every reader can/will tolerate such 'dark' matters for too long. It also largely depends on what influences the individual reader brings to the book and what they hope to take away from it. The author can only accomplish so much, the rest is up to us, and we won't know how 'dark' we will find the book until we experience it in our own way.
Personally, I can handle and enjoy the likes of The Grapes Of Wrath and Prince Of Thorns, but (and I know this is bizarre) I found some of Neil Gaiman's Fragile Things to be unnecessarily vulgar enough for me to never read one of his books again.


I could see how it might irk someone when they're reading a more conventional elves & pixies fantasy that ends with a Holocaust analogy.




But then that begs the question as to whether it's even dark at all.

But then that begs the question as to whether it's even dark at all."
Well, even the worst in life can have a twisted ironic humor. I think a little humor helps break up the monotony and make the other stuff - such as tragedy or whatever happens - more realistic, give it more 'oomph' when it's there.

For those complaining about cheap shock, I know the feeling but sometimes theres no avoiding it. Just read Infamous Lady: The True Story of Countess Erzsebet Bathory and youll know what Im talking about.
Books mentioned in this topic
Infamous Lady: The True Story of Countess Erzsébet Báthory (other topics)The Pearl (other topics)
Salamandastron (other topics)
Pet Sematary (other topics)
Prince of Thorns (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Marcus Sedgwick (other topics)Neil Gaiman (other topics)