I write it, what is it?

[Chris, kingtermite]

I think that is the best choice to write in order to write and not fit within some genre or sub-genre.

I'm relatively new to the idea of "Grimdark" fantasy as well, but you describe is pretty much exactly the points that I would define as the genre.

- Ambiguity of character on the protagonist (and pretty much everyone for that matter).
- Endings that are sometimes as bad as they are good.
- Realistic and gritty descriptions of things that are often more idealized in "High Fantasy".

[Tracey the Lizard Queen, First In, Last Out]

No-one seems to have a proper definition. For me there are a few essentials for a book to be considered grimdark. Namely a bleak setting, dubious characters and most importantly a protagonist that makes bad choices, not for the greater good but simply because it benefits them.

[Josh]

"It is not about having real-world phenomena and physics without the presence of magic or the supernatural, or about the presence of real-world unpleasantries like plagues, or realistic geography, or real-world flora and fauna. It’s about its human entities having realistic behavior and choice making (grimdark has psychological realism) and the realistic effects and consequences of these. Also, in a grimdark story, the outcomes are uncertain and not predetermined; the future is undefined and chaotic, just as in real life. There is no guarantee of a happy ending."

That's an excerpt from a post by a Facebook friend of mine. I think the realism described captures the essential nature of grimdark.

[Chompa, Founding Father]

For me Grimdark is a grittier, more realistic take on fantasy. The characters tend to be flawed and generally not heroic.

As has been stated at times in this group, labeling is a double-edged sword. It is great for finding other stories or books that are similar, but it also seems to set limits that may not be applicable. I for one appreciate labels to help me understand and categorize books and find new ones.

[Josh]

Paul wrote: "Josh, the funny thing about the statement

"’...about its human entities having realistic behavior and choice making (grimdark has psychological realism) and the realistic effects and consequences..."

I absolutely agree! I can't imagine not writing characters with that thought always in mind. And I think that's what my friend, Simon, was getting at in the quote. It's about being realistic when it comes to the behavior itself, the reasons for the behavior, and the ramifications of the behavior.

[Josh]

Paul wrote: "Josh wrote: "Paul wrote: "Josh, the funny thing about the statement

"’...about its human entities having realistic behavior and choice making (grimdark has psychological realism) and the realisti..."

That's awesome! It's always great to get encouraging reviews!

[Chris, kingtermite]

Paul wrote: "Josh, the funny thing about the statement

"’...about its human entities having realistic behavior and choice making (grimdark has psychological realism) and the realistic effects and consequences of these"

...is that it just doesn't make sense for a writer to craft a character any other way. I don't disagree, mind you--I think that the crux isn't in their behavior, but in the motivations for their behavior. Sturm the knight in the Dragonlance series was always motivated to do the right thing, over and over, which was a useful plot device...but isn't emotionally complex.

Likewise, characters driven to o evil for evil's sake or pure power's sake is equally pedantic."

I don't totally agree. I think they are just two very different perspectives. Each are fine in their own context.

A character always doing the right thing (which I'll call "The Aragorn Syndrome") is great when your story is crafting a super good guy hero type. It may not be as "emotionally complex", but that isn't the only place to get character complexity.

I think each perspective is fine when done right. In the same regard, each can be done poorly. I'll admit the "Aragorn Syndrome" gets old after a while to me, but it's fine in small to medium doses. Some people prefer the "perfect hero" and would probably like that better.

[Josh]

Chris wrote: "Paul wrote: "Josh, the funny thing about the statement

"’...about its human entities having realistic behavior and choice making (grimdark has psychological realism) and the realistic effects and..."

In the same vein of "when done right," I think that's where the realistic ramifications of behavior come in. Like you, I don't have much of an issue with a character wanting to do right all the time (even though I can't see myself writing such a character), but I don't want to see the whole rest of that character's world bend over backward to keep bad things from happening as a result of that idealism. I'm not saying bad things have to happen, but if the story dictates them, I don't want to see an angel come down from Heaven and pour holy water on the situation. At the very least, I don't want to see it happen repeatedly.

[Chris, kingtermite]

Josh wrote: "In the same vein of "when done right," I think that's where the realistic ramifications of behavior come in. Like you, I don't have much of an issue with a character wanting to do right all the time (even though I can't see myself writing such a character), but I don't want to see the whole rest of that character's world bend over backward to keep bad things from happening as a result of that idealism. I'm not saying bad things have to happen, but if the story dictates them, I don't want to see an angel come down from Heaven and pour holy water on the situation. At the very least, I don't want to see it happen repeatedly. "


In most examples I can think of, it's just the opposite. A character is the "always good hero" type and the whole world does everything they can to make the evil decision easier, but he/she still chooses the right path.

Again...the "Aragorn Syndrome" as an example. He could have said "F you" to the hobbits, not my problem, but he didn't. He could have easily said, Gondor hasn't had a king in centuries, why should *I* be the one to return when their time is the most dire in all of history. He could have chosen not to go and stay with Arwen, but he didn't.

Nobody in the world, for the most part, bent over to help the bad things from happening. They all pretty much did the opposite. Borimir fought him about being the king of Gondor. The hobbits were annoyingly willful. Elrond did everything he did to keep him from Arwen. But....he still persevered.

[Josh]

Chris wrote: "Josh wrote: "In the same vein of "when done right," I think that's where the realistic ramifications of behavior come in. Like you, I don't have much of an issue with a character wanting to do righ..."

And that's absolutely fine with me. If that character wishes to do right all the time and his reasoning is consistent, great. That can be realistic as there are certainly real people like that, I hope.

And if there are no logical negative consequences, then I don't even mind there being no negative consequences. However, if negative consequences are logical, then I'd like to see them happen. That's why I read and write grimdark. Happy endings solely for the sake of happy endings leave me feeling hollow.

Ned Stark's honor got him killed. He chose to do what he saw as right, and he died for it, because sometimes that's what doing right leads to. If a giant eagle had flown down and saved him before his beheading, I wouldn't have liked it. Not that I liked him dying, but at least it let me know that I could expect ASOIAF to have real repercussions going forward.

And there's nothing wrong with giant eagles suddenly appearing to save the hero. It's just not always my thing. But I'll admit that even deus ex machina fits into the realm of realism for me. Good and bad both happen. Sure, sometimes the eagles will save the day, but sometimes the Shire burns too.

[Chompa, Founding Father]

Probably too late unless you are west coast, Paul. My top three would have to be Abercrombie's First Law trilogy. Scott Lynch's Gentleman Bastards series and Daniel Polansky's Low Town. The last one is mash up with the hard-boiled detective genre, but really good.

The Blade Itself
The Lies of Locke Lamora
Low Town

[Tracey the Lizard Queen, First In, Last Out]

Beyond Redemption was pretty awesome. As was Prince of Thorns.

[Chris, kingtermite]

Josh wrote: "Chris wrote: " Happy endings solely for the sake of happy endings leave me feeling hollow."

This resonates strongly with me. I don't mind happy endings when they are logical, but the "everything works out perfectly (every little consequence works out to the good) and a perfectly happy ending (with no negative consequences of any type)" type stories feel extremely hollow and lame.

[Chompa, Founding Father]

Regarding happy endings. As a teen I was reading a book by Fred Saberhagen (I believe it was Saberhagen, but my memory is fuzzy 30 years later) and a main character was suddenly killed. This shocked the hell out of me and I loved it for how unique it was.

Now in the age of Grimdark this is a much more common thing.

[Chompa, Founding Father]

I think we are all babies (or at least toddlers) when it comes to Grimdark. It hasn't been around all that long.

That said - dark stories and twists have been around a long time I'm certain. I know Saberhagen was my first memory of abrupt and harsh death of a main character. In recent times I think the grim/dark/harsh type of stories have become much more prominent.

[Chompa, Founding Father]

I actually thought of Clive Barker specifically when writing my post, Paul and I've never even read him. I just know by reputation that he was very dark.

[Levi]

Paul wrote: "You absolutely *must* read Barker! Try Galilee!l if you want a long amazing epic, it's ...incredible. The Thief of Always is a short say read that is full of dread, and one of my all-time favorites..."

Thanks, Paul! My Grimdark Fantasy group recommendations list grows ever larger...