DoC: I Didn't Like the Way This Book Was Looking at Me, So I Stabbed It

[Paolo]

I didn´t see anyone trying to prove anything... just people defending their tastes.

It looks like the people who are criticizing grimdark are focusing on this month´s read, A Dance of Cloaks, and they seem to have valid points. I haven´t read it. Then the people who are defending grimdark are using ASOIAF and Abercrombie to make their points, which are also very valid. No wonder we´re not agreeing on anything.

[Michele]

I think "grimdark" is about the overall worldview or underlying emotion of a world being one of hopelessness. A world where the majority of the average people just survive as best they can in the midst of war, poverty, crime, etc.

In this type of world, anyone who fights to make their own life better is often going to be a criminal of some sort, probably with ambiguous morals, cynical, and calloused towards death - that's the only way to fight the system here.

In this type of world, who wants to read about the average Joe being miserable and hungry and maybe not paying his taxes or conning some other poor sap out of a few pence here and there? Not me. An average Joe in this setting is going to need to at least train to be a badass if he's going to affect a change. It takes someone with a lot of balls and/or a deathwish to truly buck the system. But even a badass has to take some blows, none of that - fighting a million to one and not breaking a sweat - junk.

Now, if he/she does it right, the author can make our heroes truly nuanced and interesting within their sarcastic, stabby shell. Joe Abercrombie is masterful at giving his characters enough humor and heart to make us root for them to get ahead as far as they can, maybe even change the system overall for everyone.

I know he's mentioned the Black Company books by Glen Cook - these are the first grimdark books I ever read, and I loved them because they were so different from the usual 80s quest trilogies. A bunch of mercenaries fighting for whomever in a war torn world, they manage their own sense of honor, and even have black humor as they slog on and fight and die for what turns out to be the bad guys. And eventually they end up on the side of "good," but it doesn't change them much overall.

***Fighting on, in the only way you can, against seemingly insurmountable odds, with an air of futility and suicide and despair, but a basic will to go forward into whatever rather than just lay down and die - this is what I think true grimdark is.***

Nowadays with the popularity of Abercrombie there are a ton of copycats who don't truly understand the heart of grimdark, they just barf up some ugliness and then have people running around being awful and stabbity stab stab blood gore death filth. Mr. Assassin Badass and his goon squad, piles of corpses, yards of intestines, daggers strapped to every inch of the body, guns with ammo that never runs out, etc.

That's just trash writing. Like a horror movie that's only scary in that someone actually spent millions on a film with no plot and buckets of blood and stupid teenagers running around being stupid.

Dark for the sake of darkness says nothing about the human will to live, to struggle forward, to fight against the odds, to find love and companionship in the midst of despair, to make little sparks of light in the deep darkness.

I don't often like to visit a grimdark world, but if I hear that one has been done right I will give it a shot when I'm in the right mood. This month's pick, from what comments I've read so far, doesn't sound promising, but I'm willing to be persuaded if anyone wants to try. Granted the problems seem to come from 1st book-itis and not necessarily from overall badness. Does the writing get better in later books?

[Mpauli]

Jenz wrote: "You're comparing being close to real people to allowing emotional connections to fictional ones? We aren't even in the same conversation."

I'm saying that the mechanics are the same. My interest x in y is diminished, if y is able to be taken away from me.
We're talking a lot about "realism" in this thread. This mechanic is, in my opinion, not "realistic", cause as you say your real life expectation differs from the expectation you have from a book and it's characters.
I personally like, when my literature doesn't have this kind of mechanic. And I totally agree with you, when you say "I don't personally like that." It's totally valid. If I wanted to poke you, I would even say that is what grim-dark is all about. This whole discussion is totally grim-dark. We have differences of opionions that clash and even in some cases went a bit violent. But it was an interesting, dare I say realistic, discussion about a subject, where opinions differ and noone has a solution/higher morale. It basically comes down to what you like and what you think is right for you. That's very grim-dark in my opinion.

I posted in this thread, cause -from the initial post- I had the feeling that the interpretation Sean had about grim-dark didn't reflect what I am experiencing, when I read grim-dark literature. The whole point of discussing this, shouldn't be to convince someone of your or my point of view, but to explain why you get to the conclusions.
So please excuse me, if something I wrote made you feel that I would be disregarding your point or opinion. I love being in disagreement without judgement...and this is why I like grim-dark, cause characters there often end up in this place.

And I think one of the biggest issues of grim-dark is that we all seem to have a very different interpretation about what grim-dark means and what I take away from the discussion is that my interpretation of it is totally different from the interpretation others have in mind.

[Ken]

I'm savoring the thought that we'll exhaust the fashion of "grim dark" along with "urban fiction" and other fad genres and move on sooner rather than later. I'm certain of it happening, the question is of when.

[Sean]

Alright, moving back to the pick, so we're all sort of on the same page.

A good bit of the arguments against this book seem to be based on the prologue. Yes, an eight-year-old boy kills his brother at the end, and yes, it's pretty messed up. But here's the thing - that's not establishing how "awesome" the kid is or how "hardcore" the novel is. It's an establishing character moment.

I'm only a little more than half way through the book right now, but I think I've figured out the character arc for Aaron (the eight-year-old from the prologue): he's Arya Stark backwards.

He starts out as this heartless killing machine, doing whatever his father says, but as his plot progresses, he's slowly becoming more human, and beginning to question his father (he's also thirteen at this point - METAPHOR FOR GROWING UP!). This starts to come to a head around the half-way point (which is a bit late in my opinion).

So basically I'm saying don't judge this book by its prologue. And don't assume that characters will remain static.

[Rob]

Everyone here should read "a night for spirits and snowflakes," the second story in the Sword And Laser Anthology, by Aidan Moher. It's a dark tale in a very grim, cynical, violent setting, featuring a child protagonist. It has a ton in common with this month's pick, and yet "grimdark" never came into my mind when reading it. I think it made me realize a key problem might be one of distance between reader and character. We might be more inclined to perjoratively label works "grimdark" when the protagonists are written in a style that keeps us from identifying with them. The way Moher writes the characters we get a deep sense of what it feels like to exist in a moral grey area. We are very close to the characters. In grimdark stuff, we're just shown moral grey areas. There's some weird showing vs feeling going on.

Idk. Read his story even if the above is nonsense, it's one of my favorite short stories I've ever read, and probably one of the objectively best genre short tales I've come across.

[Ken]

I think show vs feel is a case of bad vs. good writing.

[J.J.]

Good point, Rob. Maybe this really comes down to whether the author can make you feel connected to the characters in spite of any violence or moral ambiguity. If they can, that can have huge impact. And if they can't, it ends up feeling gratuitous. And of course whether or not that connection happens depends at least a little on reader investment, too.

[Derek]

Great comment on the 'snowflakes' story from The Anthology, Rob.

That story was all about describing the various characters through these flashback sequences. There was plenty of violence, but the violence was used to actually tell a story. It hooked me almost immediately and I agree that it was one of the more resonant short stories I've read myself. Chalk one up in the win column for it getting picked for inclusion.

Unlike 'snowflakes' though, Dance of Cloaks was kind of the reverse. Little to no real examination of character, but rather gratuitous violence simply for its own sake. And tbe unlimited supply of impossibly thrown daggers. I've heard it said elsewhere, but it was like reading an adaptation of a video game novel. Possibly written by Uwe Boll.

[[deleted user]]

Kevin wrote: "Modern fantasy doesn't wallow in this "bullshit". There're heaps of books out there that do not follow the currently popular dark and ultra-violent trend.

On the other hand there're heaps of other..."

Very well said. I think that's one of the reasons why I like this particular genre, but you summed it up in a way that makes sense!

[Rick]

I like how Liz Bourke put it on tor.com recently in an article about Elizabeth Bear's recent Eternal Sky series:

Epic fantasy has long been dominated by Tolkien and his inheritors. In recent years epic has come to be represented in the wider sphere by Crapsack World deconstructions of heroes and heroic arcs, in a retreat towards a grim and grey sort of “realism” that deprives fantasy of much of the element of wonder that makes it fantastical. But the Eternal Sky trilogy sidesteps both of these tendencies to go its own way: a way filled with wonder, amazing world-building, heroism and tragedy—and also filled with grit, emotional realism, and a light, ironic, humane sense of humour.


http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/04/wing...

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

I judge a book by what it is. Grimdark is fine by me; I don't reject it because it's grimdark.

Call me old fashioned though on another level - a book needs good writing, a realistic (even if grimdark) or clever or fun plot, and characters that either connect or fascinate or illuminate. I don't mind, and I guess you could say I prefer, mirroring elements, metafictional references, drama, tragedy, action or violence, but I hate bad writing, repetitious sentences, irrational logic or behavior masquerading as heroic intelligence/bad guy genius, helpless women who don't grow a couple by the end, plot holes, and one-dimensionality in all of the above.

I was surprised that I didn't hate this book, but I definitely didn't like it. Several reasons added up to meh for me, but not simply the gratuitous violence alone or the endless mean cruel lovelessness everyone accepts as normal.

Kids usually live in kid bodies with kid minds - I have tried to buy into kid ninjas and kids performing like grownup men, but I can't. This is the second book I've read this month with a kid performing like a man. Do these writers watch kids play and move? Even if they are suffering PTSD, or have been training in martial arts, or are a child soldier, if I can sit my fat butt on top of most little kids he or she is pretty much done. (I used to fight with my little brother, who was two years younger, while I was a foot taller than most of my classmates.) I fight like a girl who reads and wear glasses, mind you. But big wide masses trumps low masses. If I get close enough to trip and sit, and take you unprepared without weapons, you're mine, little boys. I've suffered PTSD too.

Basically, a little kid is a little kid. Small body, low weight, clumsy reflexes, brain undeveloped, muscles might be quick-twitch but not capable of bench pressing 150 pounds. I can't quit reality enough to see an 8 year old not being swatted down like a puppy. Their skulls can be cracked like an egg. Yes, they CAN be sociopaths, but not Hulks. That was the first ugh.

Second ugh was one-dimensional characters straight out of the movie stock character pool. I can't maintain interest in wind-up toys for hundreds of pages.

Third ugh was the complete lack of originality, especially in the action scenes, which appeared to be the writer copying in words the scenes from the Matrix, or a favorite graphic comic book, except hipster-styling. It made it seem like the characters were trying too hard at presentation, a true pet peeve of mine. Who likes 500 pages of cool styling? Johnny Depp is one of the few who can pull that off. Didn't happen here...

Somehow the violence was more stomach-turning because the rest of it was so boring and predictable. One-dimensional characters, though, finally brought me to lemming it. I would have stabbed it, too, but it was the library's.