Sword & Sorcery: "An earthier sort of fantasy" discussion
General Discussions
>
The Guardian gets it wrong, IMO
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
T.S.
(new)
Jan 01, 2016 02:50PM
There are no adolescent male readers.
reply
|
flag
that article comes from a fellow who also wrote "While Robert E Howard’s original Conan stories aren’t quite as good as the epic John Milius/Oliver Stone movie that launched Arnold Schwarzenegger to superstardom, they are still gems of pulp fiction..." in an October article http://www.theguardian.com/books/book...
Grimdark? That's one of the worst terms I've heard. I get it, to a certain degree, but it just sounds stupid and it sounds like it's intended as a catch all description to diminish many authors works.Besides that, one of the most successful fantasy authors of the last couple years, Patrick Rothfuss, is far from anything grim or dark.
But yes, I don't understand how purely happy fantasy and majestic fantasy is more nuanced or emotional than a story that is willing to show both sides of a story. Clearly the writer of the article is very biased and knows very little, or nothing about which he speaks.
Jack wrote: "I agree, grimdark is a strange term. I think narrowing labels (YA, grimdark, high fantasy) do a disservice. When does S&S end and grimdark begin? Hard sci-fi vs. "regular" sci-fi vs. space opera? T..."I think you guys may be reading too much into the term.
I know many authors don't like their work to be categorized into a subgenre, and I get that because it risks alienating some readers from it.
But as a reader, I love sub-genres. It makes it easier to find books I like. I love grimdark, because I love stories about criminals or mercenaries, or just generally not so nice of people. I love Sword and Sorcery too, but lately I find myself wanting to read something darker.
BTW- Grimdark got its name from the motto of the Warhammer 40,000 games and books, "In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war." It's subgenre that is purposely over-the-top, with its grittiness, the likes of Joe Abercrombie -who is known as Lord Grimdark-, Mark Lawerance, Scott Lynch. Martin and Glen Cook are kinda the pioneers of it.
But as far as what the article; Yeah, I don't really get the point. Is he saying that all the diversity in sci-fi/fantasy is a bad thing?
This line pretty much hacks me off:
Myer’s debut is exactly the kind of fantasy to lure back readers, like myself, who want great writing and great storytelling, not an endless parade of fight sequences.
I don't think this dude has read any grimdark. All the grimdark I've read, I can't think of a single book that applies too, Maybe some of Abercrombie's stuff could be misconstrued that way, but only from a very bias reader.
Grimdark? What is this Grimdark? Oh, you mean Dark Fantasy, like Wagner's Kane series, or Chris Carlsen's Berserker trilogy. Both from the 70's, long before these upstarts of the 21st Century who re-named Dark Fantasy as Grimdark... ;)
S.wagenaar wrote: "Grimdark? What is this Grimdark? Oh, you mean Dark Fantasy, like Wagner's Kane series, or Chris Carlsen's Berserker trilogy. Both from the 70's, long before these upstarts of the 21st Century who r..."well said S.
Mark wrote: "S.wagenaar wrote: "Grimdark? What is this Grimdark? Oh, you mean Dark Fantasy, like Wagner's Kane series, or Chris Carlsen's Berserker trilogy. Both from the 70's, long before these upstarts of the..."Grimdark is dark fantasy but a little different, but yeah, Wagner was definitily the forerunner. I thought of him after I had already made my post. (As a matter of fact, Wagner is actually credited with coining the term Dark Fantasy. ) Dark Fantasy initially had more elements of horror fiction. Story-telling from the point-of-view of the monster instead of the hero.
Grimdark is dark fantasy, but it's generally a little more over-the-top with its grittiness. It's also, instead of the monster telling the story, it's more from the point-of-view of the criminal, but not a Robin Hood, good-guy-outlaw kind of criminal,. A real criminal or bad guy but not the satanically evil one, a looking out for his own interest kinda bad guy.
I think of it like; if Quentin Tarantino did fantasy, it would be grimdark.
I'm not opposed to the creation of subgenre for the purpose of categorization. It's something we all do, regardless of naming them or not. I'm actually just opposed to the name itself, that just sounds utterly ridiculous to me. Sword & Sorcery? great! Dark Fantasy? fantastic! Low fantasy? sure. Grimdark? Ummm... no. It's not even a word, it's a diminutive description that sounds like it was invented by a pubescent Norwegian teen boy without a proper grasp of the language.And really, the genre has been around for ages, like other have said; Wagner's Kane or Cook's Black Company are not really so different than Abercrombie's or Erickson's works, other than maybe larger focus on a more epic scope, in the works of the latter. And if we're gonna pin that on anybody it should be the beloved George R.R. Martin, his works are pretty dark and gritty whilst still being epic in scope, and his series started 20 years ago, would he be consider "grimdark"?
Just my two cents anyway... Interesting to hear the origin of the term though, had no idea it came from Warhammer 40k, somewhat less surprising now, and yet no less inappropriate, as it seems to be applied to fantasy more than sci-fi.
*shrug* I dunno, just ranting. No real concern to me.
Dan wrote: "I'm not opposed to the creation of subgenre for the purpose of categorization. It's something we all do, regardless of naming them or not. I'm actually just opposed to the name itself, that just so..."Right. I'm not arguing that it hasn't been around a long time, at least the main theme of it has. And you are exactly right, every one that's into grimdark credits it roots firmly grounded with G.R.R. Martin. But there is a difference.
Grimdark is to dark fantasy what Sword and Sorcery is to Heroic fantasy. Certain elements are more detailed or profound. The harshness of the world is over-the-top, the violence is terrorizing, and sexual content is usually explicit, the language is rated "R". It's all thinly veiled by a dark humor. I can't think of a better way to say it then to reference Quentin Tarantino again. Grimdark has the same gratuitous violence as his movies. The dialog is hard but twistedly funny. The characters are bad but cool. The reader may even feel guilty for liking them.
But I didn't mean to get this board off topic. It just rubbed me wrong when the author talked shit about grimdark. I'm still not sure if the article is pro or con diversity.
the 40k/warhammer novels i have read are no way near grimdark to be called that. compared with the authors mentioned in the above posts they are tame affairs.
