Did Not Finish?

[Heather]

I tend to feel that Grimdark is all gritty taverns, torture, wenches, and gangs. I'd like to read something different. Or is that all Grimdark is?

[Chompa, Founding Father]

Heather, that's an interesting question. Those items are in Grimdark, but do not define it in my opinion. For me Grimdark is more about being gritty, violent, amoral and as the name implies, Grim and Dark.

So for me, it isn't the people, places or actions as much as the morality behind it and the fact that there are perceivable consequences to actions.

As for reading something different - I do it all the time. Mysteries, urban fantasy, regular fantasy, sci fi, historic fiction and once in a while even a non fiction book. If I read only Grimdark, I'd probably be feeling pretty miserable about life.

[Silvana]

Real, gritty, visceral, morally ambiguous and has grey characters as leads.

[Chris, kingtermite]

Silvana wrote: "Real, gritty, visceral, morally ambiguous and has grey characters as leads."
^^^^This is the primary litmus test for me. Morally ambiguous lead characters.

Honestly....in that regard, I think "grimdark" has really been around for a long, long time, but it never had a name (it's own genre) until relatively recently.

[Heather]

I really appreciate morally gray characters. I just don't see life as black and white! I guess that's why I tend to feel Grimdark as refreshing. I just don't think I have chosen well, in general, for Grimdark books.

[Chris, kingtermite]

Heather wrote: "I really appreciate morally gray characters. I just don't see life as black and white! I guess that's why I tend to feel Grimdark as refreshing. I just don't think I have chosen well, in general, f..."I really, really like the "idea", but to be honest, so far it's been a bit 'hit and miss' for me too.

It seems like a lot grimdark writers create a good character or two, but don't necessarily pull off the whole story as well for me.

Disclaimer: I'm typically a very picky reader (and tv/movie watcher). I'm very critical. A lot things that most people love, I tend to be pretty critical of. Example: I was not overly impressed with The First Law series everybody seems to love so much. I didn't dislike it, but it was "ok".

[Scott]

I think the problem some grimdark authors run into is that they tend to make everything grimdark. Without contrast it loses it's effect and simply becomes flavorless. I love GD but the authors who do it the best blend a sense of humor, color and some bright spots into the story. Prince of Thorns is about as dark as it gets but there's still some pretty good caustic humor built in. The First Law is awesome because of great banter and Glotka's brutal internal voice. Erickson blends compassion into all the brutality and has some likable characters.

[Levi]

Heather, I think the term we may be looking for is Postmodernism.

In the mid-20th century, Science Fiction was dominated by the Modernist movement, with its promises of ideologies, rationality, and progress. However, by the end of the century, we had seen disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, addiction epidemics, deepening income inequality, pollution, and a videotape of Rodney King being beaten nearly to death. Plato's philosopher kings hadn't fared much better than their predecessors, and everyone was wondering when they were going to get their flying cars.

So in the late 20th century, sci-fi swung heavily toward Postmodernism, with its skepticism of grand ideologies. There had always been some authors, like Philip K. Dick and Harlan Ellison, who had been writing postmodern sci-fi, but now a critical mass began to join them.

Fantasy, however, remained stuck in Wagnerian Romanticism, with a Tolkien-inspired template that was obsessed with pure-blooded heirs and prophecies of "chosen ones" who would defeat the Dark Lord and execute a righteous genocide upon the "evil races" who followed him. Or it would use the whimsical fairy tale template that also had its roots in Romanticism. Just as sci-fi had reacted to the 20th century with dreams of a fictional perfect future, fantasy reacted with dreams of a fictional perfect past.

It took the fantasy genre longer to get to Postmodernism than sci-fi did, and sci-fi took longer than modern literary fiction. Like with sci-fi, there had always been postmodern fantasy authors (we've seen many of those names rattled off in these forums), but it wasn't until the mid-2000s that there was a critical mass and popular demand. After Saddam Hussein was ousted and President George W. Bush stood in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner while the war was still being fought, the whole narrative of "topple the Dark Lord and everything will be right in the world again" that drove most epic fantasy series suddenly seemed to have a lot of holes in it.

Still, when Joe Abercrombie, Scott Lynch, and other newcomers joined GRRM, Glen Cook, and the rest, there was an uproar from some fans and critics about the violence (which had always been there), sex (also seems to have always been there), and moral ambiguity that was desecrating the legacy of J.R.R. Tolkien and Robert Jordan. I think it's the moral ambiguity and descriptions of consequences that really caused the uproar. The skepticism that is inherent in Postmodernism forces readers to question the grand narratives and ideologies that motivate the characters, and thus question the narratives and ideologies that motivate themselves. That can be uncomfortable for genre fans who are looking to escape into a self-validating adventure story. But without it, many other fans feel a lack of verisimilitude.

Luckily, as Chompa said, we can always read other stuff that's lighter or more uplifting to "cleanse the palate" when we need to. Or, just 'cause we want to! I know I do.

As for certain story elements, settings, and tropes being omnipresent in Grimdark... I think that it is not that all grimdark stories have those elements, but that stories with those elements are being called "grimdark". If we clarify our idea of what grimdark is to encompass more violent and skeptical postmodern fantasy, then there are many stories that embody what we are looking for without some of the stereotypical elements. I know that some folks don't like to blur the lines between their subgenres (it really makes shelving books a hassle), but there could be many modern fantasies and urban fantasies that are deserving of the proud "grimdark" moniker.

As an example, Lev Grossman's Magicians series is a great modern fantasy series that has a violent postmodern grimdark feel without the stereotypical Medieval trappings.

For a pre-modern epic fantasy that has the gritty realism and skepticism of postmodernism, but not the extreme pessimism of grimdark, check out Daniel Abraham's The Dagger and the Coin series.

[Heather]

Levi - what a detailed post! I have a literature degree (British) so I quite enjoyed your analysis. It is interesting to see the evolving of genres.

I think a great many people are linear in their thinking and thus Grimdark and dystopia really bothers them. I'm a big fan of the classic dystopia (Brave New World is my favorite book!) where we examine greater good vs individual freedom, among other things.

Perhaps those who enjoy typical fantasy are reading for escapism, whereas those who read Grimdark it's more about exploring ideas.

[Chompa, Founding Father]

Heather, I think what you mean to say is "People who read Grimdark are really, really smart."

[Heather]

I'm willing to say smarter...