Have We Reached A Saturation Point?

[Christopher]

Bryan, your take on Tolkien works if the assumption holds that there is no such thing as good and evil. However, that's a big assumption, even if only judged on fantasy genre content in general. Even the modern so-called realists (Martin, Abercrombie, etc) assume some sort of evil, if not good. For example, Martin makes it pretty clear that the behavior of someone like Joffrey Lannister is evil. Or, if that word is too extreme for the modern relativist perspective, then his behavior is reprehensible and worthy of death (which Martin seems to cheerfully carry out). Tinkering with the term evil and substituting another word for it is, for all intents and purposes, simply painting it over with a shade of gray...

Writing in shades of gray (like Paul just alluded to) doesn't necessarily mean there's no evil, I'd argue that it means one has acknowledged that evil has become more pervasive and more insidiously integrated into life.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

Bryan wrote: "Finally, there is an entire race of creatures who are straight-up evil (the Orcs), and who it is considered a patriotic duty of all right-thinking people to kill without mercy. This mentality exists in the real world as well, and is deeply problematic. "

hmm, IIRC, Orcs are not "natural" creatures. They are birthed via evil and torturous means. The making of Orcs require the rape, torture and death of Elves. In addition, any Orc found outside of their caves have been "raised" to destroy and have either taught or inherent evil actions. AFAIK Orcs cannot reproduce themselves - thus they are not a "race" and (for me, at least) removes the entire idea of racism.

[Wastrel]

It's hardly fair to say that Tolkien thinks that everyone is either good or evil. Indeed, opposing that view is one of the main themes of his books. The Silmarillion is all about people doing terrible, terrible things without actually being 'evil' people at all. Even in the Lord of the Rings, many of the antagonists are presented as fundamentally good people. Gollum, for instance, is a perfectly ordinary person to begin with, before obsession and paranoia come to dominate him - but we still see glimpses of that good person within him (the whole split personality thing later on). Denethor is noble and wise, but consumed by despair. Saruman, likewise, cannot see any way to save the world except by organising armies capable of matching Sauron's. On the other hand, we're also repeatedly warned that the 'good' characters would be 'bad' characters if their situations changed - the Ring is a mirror to this. Boromir is a good man, but the (perfectly good!) desire to defend his country and make his father proud leads him to act in an evil way. Gandalf, Elrond, and most of all Galadriel, are all portrayed as potential tyrannical forces of evil, if only they had that power.

If there's a message in Tolkien, it's that all power corrupts. [Or, I suppose, that any desire, no matter how good in itself, will turn the user to evil if they have enough power, unless they completely free themselves of pride]

I think you see Tolkien as 'optimistic', except in the most remote and theological way, you haven't read the Silmarillion recently...

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

Wastrel wrote: "I think you see Tolkien as 'optimistic', except in the most remote and theological way, you haven't read the Silmarillion recently..."

I agree with this. Plus The Children of Húrin. Oh, gosh. I own a copy but I can't bring myself to read it. I know it's heart-rending.

[Christopher]

Wastrel, excellent point about Tolkien's perspective on the corruption of power. Gollum is a profoundly touching example of that, portrayed in an intimate and individualistic way (without needing to paint a vast picture of armies and government and might a la Saruman's path to corruption). I think Tolkien's take on good and evil is also highly nuanced in terms of how he writes about how the individual chooses, right or wrong, and how that affects him and other people. All the hobbits are good examples of that, Gollum included.

[Benji]

Paul wrote: "Try the City and the City by China Mieville very good if you can get your head round it."

After reading book one of peridido street nation, I'd say I was blown away by mievile's imagination but the book fell short in so many other areas for me.

[Cas]

Shari Kay wrote: "Another thought...though these new gritty authors are popular...are they long standing? In the case of GoT...yes, we are reading the first few...but the more we lose the characters we care about......"

I stopped reading after the third book, too. I thought I was the only one! If you don't give me someone to connect with (or you kill them all off), there are just too many books out there with living, breathing, complex and inspiring characters that I can go and read.

This is the same reason why I couldn't even finish Perdido Street Station by Mieville. And we have other Mieville's sitting on the shelf, but I keep telling myself, if they are all gritty, all death, all dark and I don't care about anyone in the story (not to mention the bizarre insect sex), why would I spend my time reading it?

I think dark and gritty are buzzwords for the time, but as Shari Kay said, it remains to be seen if they will dominate the genre for years to come.

[Wastrel]

Nothing ever dominates the genre for years to come. That doesn't somehow invalidate the best of the current fad - just as the lack of Tolkienian fantasy today doesn't invalidate Tolkien. Things don't last forever.

[Will]

When we are looking for new reads though, we've got the same underlying problem. Tolkein spawned a host of imitators, who were largely held in check by the publishing houses. GRRM is doing the same, but self publishing has opened the gates to everyone to release their versions. And as i'm not a GRRM fan, that's frustrating

[Wastrel]

Why? Just don't read them if you don't like them. Shouldn't be that hard. I don't think I've ever even encountered more than one or two self-published fantasies, and those only when they'd been picked up by a regular publisher.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

Wastrel wrote: "Why? Just don't read them if you don't like them. Shouldn't be that hard. I don't think I've ever even encountered more than one or two self-published fantasies, and those only when they'd been pic..."

Quite often - in my experience - a lot of the current "gritty" books aren't actually labeled as such. I bought the Night Angel Trilogy because all my friends claimed it was "great!" and I like assassin characters. But when I got ready to read it, I discovered that it's considered grimdark, too. So it sits unread.

I also bought The Blade Itself prior to discovering GR (if it was even around then). No clue - even from the reviews I could locate - that this book and series would be depressingly grimdark with a little torture porn thrown in.

It's not quite as easy as "Just don't read them if you don't like them." There's the element of discovery and spending hard earned money as well.

One great way to make it easier would be warning labels but I know a lot of authors are offended by warning label requests.

[Wastrel]

My comment was more toward the "there's a flood of self-published fantasy and it's all grimdark" complaint.

Although I would think that, as a general rule, books about people who murder people for money are quite likely to be at least a little bit dark...

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

Wastrel wrote: "My comment was more toward the "there's a flood of self-published fantasy and it's all grimdark" complaint.

Although I would think that, as a general rule, books about people who murder people for..."

Ah, but there's dark but hopeful vs dark and depressing. :) A fine line, I know, but one that I tread regularly. My first assassin was Shadowspawn and I adored him. Shadowspawn is an assassin but he has a moral code.

I don't need rainbows, unicorns and butterflies but I need hope and no torture porn.

[mark]

wow, Shadowspawn. blast from the past! I think I got into two or three of the Thieves' World collections when I was much younger. I bought of a few of the spinoffs, including Shadowspawn, but didn't end up reading it after not enjoying another spinoff, Lythande.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

mark wrote: "wow, Shadowspawn. blast from the past! I think I got into two or three of the Thieves' World collections when I was much younger. I bought of a few of the spinoffs, including Shadowspawn, but didn'..."

:-D Loved the Thieves' World series. I read the majority of them including spin offs.

You know...I have a love-hate relationship with Lythande. I loved the gender bending - it was so different from the majority of the things that I had access to at the time. I felt that the "book" was less a book and more a set of short stories cobbled together for a bit of a money grab. IDK, some of the stories were cute but very few of them memorable or worth a re-read.

[mark]

yeah I also loved the gender bending. I think I just found the stories bland. but now I want to read Thieves' World all over again!

[Christopher]

Grimdark? I've never heard that term before. I'm assuming it refers to the gritty-realism movement in fantasy? If not, can someone enlighten me? Thanks.

[mark]

yep, that's what it refers to.

[Christopher]

Thanks.