# Why I Like The Dark Cloud



## Ankari (Sep 29, 2012)

I want to preface everything below with the obvious: we are all entitled to our unique tastes.

When I was a wee lad of 11, the first book I read was the _Xanth _novels by Piers Anthony.  Then came Robert Jordan's _The Wheel of Time Series._  It wasn't until I picked up ASOIF that I realized I was missing something: the contrast of darkness versus light.  Some people state that books like ASOIF, The Black Company, White-Luck Warrior and Aspect Emporer, Joe Abercrombie's Trilogy, and the Malazan Book of the Fallen are _too dark._  Characters are introduced only to have their necks bared for the sudden razor cut.  The view and tone of the world is dark, nihilistic, and too gritty.

My response is the poetically cliche "without dark, how do you recognize the light?"  I love the grit of the above worlds because you appreciate the happy moments, the light, the victories to a greater level _precisely because the world is dark and gritty._ 

What do you think?


----------



## Devor (Sep 29, 2012)

I dunno, maybe with Game of Thrones but Song of Ice and Fire gets pretty dark as the series continues.  It's hard to talk about appreciating the light when for so many characters it just isn't there.


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 29, 2012)

I personally am a fan of the types of novels you listed above.  I hope to not think of this as a trend and more of an indicator of future fiction in the genre.  Even though a lot of these novels are darker thematically and have gray characters, it's not just that, but I think it's easier to connect with the characters due to their realism.  Will the pendulum swing back to more light vs. dark type of fantasy?  Maybe, but for now I hope we continue to get all types of fantasy for those of us that enjoy variety.  

I think these type of novels do make the happy moments stand out more due to the darker tones.  These type of novels aren't all doom and gloom, so it's good to have more realistic characters and realistic events happening.  I tend to lean towards these type of stories whether they are fantasy or not.

Hope is sort of the "light" in some of these stories.  Even when things get progressively darker, the hope that it'll get better is what I think keeps people reading.


----------



## shangrila (Sep 29, 2012)

I just love the darkness. I find it more realistic, especially after being a history buff for a few years, but mostly I love it because it makes for more interesting characters.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 29, 2012)

Devor said:


> I dunno, maybe with Game of Thrones but Song of Ice and Fire gets pretty dark as the series continues.  It's hard to talk about appreciating the light when for so many characters it just isn't there.



You also have to appreciate the _underdog effect._  I'm constantly cheering for Jon Snow (my favorite character), Daenerys and Tyrion.


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 29, 2012)

I've found myself always rooting for Tyrion, but since seeing the TV show, I really like Sandor a lot.  I wish I cared about Daenerys more.  She's been through a lot and I am interested to see what happens next with her.  There is a point when as a reader you might say "Really?  Geez, give the poor woman a break!"  But I think that's why people like her and other characters.  That hope I mentioned before.


----------



## Kit (Sep 29, 2012)

If I want saccharine, I'll watch animated Disney movies.  I like the dark.


----------



## FireBird (Sep 29, 2012)

I absolutely love dark and gritty fantasy like ASoIaF because of the realism that comes with it. I love not knowing if the chapter I'm reading will be that character's last. When characters triumph or fail it just seems more real because the stakes are so damn high. I'm rarely ever thinking, "Well this character is in trouble but I know he will make it out ok."


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 29, 2012)

I like all of those you mentioned, Ankari.

But I'm happy to read a light, happy fantasy as well. I don't know why so many people say "I only like X or Y and not Z." This is just a general observation and not related to any specific person. I've found that any style and genre can be done well, light, dark, cynical, innocent, whatever. It's about whether or not it is a good book,


----------



## Agran Velion (Sep 29, 2012)

I love darker stuff. While I'm not willing to say that dark necessary equals realism (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy anyone?), I think that the vast majority of darker things does seem to be a bit more realistic. I think the key isn't necessarily the shade of the world, but the shade of the characters. For example in the first Harry Potter, the characters are kids in a magical world, everything is bright and colorful (even when going up against the evil character), but by the end, the main characters are older and have seen too much to be as happy and lighthearted as they were before. 

So, it might be important to have your characters realistic. Even in the Magical Land of Joy and Happiness where everything is made of gumdrops and chocolate, you can be realistic by having unicorn hunting be a good choice to someone down on his luck, or have a man with a happy family commit genocide on the Dryad forest in order to provide for his loved ones. 

Then the sugar elves can go to war with the rock candy dwarves over the rising taxes of the glucose king and the cupcake plains end up covered in transfat free blood.


----------



## shangrila (Sep 29, 2012)

I suppose. The only problem I find with "light" fantasy is that, to me, some of the emotions end up feeling shoe horned in. Like, the hero never really doubts his quest, or people fall instantly and deeply in love without any problems. Stuff like that sucks me out of the story.

But that's just me.


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 29, 2012)

I try to appreciate each story for what it is. Sometimes I want to watch the Princess Bride. Sometimes I want to watch the Last Unicorn (dark and melancholy long before it was hip to be like that). Sometimes I want to Game of Thrones. It all depends on what I'm in the mood for. I refuse to discount a story just because its subject matter or approach may contain darker elements so long as it's purpose is to tell a legitimate story truthfully. (Disclaimer: I do not like films/books where the purpose of the story is to shock and gross out eg. stuff like the Human Centipede movie.)

As an aspiring writer, I think it's to my advantage to read widely and give different styles and approaches a genuine shot at winning me over. At the very least, I think I should try to understand them at least a little even if I don't necessarily like them. I write fantasy and scifi but some the books I consider to have influenced me greatly aren't from that genre, they're contemporary novels. I gleaned tons from them that I apply to all my writing, light, dark, or gray. 

IMHO to limit the scope of what one reads is to limit ones knowledge. There's nothing wrong with that. Nobody can know everything, but as writers, the more you know and understand, especially about writing and all it's forms, the better off you are in your own writing.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Sep 29, 2012)

Jesu Otaku's entire review of _Madoka Magica_ is relevant here, but particularly one segment.



> Even one year after its release, _Madoka Magica_ has become a show of expectation . . . The first thing the uninitiated viewer is gonna hear about _Madoka_ from people who've seen it is that it's a ZOMG DARK SUBVERSION of magical girl anime . . . So is it true? Is _Madoka_ a ZOMG DARK SUBVERSION? Funny enough, according to the writer, no. Gen Urobuchi . . . claims he only intended to make an interesting, thought-provoking fantasy story set in an established genre, and was not trying to make any negative or subversive statement about magical girl anime . . . My response to the fans who advertise _Madoka_ solely as a ZOMG DARK SUBVERSION . . . is, um, so what? When you tell people that they should something because it's just like another thing but dark, you are appealing to a narrower band of interest than you might realize. It's kind of like saying it's just like another thing, but with robots, or it's just like another thing, but it's a musical . . . Dark subversion is not a measure of quality, it's an element or a gimmick like any other, and it can fail . . . The reason I'm going to tell people to see _Madoka_ goes back to Urobuchi's statement about his creation--because it's an interesting, thought-provoking, and incredibly well-written and well-executed story . . .



This is not a criticism of dark stories, as she goes on to examine the elements of tragedy and how _Madoka_ uses them brilliantly. It's just a word of caution.

(Personally, I'll read comedy or tragedy, as she defines them, so long as their protagonists are likeable. I'd rather not read happy stories in which the ending is earned without struggle, or sad stories in which there was never any possible win condition for the protagonists, and I also stop reading if I can't sympathize with the protagonist on any level.)


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 29, 2012)

I reject your poetically cliche metaphor. We measure darkness by lack of light, not the other way around. Being clean is normative. We don't appreciate being clean simply because we're not dirty, rather being dirty is a reviled state because it robs us of cleanliness.

To be more clear, your argument sounds dangerously similar to "until you've tasted evil, you won't know what good is!" Goodness is self sufficient, evil is parasitic. The yin-yang philosophy does not hold here.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 29, 2012)

If that's true Mindfire, then the problem of evil becomes all the more troublesome. Why allow evil to exist if there is in fact no necessity for it whatsoever?


----------



## Ankari (Sep 29, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I reject your poetically cliche metaphor. We measure darkness by lack of light, not the other way around. Being clean is normative. We don't appreciate being clean simply because we're not dirty, rather being dirty is a reviled state because it robs us of cleanliness.
> 
> To be more clear, your argument sounds dangerously similar to "until you've tasted evil, you won't know what good is!" Goodness is self sufficient, evil is parasitic. The yin-yang philosophy does not hold here.



And yet, we have major faiths telling us that all human kind is marred by sin.  Each book of these religions teach of what is good and what is evil.  (I don't want to delve into religion too much).

It is the same of human law.  We are told what is wrong and right, even though, under your assumption, we have a natural propensity towards light (as you state it).  Laws and divine scripture, by their existence, confirms that we (humans) are not guided by an internal light.

I'm going to step away from those hot button items and focus on colors.  If all the world was a certain shade of red, how would we know that this is the case?  If we had two colors, white and red, we know that one is the dominate color (red) and white is the _other._

Same for height.  If everyone stood five feet, would we know what short and tall is?  The moment someone grows to 6 feet, we know that person is the _other._  Once we have more occurrences of 6 feet tall people, we'll develop the word "tall."  

I don't believe in the Yin-Yang relationship.  I just believe in the ability to tell that white is white because black is black.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 29, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> If that's true Mindfire, then the problem of evil becomes all the more troublesome. Why allow evil to exist if there is in fact no necessity for it whatsoever?



Your comment confuses me. I'm not sure what point you're making.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 29, 2012)

Ankari said:


> And yet, we have major faiths telling us that all human kind is marred by sin.  Each book of these religions teach of what is good and what is evil.  (I don't want to delve into religion too much).
> 
> It is the same of human law.  We are told what is wrong and right, even though, under your assumption, we have a natural propensity towards light (as you state it).  Laws and divine scripture, by their existence, confirms that we (humans) are not guided by an internal light.
> 
> ...



I don't think you understood me. I don't subscribe to Rousseau or tabular rasa thinking. But I DO believe that good preexists evil and that evil is defined in opposition to it, not vice versa. To put it another way, good is the great cosmic standard. Evil is an aberration. A disease. We know something is evil because it is not good. Not the other way around. Study the genuine and the counterfeit will be obvious.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 29, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Your comment confuses me. I'm not sure what point you're making.



It is an age old philosophical problem.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 29, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> It is an age old philosophical problem.



You mean why a loving God would permit the existence of evil?


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 29, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> You mean why a loving God would permit the existence of evil?



Yes. One explanation you hear is that it is necessary to have evil if you want good.


----------



## FatCat (Sep 29, 2012)

I think the terms good and evil are so subjective they almost become irrelevent. One persons percieved 'evil' actions may be viewed as good, vice versa. To include the existence of one element it seems only natural that the other also be evident. I agree that without the two, neither can exist. I'd rather have a world where good exists along with evil than a world where you'd be unable to differentiate. The latter sounds too boring to contemplate.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 29, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Yes. One explanation you hear is that it is necessary to have evil if you want good.



I don't subscribe to that school of thought. I view it more as a process of vindication. A cosmic lawsuit trial if you will.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 29, 2012)

FatCat said:


> . I'd rather have a world where good exists along with evil than a world where you'd be unable to differentiate. The latter sounds too boring to contemplate.



It also suggests that such a world would lack free will.  Thus, much of our human nature is compromised.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 29, 2012)

FatCat I don't entirely agree. There are subjective elements of course, but not all of it and not enough to make the terms irrelevant.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 29, 2012)

Ankari said:


> It also suggests that such a world would lack free will.  Thus, much of our human nature is compromised.



I don't agree with the free will argument. You can have free will without evil and certainly with less evil.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 29, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> FatCat I don't entirely agree. There are subjective elements of course, but not all of it and not enough to make the terms irrelevant.



I think FatCat is suggesting the POV of an action determines if something is good or evil.  You can consider the age-old argument of a war.  A nation invades another nation can be perceived as a "good" act from the invading force's POV and an "evil" act from the invaded nation's POV.  I'm not talking about the military or the leadership, but rather the citizenry.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 29, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't agree with the free will argument. You can have free will without evil and certainly with less evil.



I made a suggestion, once, to have a *Philosophy and Symbolism Forum *for this exact kind of exchange.  First, I love this stuff.  Second, I don't get offended.

But to your point.  If I'm unable to choose to do evil, how is my free will not infringed upon?


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 29, 2012)

Ankari said:


> I think FatCat is suggesting the POV of an action determines if something is good or evil.  You can consider the age-old argument of a war.  A nation invades another nation can be perceived as a "good" act from the invading force's POV and an "evil" act from the invaded nation's POV.  I'm not talking about the military or the leadership, but rather the citizenry.



I don't disagree. But FatCat said the terms are so subjective as to be almost irrelevant. I don't agree with that.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 29, 2012)

Ankari said:


> I made a suggestion, once, to have a *Philosophy and Symbolism Forum *for this exact kind of exchange.  First, I love this stuff.  Second, I don't get offended.
> 
> But to your point.  If I'm unable to choose to do evil, how is my free will not infringed upon?



I don't get offended either. I didn't say unable. I think we can agree that you and I both have the ability to choose to murder. But we don't. That doesn't negate our free will. If the world was full of people who could choose evil but did not , you  still have free will.


----------



## FatCat (Sep 29, 2012)

Woa, this thread is hoppin! 

@Steerpike- I don't usually generalize, and yes there are instances where the terms can easily be applied, but in my opinion the vast majority of decisions in life all fall within a grey zone. Defining things as good and evil, in my mind, seems to be blanket statements and the irrelevence comes from that neither are wholly effective in describing almost anything.


----------



## Amanita (Sep 29, 2012)

I hope it’s okay if I return to the original topic. There is a thread on Good and Evil somewhere already I believe.  
I don’t necessarily mind dark stories but I don’t care for stories (or movies) which are only or mainly about creative forms of torture being inflicted upon the characters. Especially if the victims are helpless young women, which is still quite common for such stories.
Call it childish, but I’m also not fond of stories where the character I’m interested in dies because I like to follow him through the story. 

One of the main appeals fantasy holds for me is the fact, that one person or a small group can actually make a difference through their actions and change things for the better. Therefore, I don’t really care for nihilistic stories where the main characters only make everything worse, die etc. Maybe this is more realistic in many cases, but it’s still not what I want to read. If I want realistic depictions of the worst things humans do to each other, I can turn on the evening news or pick up a newspaper which both tend to offer almost exclusively the worse bits of news. 
The characters have to struggle and face problems, yes (but those don’t necessarily have to amount to torture and rape) but they should also achieve something and be in for something I can sympathize with.
I also don’t mind stories with no severe human-inflicted troubles at all if other things are interesting enough.


----------



## Devor (Sep 29, 2012)

Ankari said:


> I don't believe in the Yin-Yang relationship.  I just believe in the ability to tell that white is white because black is black.



Yin-Yang is a real Taoist philosophy about good and evil and opposites blending into one substance, so that the best philosophy of life becomes escaping both of them through the elimination of a personal will defined by those characteristics.  I'm not fond of the phrase being thrown about lightly.

I believe that all people have experiential knowledge of both good and evil, but not necessarily the rational ability to define and identify instances of them apart from what we can draw from those experiences.  One of the chief conclusions I think most people will draw is that good things take a lot of work to protect them, and I think that holds true for the good things about ourselves as people as well.

Apart from that, I don't have the time to get boggled into debating this time around, so this will be my only post on the thread about it.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Sep 29, 2012)

I do like dark, gritty stuff. The Black Company is one of my favorite fantasy books. That said, I recently wandered across this quote from Ursula K. LeGuin on tumblr:



> The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting. This is the treason of the artist: a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the terrible boredom of pain. If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em. If it hurts, repeat it. But to praise despair is to condemn delight, to embrace violence is to lose hold of everything else. We have almost lost hold; we can no longer describe happy man, nor make any celebration of joy.



And I really agree with this quote. Dark absolutely has a place in fiction, and an important one, but it does seem that it's become the "new cool" with people looking down their noses at anything that tries to even attempt at optimism, or hope, or possessing any kind of ideals. So yeah, I generally agree with Ankari, but I also keep the sentiment behind this quote in mind. Dark for dark's sake has nothing I want, and never will.


----------



## Shockley (Sep 29, 2012)

Devor said:


> Yin-Yang is a real Taoist philosophy about good and evil and opposites blending into one substance, so that the best philosophy of life becomes escaping both of them through the elimination of a personal will defined by those characteristics.  I'm not fond of the phrase being thrown about lightly.
> 
> I believe that all people have experiential knowledge of both good and evil, but not necessarily the rational ability to define and identify instances of them apart from what we can draw from those experiences.  One of the chief conclusions I think most people will draw is that good things take a lot of work to protect them, and I think that holds true for the good things about ourselves as people as well.
> 
> Apart from that, I don't have the time to get boggled into debating this time around, so this will be my only post on the thread about it.



 Good god, I love that you brought Taoism up in response to that comment - the debate up to that point is more-or-less a crash course in Taoist thought.

 To the debate: I'm indifferent to grittiness versus lightheartedness. A good story should have bits of both, and going too far in either direction removes the story from a more important goal - realism.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Sep 29, 2012)

Now that I think about it, I've heard lots and lots of light-hearted stories criticized as unrealistic, but the only dark story I've ever heard criticized as unrealistic is the backstory of _Warhammer 40K_. In other circumstances, darkness is just assumed to be the natural state of things.

Maybe this is because most of the people I discuss fiction with are jaded teenagers . . .


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 29, 2012)

Darkness has its place. But I think our culture has an unhealthy fascination with it. Evil is to be fought, not reveled in.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 29, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Darkness has its place. But I think our culture has an unhealthy fascination with it. Evil is to be fought, not reveled in.



But this is exactly why I love dark fantasy.  When a character survives all the death, abuse, and struggle of their plight, the are seen as victorious.  I celebrate _that_ moment when good triumphs in the face of all those obstacles.  

The difference between the traditional Good vs Evil is the face of evil.  With dark fantasy, evil resides in the hearts of men that look and act like the main characters.  With Good vs Evil, the evil is the _other race or power._  One that is not us, or not meant to resemble us.  It gives the reader a reassurance that our kind could never be _that evil._

I want to be reminded that there have been many instances where evil has resided in us, has occupied huge chunks of our history.  Yet, at the end of the day, we can overcome.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 29, 2012)

Too bad so much "dark fantasy" isn't about overcoming the evil within, but rather about how awesome gratuitous rape and murder is.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 29, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Too bad so much "dark fantasy" isn't about overcoming the evil within, but rather about how awesome gratuitous rape and murder is.



Never come across that, and I've read a lot of dark fantasy. Do you have an example?


----------



## Ankari (Sep 29, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Too bad so much "dark fantasy" isn't about overcoming the evil within, but rather about how awesome gratuitous rape and murder is.



None of the books I mentioned have gratuitous rape.  The Game of Thrones show blows up what is actually written in the ASOIF series.  Honestly, I was shocked at how much the writing staff put in the show. 

Murder?  I don't think murder is such a big deal.  Whether the hero dies defending a village from an orc hoard or in the back alley of a city, who cares?  As long as it lent to the development of the story.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 30, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Never come across that, and I've read a lot of dark fantasy. Do you have an example?





Ankari said:


> None of the books I mentioned have gratuitous rape.  The Game of Thrones show blows up what is actually written in the ASOIF series.  Honestly, I was shocked at how much the writing staff put in the show.
> 
> Murder?  I don't think murder is such a big deal.  Whether the hero dies defending a village from an orc hoard or in the back alley of a city, who cares?  As long as it lent to the development of the story.



Martin was going to be my example actually. His world just seems so bleak and there's so much rape... But I'm really just belaboring the point now I guess. Martin and similar styles just aren't for me. Introduce a cool fantasy element, and then never mention it again. If there's any character the reader might like, then they have to die. Things like that are just not my cup of tea. There's just no... hope.


----------



## Devor (Sep 30, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Martin was going to be my example actually. His world just seems so bleak and there's so much rape... But I'm really just belaboring the point now I guess. Martin and similar styles just aren't for me. Introduce a cool fantasy element, and then never mention it again. If there's any character the reader might like, then they have to die. Things like that are just not my cup of tea. There's just no... hope.



I find SoIaF too bleak - I'm enjoying them, but I wouldn't want to read this stuff by a weaker writer.  There really isn't that much rape in the books, though.  It's more about the death.

Sword of Truth, there was too much rape in that one.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 30, 2012)

Devor said:


> I find SoIaF too bleak - I'm enjoying them, but I wouldn't want to read this stuff by a weaker writer.  There really isn't that much rape in the books, though.  It's more about the death.
> 
> Sword of Truth, there was too much rape in that one.



Yeah I'm never going to touch anything by Terry Goodkind. I got enough objectivist preaching when i had to read Ayn Rand in high school.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 30, 2012)

I don't mind the objectivist content, his books just suck.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 30, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't mind the objectivist content, his books just suck.



lol

..................


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 30, 2012)

Whether fiction or nonfiction I'm happy to read books that present a world view or philosophy that differs from my own. But I won't read a bad book.


----------



## Devor (Sep 30, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Whether fiction or nonfiction I'm happy to read books that present a world view or philosophy that differs from my own. But I won't read a bad book.



For me, the quality standards are just much higher if it's too dark or I have issues with the book's themes.

I don't like it, though, when people talk about "dark" being realistic.  It's not any more realistic or unrealistic than a light and happy theme.  It's all part of life.  So that's not really the issue for me.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 30, 2012)

Yeah I agree on the realism. I find some writers drawn to dark stories because they think it is avante garde, or more serious, or more real. None of these things are necessarily true. The quote by Le Guin is on target.


----------



## shangrila (Oct 1, 2012)

I don't understand how anyone could find light and happy realistic. I mean, I like it as much as anyone else, but even a casual stroll through history will show that this world has been and, in many places, still is a really crappy place to live in. It's an unfortunate truth, but light and dark aren't perfectly balanced. The darkness far, far outweights the light.

Terry Pratchett says it best; "Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 1, 2012)

I don't agree, Shangrila. And based on my further attempt to read Pratchett just a month ago, I'm not inclined to take his advice. I'm not sure what people see in his books. In any event, that's one world view but not the only one. There's not much use in arguing over it, as people won't be swayed, but I know people who keep an optimistic, upbeat and light attitude through life, no matter what comes. I also know a few who have made it far into life without much misfortune. Further, there is nothing that says a novel has to depict the totality of circumstances in a life, and if the author chooses to focus on a light, happy, story, that's no difference then focusing on a dark, bleak one. Let's face it, most dark, gritty fantasy isn't very realistic to begin with, because it focuses on the dark to a degree far greater than what is encountered in ordinary life.


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 1, 2012)

shangrila said:


> I don't understand how anyone could find light and happy realistic. I mean, I like it as much as anyone else, but even a casual stroll through history will show that this world has been and, in many places, still is a really crappy place to live in. It's an unfortunate truth, but light and dark aren't perfectly balanced. The darkness far, far outweights the light.
> 
> Terry Pratchett says it best; "Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”



I don't agree with that. Good tends to triumph in the long run and evil is often self-destructive. But like Steerpike said, there's not much point arguing about it. The _*real*_ question is, I think, why should _fantasy_ aspire to "realism"?


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 1, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I don't agree with that. Good tends to triumph in the long run and evil is often self-destructive. Really, the only reason evil still exists is because humans are dumb. But like Steerpike said, there's not much point arguing about it. The _*real*_ question is, I think, why should _fantasy_ aspire to "realism"?



It certainly doesn't have to aspire to realism. In fact, there is a great deal of fiction, not just fantasy, that doesn't aspire to realism. Rather, it may develop and comment on a theme that has application to the human condition.


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 1, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> It certainly doesn't have to aspire to realism. In fact, there is a great deal of fiction, not just fantasy, that doesn't aspire to realism. Rather, it may develop and comment on a theme that has application to the human condition.



True, but I agree with that LeGuin quote from a page or so back. We seem to have gotten into this rut, this pattern of thinking that only dark, gritty deconstructions are interesting or relevant. But these things come in cycles I think. Eventually some less cynical stuff will resurge. This image illustrates the pattern as it's been seen in comic books pretty well.






I for one think fantasy's had enough deconstruction. It's time to start reconstruction now. As the TV Tropes page quote says, what's the point of taking something apart other than to figure out how it works and put it back together again better than before? Am I alone in this sentiment? Is further deconstruction desirable, or is it time to start putting things back together?


----------



## Christopher Wright (Oct 1, 2012)

I want both. I want both in existence at the same time, equally respected, sometimes even in the same story. I want a story that shows darkness and grit and also shows lightness, I want characters who are heroic, characters who have ideals, characters who are sweet but not saccharine, characters who accept a terrible purpose and struggle with the darkness that threatens to consume them, characters who choose the darkness and succumb to rage.

I want it all, damn it, and I'm not content to see just one or the other, and I'm not satisfied with arguments that say "it must be so" and only point to half of it. At the end, ultimately, I want the good guys to win. Those are my stories. But I also want to know that there are stories where the ending isn't quite as pat, and I want both stories to sit on the same shelf and I want readers to choose one or the other depending on what mood they're in, and not feel dirty or ashamed of the choice.

We don't really live in that world, which is why I think LeGuin's quote is so spot on.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 1, 2012)

I personally think what's attractive about these kind of stories is the characters.  Because the characters act like real people.  A real person isn't going to go slay a dragon just because it's "right."  They need to weigh the options and figure out how it benefits them or protects the people he or she cares about.  

Ned Stark for instance is a relatively complex character.  As far as "good" characters go, he's probably the most good in the whole series.   But even he has to make tough, questionable decisions.  He has to stand by and watch "evil" men and women do things without being able to do much about it.  As characters go, he's not "good" really, but he's not "evil" either.  And his flaws are what make him an interesting character.  

Take Frodo on the other hand.  He has his struggles throughout the story, but most pertain to him holding the ring.  In the grand scheme of things, I wouldn't call Frodo a "gray" character.  He doesn't really do much that's morally objectionable and he stands out as a traditional hero character in fantasy.  That said, he's still a good character, but a character from a different time.

I think the appeal of dark and gritty stories is that the world is dark and gritty at the moment.  Just like when grunge music became popular in the 90s, I think fantasy is going through its grunge period.  Will we go back to hair metal?  Probably not.  I'm interested to see if there is a fusion between high fantasy and this darker style in the future.  

I think so.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 1, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> A real person isn't going to go slay a dragon just because it's "right."



You don't think people like that exist in the world?

I do.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 1, 2012)

I think if they do exist, they're few and far between.  Average people would weigh options before they do anything like that.  Such as "Someone else will do it" or "I'll be late for work if I kill this dragon" or "That dragon's going to kill me, I better call for help."  I think people like reading about "heroes," but this tendency towards darker or grayer characters plays into the mood of some fantasy readers in general at the moment.  Not to say darker or grayer characters can't be heroes, as they can.   

I'll make a comparison to wrestling.  During the 80s Hulk Hogan was the paragon of virtue.  He did nothing wrong and was a role model for all kids.  All these characters were viewed as being sort of cartoonish, in that they didn't exhibit qualities of most normal people, therefore making them larger than life and interesting.  However, in the 90s, the birth of the anti-hero "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, showed that people were sort of sick of the typical one-dimensional characters.  Austin did whatever he had to do to get the job done, which sort of reflected on the current mood of the audience:  an audience that wanted grittier storylines and more realistic characters.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 1, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> I think if they do exist, they're few and far between.  Average people would weigh options before they do anything like that.



That may be, but of course that's who the stories get written about. If a dragon attacks and 999 people decide to run, hide, or do something else out of their own self-interest, and 1 person selflessly goes off to slay it, the 1 person is the guy you write the story about. At least, if you're writing that style of fantasy. 

In those "heroic" type stories, not everyone in the world acts heroically, but the heroes of the stories (MC, surrounding cast, or whoever, do).

Wrestling analogy aside, I think it is inaccurate the assume that these kinds of characters have to be one-dimensional. You can write a selfless, heroic character with depth


----------



## FatCat (Oct 1, 2012)

The main problem I have with the 'good-guy' characters is the simple fact that most of the time I'm not going to be surprised. I know that if they see something bad they are going to be proactive in helping the situation. I know that they are going to win, despite struggles that merely exemplify their moral correctness, because they will do what is right and they're perfect. It's just not that interesting for me, I'd rather read about a character who struggles with himself/herself over what they do, what they've done, and why they've done it. I don't want to read about a saint who floats through the plot as the epitome of righteousness.

As far as realism in fantasy goes, how many people world build and research the real world to come up with ideas for their own setting. Same thing should happen with characters; any research into human history will show that we as people are conflicted between doing what is right and doing what is easy, and the human condition, in my mind, shouldn't be simplified into generic black/white characters. All that being said, if a story is good, it's good, despite what opinions I have. I'm not going to knock a story with a virtuous character, but in general I like to see conflict, both in plot and in the characters own morality.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 1, 2012)

FatCat said:


> The main problem I have with the 'good-guy' characters is the simple fact that most of the time I'm not going to be surprised. I know that if they see something bad they are going to be proactive in helping the situation. I know that they are going to win, despite struggles that merely exemplify their moral correctness, because they will do what is right and they're perfect. It's just not that interesting for me, I'd rather read about a character who struggles with himself/herself over what they do, what they've done, and why they've done it. I don't want to read about a saint who floats through the plot as the epitome of righteousness.



I think FatCat encompasses my feeling more adequately here.  The "good guy's path" can be predictable at times in most stories of this type.  I think audiences may think, "I've already read this story."  However, it's really up to the writer to make anything work at the end of the day and not a specific style of writing.  If there was a flux of awesome heroic writing at the moment, I'd read it.  I just think the darker stuff is more captivating for me right now.  Next year I may be singing a different tune.  I want to read darkly comic stuff, but only so much of that exists in the fantasy genre.  So I try writing it myself.  

My wrestling analogy sort of makes that same point about the good guy's path.  Hulk Hogan always won, always got the bad guy in the end, and his matches were predictable.  I still loved him as a kid and he's still one of my favorites, but too much of that style of character can be overwhelming.  Sometimes safeness and predictability in a story can be good, but oftentimes it can lead to reader dissatisfaction. 

I do like heroic characters now and again.  And I agree that the 1 guy that fights the dragon and the 999 guys who don't fight it is where the story is...most of the time.  But what if we have a story where the 1 guy that fights the dragon is killed and then the main character is someone morally questionable (maybe a thief or convicted killer) that the town relies on to now kill the dragon?  I want to know what _that_ guy would do.  It's all really up to execution though.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Oct 1, 2012)

There's always the possibility of the darkly heroic (doing the "right thing" long after it's become obvious that this will only lead to horrible consequences), or the heroically dark (making people's lives better purely for self-gain.) Case in point, for both types: _Disgaea 3_, which I find myself recommending for the second time today.


----------



## Ankari (Oct 1, 2012)

FatCat raises an excellent point.  Take it a step further.  I don't mind the "good guy" character as long as the whole world isn't divided into *Us* (good guys) and *Other* (bad guys that do not physically resemble good guys, or bare some distinct physical marking indicting they are not from Us).  

Yes, you are going to have good guys.  Even if you take the stated parallel of using the real world to model a fictional one, you'll end up creating a bunch of "good guys."  But just like everything else, we know them as "good guys" because we have a baseline for comparison.  Introduce the same diversity in a fictional world.  Not only does it give the author a huge tool to create and sustain tension, it allows the reader, even those dead set on loving dark worlds, to overlook the bright spots, maybe even accept them.  Contrast does work both  ways


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 1, 2012)

Ankari said:


> I don't mind the "good guy" character as long as the whole world isn't divided into *Us* (good guys) and *Other* (bad guys that do not physically resemble good guys, or bare some distinct physical marking indicting they are not from Us).



There goes every alien or monster fiction ever.  I don't have a problem with the "others" being clearly or even physically demarcated from the good guys, or even with them being complete monsters with no redeeming characteristics. I'm thinking about introducing a society of tyrant lizards later on. Sometimes people are just bad (or bloodthirsty reptilian conquerors). The key is execution, making it believable.


----------



## shangrila (Oct 2, 2012)

I enjoy darker stories. I think I'll just leave it at that.


----------

