# The Epic and shades of grey



## Chilari (Mar 20, 2013)

In recent fantasy, there has been a trend towards stories with complex political situations, shades of grey characters and plots focused on personal goals and personal growth. In a world where readers and writers increasingly acknowledge that things aren't all black and white, does the epic quest still have a place? Can the epic reconcile with the shades of grey approach, where the villain isn't evil, but rather just has a different perspective than the protagonist (and possibly a different moral outlook, but again, not _evil_)?

Can anyone suggest any recent novels which have an epic story with shades of grey? Is anyone writing one now? What challenges are involved, and where do the two different approaches ork well together?


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 20, 2013)

Look at Jaqueline Carey's _Banewreaker_ to see a traditional, Tolkieneque epic turned sideways with respect to morality and villains.

I think the epic quest can be reconciled with "shades of grey" morality, but I do think that there is something about the black/white, good/evil dichotomy that speaks innately to human beings. So while you see a lot of the "shades of grey" on the market, the works that tend to really resonate and gain a huge readership seem to be predominantly black/white - LotR, Potter, Narnia, and so on.

I suppose one challenge you have to overcome is that of pulling the reader in emotionally and allowing them the same vicarious thrill when the protagonists win. It's easier to get that investment when you've got one side that are clearly the good guys, struggling against evil, and the reader can become wholly invested in them and their ultimate triumph. With the shades of grey approach, the reader's own questions about conflicting morality can take some of that away.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 20, 2013)

Joe Abercrombie's writing is pretty epic, but deals with lots of gray characters.  A Song of Ice and Fire is about as epic as it gets and its filled with black, gray, white, and any other color under the sun type of character type you could imagine.   Oftentimes when gray characters are mentioned, it's often the evil side that people focus the most on.  A character like Tyrion Lannister is gray.  He does some pretty evil things, but is also has a good heart for certain kinds of people.  I think readers tend to focus more on his good side, because they like him.  I think gray characters being relatable in epic fantasy has to do with how likable the characters are.  If they're all sneering, soulless, mercenaries, then people may not care about them as much.  But if the sneering mercenary fights because he wants to pay off a ransom for his daughter, then maybe the reader empathizes with him more.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Mar 20, 2013)

I would say, absolutely yes, the epic quest still has a place.  If fact, the point of the whole journey of the epic quest can be to find the land of shades of grey.

We're working on a series that will eventually see the end of this Age of Man.  Is that epic?  We spend a lot of time looking at the natures of "good" and "evil."  The villian is the hero of their own story.  

Was Darth Vader evil?  Did he wake up in the morning and think "I'm evil?"  Does he kill a lot of people?  Yes.  Does that make him evil?  Did it make Harry Truman evil when he gave the "go" order to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  In this case, I think it's fair to look at motivation to define evil, and considering the over-arching story of Star Wars is the redemption of Anakin Skywalker, then no, probably not.

Was Smaug evil?  He was just acting according to his dragon nature.  Is the hurricane evil?  Most people would say no.

Was Sauron evil?  ...yeah, gonna have to come down on the side of yes, here, but he's a character who consciously and consistantly made the choice to be evil over and over.  As such, he's a bit one-faceted, and I don't think he'd really be believable in todays fantasy.  Evil for evil's sake just doesn't cut it anymore.

In our series, we have demons who are capable of loving, in their own fashion, and angels who commit atrocities in the name of the "greater good."  We have villians who end up sacrificing themselves for their children, and heroes who have commited unspeakable acts in their pasts who now seek redemption.  The universe is shaking the dice, preparing to roll it out with the end of the Age, and everyone is placing their bets on who comes out on top.  Is the ultimate goal of the epic quest the triumph of "good" over "evil?"  The question really does complicate things, but yes, I say it still has a place.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 20, 2013)

Depends on how you define "evil". Take Robert E. Lee of Civil War infamy for example. He fought for a cause he probably regarded as noble, but for him "noble" behavior would have included whipping enslaved African people fifty times and washing their wounds with brine if they tried to run away. I on the other hand would regard such behavior as evil. Absolute good and evil may not be useful concepts, but that doesn't mean a story can't have an unambiguous moral message.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 20, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> Depends on how you define "evil". Take Robert E. Lee of Civil War infamy for example. He fought for a cause he probably regarded as noble, but for him "noble" behavior would have included whipping enslaved African people fifty times and washing their wounds with brine if they tried to run away. I on the other hand would regard such behavior as evil. Absolute good and evil may not be useful concepts, but that doesn't mean a story can't have an unambiguous moral message.



Actually, Lee wrote quite clearly that he considered slavery a "moral and political evil." However, in those days States were viewed more akin to sovereign countries that had joined together under a common "federal" government and ceded some of their authority to it. People's loyalties lay with states in much the way people are loyal to countries. Lee fought for the south because Virginia joined the Confederacy. If Virginia had stayed with the north, Lee would have fought for the north.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 20, 2013)

In fact, it was not until after the war that the U.S. was fully viewed as a single country rather than a conglomerate of smaller ones. ...According to _National Treasure_, anyway.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 20, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> In fact, it was not until after the war that the U.S. was fully viewed as a single country rather than a conglomerate of smaller ones. ...According to _National Treasure_, anyway.



Yeah, and actually state sovereignty still exists, though not on the scale you'd expect as a country. But the Federal Government still has laws struck down when they don't fall within the "interstate" nature of its jurisdiction but are instead directed to wholly-intrastate activities.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 20, 2013)

Whatever he claimed in his rhetoric, the part about Lee owning slaves and punishing them that way is true. In fact I quoted the whips and brine part almost verbatim from one of his slaves' testimonies. But I mainly cited Lee as my example of culturally sanctioned evil because I didn't want to pick a certain over-cited German statesman.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 20, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> Whatever he claimed in his rhetoric, the part about Lee owning slaves and punishing them that way is true. In fact I quoted the whips and brine part almost verbatim from one of his slaves' testimonies. But I mainly cited Lee as my example of culturally sanctioned evil because I didn't want to pick a certain over-cited German statesman.



I think you've been misinformed, though if you have a reference to suggest I'll take a look. There is a published account of William Mack Lee, Rev., published by the man in the early 1900s, and it is completely at odds with what you've said. He was born on Lee's plantation in somewhere in the 1820s or 30s, though he says Lee freed everyone ten years or so before the civil war. He also stayed with Lee until Lee died. You can see parts of the book at the Univ. of North Carolina web site, here: Rev. William Mack Lee, b. 1835. History of the Life of Rev. Wm. Mack Lee, Body Servant of General Robert E. Lee ...

If you look at Lee's letters, you'll find accounts of problems he had with slaves (belonging to his father-in-law, I think, since I don't think he owned any outright, personally), and punishments he had inflicted by the sheriff at one point (whipping being typical), so there's certainly some of that going on, but the idea in your post that Lee would have considered this noble isn't supported by any evidence, and seems to me to be an exaggeration at best.


----------



## teacup (Mar 20, 2013)

I'm writing one now, the "bad guy" of the story is shown to be incredibly cruel and evil early on. Then, when you're given a more in depth look into his character and even some of his thoughts it's clear that he isn't exactly "evil" and has good reason for what he's doing, though most wouldn't justify it anyway.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 20, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I think you've been misinformed, though if you have a reference to suggest I'll take a look. There is a published account of William Mack Lee, Rev., published by the man in the early 1900s, and it is completely at odds with what you've said. He was born on Lee's plantation in somewhere in the 1820s or 30s, though he says Lee freed everyone ten years or so before the civil war. He also stayed with Lee until Lee died. You can see parts of the book at the Univ. of North Carolina web site, here: Rev. William Mack Lee, b. 1835. History of the Life of Rev. Wm. Mack Lee, Body Servant of General Robert E. Lee ...
> 
> If you look at Lee's letters, you'll find accounts of problems he had with slaves (belonging to his father-in-law, I think, since I don't think he owned any outright, personally), and punishments he had inflicted by the sheriff at one point (whipping being typical), so there's certainly some of that going on, but the idea in your post that Lee would have considered this noble isn't supported by any evidence, and seems to me to be an exaggeration at best.



I got it from here. Pay special attention to the eighth footnote.

*EDIT:* Wait a minute, William Mack Lee is your source?

*EDIT 2:* Never mind, the second source I cite seems to doubt both Mack Lee and Norris. The doubt shown toward's Norris's account doesn't really convince me though.

Look, I didn't mean to get into an argument about the Civil War. That's not even my area of expertise to be honest.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 20, 2013)

Does an epic even need an animate villain? The primary component seems to be the quest rather than the clash--the protagonist needs to go and bring back something, and faces trials along the way. Those trials may be foes, but they may also be against an event or a location rather than an embodied foe (say, a mountain that seems too high to climb.)


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 20, 2013)

Certainly the roots of the fantasy epic were a bit more grey. The Odyssey, for instance. Odysseus wasn't perfect or completely good (by Ancient Greek standards, at least). He had a bit of hubris, a classic Greek flaw, as demonstrated by his taunting of the Cyclops. He had a lot of different villains, but half of them were gods - all of which are mostly grey, and mostly a lighter shade - and the other half were monsters, arguably just driven by their nature. Not the _nicest _nature, but still.

I don't really see any reason a classic fantasy epic couldn't be more grey, either. Heck, from my perspective, it makes it all feel a little better. There's something uncomfortable about the inarguably good characters brutally murdering dozens of sentient beings simply because they are inarguably evil. At the very least, having a protagonist who isn't meant to be a paragon of virtue makes the whole business a bit more excusable from a moral perspective.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 20, 2013)

I think what someone brought up earlier about the most popular epics depicting good and evil battling against each other resonates the most with readers (Harry Potter, LOTR, etc.)  This is most likely due to their upbringing when children or students even.  When I was younger, any books I read had a clear hero and a clear villain.  Readers can more easily identify with these types of characters because it doesn't require them to think too deeply.  When readers just want to read something for fun (which I think a lot of people do with Harry Potter) they don't want to get into complicated morality and such.  They want to say "OK, Harry is the hero, Voldemort is the villain.  I expect Harry to destroy Voldemort.  Let's see how he does it."  If Harry was a gray character, who for instance obliterated Draco Malfoy in the one of the early books, people may have viewed him differently.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 21, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> I think what someone brought up earlier about the most popular epics depicting good and evil battling against each other resonates the most with readers (Harry Potter, LOTR, etc.)  This is most likely due to their upbringing when children or students even.  When I was younger, any books I read had a clear hero and a clear villain.  Readers can more easily identify with these types of characters because it doesn't require them to think too deeply.  When readers just want to read something for fun (which I think a lot of people do with Harry Potter) they don't want to get into complicated morality and such.  They want to say "OK, Harry is the hero, Voldemort is the villain.  I expect Harry to destroy Voldemort.  Let's see how he does it."  If Harry was a gray character, who for instance obliterated Draco Malfoy in the one of the early books, people may have viewed him differently.



I don't know. In one of the _really_ early drafts of my WIP, my main character was a kid around Harry's age who was attending a school for superheroes (it was a really weird first draft and i'm glad i scrapped most of it) and he totally thrashed and severely burned (literally burned, as in with magic fire) a half-giant kid who tried to bully him (like I said, weird draft). I thought it was quite heroic at the time.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 21, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> I think what someone brought up earlier about the most popular epics depicting good and evil battling against each other resonates the most with readers (Harry Potter, LOTR, etc.)  This is most likely due to their upbringing when children or students even.  When I was younger, any books I read had a clear hero and a clear villain.  Readers can more easily identify with these types of characters because it doesn't require them to think too deeply.  When readers just want to read something for fun (which I think a lot of people do with Harry Potter) they don't want to get into complicated morality and such.  They want to say "OK, Harry is the hero, Voldemort is the villain.  I expect Harry to destroy Voldemort.  Let's see how he does it."  If Harry was a gray character, who for instance obliterated Draco Malfoy in the one of the early books, people may have viewed him differently.



This is a very interesting point.

Up until this point in reading through this thread (after the diversion to explore arguments about the War of Northern Aggression), my thoughts were that writing "gray" characters are a part of making character more realistic.

This post made me question that assumption.

I think that "real" characters have flaws, but their motivations can still be pure.  Your hero may be a liar, but he can still choose to save the day because he's selfless.  Your villian can stop to save a puppy from being run over and still kill the hero just for sheer cussedness.

Thanks for bringing up this point.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 21, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> after the diversion to explore arguments about the War of Northern Aggression)



A rebel sympathizer are we? So where do you hide the white sheets, Mr. Crow?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 21, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> A rebel sympathizer are we? So where do you hide the white sheets, Mr. Crow?



Yeah, best not to get into that discussion.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 21, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Yeah, best not to get into that discussion.



Only kidding. I'm sure you have reasonable justifications for your opinions. But I'm sure you also understand why I can't share them.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 21, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Only kidding. I'm sure you have reasonable justifications for your opinions. But I'm sure you also understand why I can't share them.



Actually, I can't because I have not stated any opinions.  Therefore, it seems like it would be kinda hard for you to take any stance either way and hard for me to understand why you could possibly disagree since there's nothing for you to disagree with.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 21, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Actually, I can't because I have not stated any opinions.  Therefore, it seems like it would be kinda hard for you to take any stance either way and hard for me to understand why you could possibly disagree since there's nothing for you to disagree with.



Stated, no. Implied... arguable.

And while we're at epics, Tolkien's characters aren't nearly as flawless as people claim they are. I submit for your consideration: The Silmarillion.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 21, 2013)

I've heard it argued that the modern epic fantasy comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of Tolkien--later authors wrote about saving the world, and he wrote about magic inexorably passing away despite the fact that the world was saved. (I never made it out of the Shire, so I don't know.)


----------



## Zero Angel (Mar 21, 2013)

WotA goes on this path pretty early on. In Book 1, the elves are portrayed rather unsympathetically, but with Book 2 and beyond the characters get more complex and the kingdoms themselves aren't so black-and-white.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 21, 2013)

Hmm, I don't know, I think they're called 'shades of grey' for a reason. You can still have a villain and a hero, one side obviously morally superior to the other, without having them both have bits of white and black. Just have the hero be a lighter shade. It doesn't have to be neutral grey vs. neutral grey. But I suppose there are also two ways of looking at the scale, one as a gradient and one as a literal scale for weights. A gradient has a thousand options between black and white, whereas a scale really only has three: black, white, grey. With the scale, an evil character could have some small stones on the 'good' side of the scale but like a brick or two on the 'evil' side. Like, 'killing millions of people' will outweigh 'good father' and 'environmentalist'. The scale would still be as far down in the black as it can go despite there being stones in the white. Certainly with characters like Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort, they both have their 'grey' traits - Voldemort less so than Harry - but both would be undoubtedly good or evil with a scale whereas Harry, at least, might be a very pale shade of grey.

Semantic analogy arguments! The true meaning of writing.

But seriously, I didn't even really like simple 'good vs. evil' conflicts as a _kid_, let alone now.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 21, 2013)

"The best stories don't come from "good vs. bad" but "good vs. good."
- Leo Tolstoy


----------



## OGone (Mar 21, 2013)

I think it depends on your audience. A younger audience is going to be more partial towards characters which are morally black and white while a a more mature audience is going to want morally grey characters. I think your characters need to have diversity or they'll become uninteresting. I don't like when authors take it to the extreme though, this is probably just a personal choice. I find it hard to care for characters when they exist in a whole roster of morally grey characters and are a medium shade themselves...


I just got done finished with Mistborn. Very good example of morally grey characters written as epic fantasy while still maintaining a solid good vs. evil plot. A lot of the things Kelsier does (one of the two protagonists) are irrational and selfish yet he's still a good guy come the end of the novel. And the villain himself, the Lord Ruler, has his own reasons but I haven't discovered them yet as I haven't read the next two books.

I said this before but a character who is evil just for providing an antagonist is very rarely a good character. There are exceptions though, for example Carnage who's one of my favorite comic book villains. Comics are a little different to novels, though


----------



## Zero Angel (Mar 21, 2013)

I don't need gray. I was raised in a fantasy world and I'd like to go on living in it if I can. I don't mind seeing characters struggle with decisions and anti-heroes are always fun, but it is not a necessity to me.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 21, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> "The best stories don't come from "good vs. bad" but "good vs. good."
> - Leo Tolstoy



I have to disagree with Tolstoy. "Good vs. Good" just makes everyone involved look like an idiot. See: every unnecessary superhero vs. superhero fight ever.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 21, 2013)

Good vs. good does require either a misunderstanding (which I find boring as heck) or a conflict in which moral objectivity can't be applied. Where two opposite sides are equally valid. Which is pretty rare. But when it works, I love it.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 21, 2013)

There's a "realism" movement going through fantasy right now:  some people like it, some people don't.

I think what some of these writers that have grittier stories and characters are trying to show is that there is no good and no evil in the world.  Everyone is influenced by their background, culture, or environment.  That's how real humans form their morality.  

For an epic story that involves these type of characters, the endgame isn't as easy as "destroy the evil presence."  Because in an effort to be more realistic, human beings mostly don't function this way.  They want to know why they have to destroy the evil presence.  Who is the true evil presence?  Am I the true evil presence?  

An example:

Your main character is a mercenary.  He's seen his share of wars and fought for both sides.  As an analogy "he likes both Coke and Pepsi."  He doesn't care which side he's on.  He's brought into a conflict.  On one side, you have a very rich kingdom, they'll give the MC a lot of money, but he has to do some nasty things.  On the other side, you have the opposing kingdom, which is also very rich and he has to do some different nasty things.  So which side does he choose?  

Well, one side has held his wife captive, the other holds his son captive.  He has to choose which one he really wants to save.  Can he save both?  Can he only save one?  Will he choose to save one over the other?  Why?

These are morally complex questions that the average reader may not want to deal with.  They may just want "knight kills the dragon because it's evil."  It's easy to consume and doesn't require any further analysis.  The average reader likes books like this.  Is there anything wrong with that?  No, but that's why this "good vs. evil" theme keeps coming up in fantasy throughout the years.  It's ingrained in world culture, it's in their myths and legends.  It's easy to understand for the masses.


----------



## OGone (Mar 21, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> I have to disagree with Tolstoy. "Good vs. Good" just makes everyone involved look like an idiot. See: every unnecessary superhero vs. superhero fight ever.




I do disagree that Good vs. Good is_ always_ better but the Marvel Civil War storyline was pretty awesome and that is superhero vs. superhero. I didn't understand what you meant though, give an example of when superheroes thought unnecessarily?


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Mar 21, 2013)

I think a lot of people mistake "greyness" of character for depth of character. This mistake can lead some to think that a clear hero or a clear villain cannot have any depth of character, which is utterly untrue. 

It's just a lot easier to write when you have characters with obviously conflicted morals. Writing a more traditional story with more traditional character types is a lot more difficult, in my view.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 21, 2013)

I think you're both misinterpreting what Tolstoy's quote means.  It doesn't mean Iron Man vs. Thor, it means throughout history good people have fought good people in numerous wars.  Most people who fight in these wars are doing the deeds of others.


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Mar 21, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> There's a "realism" movement going through fantasy right now: some people like it, some people don't.



Not just fantasy, but all genres. And not just books, but all mediums of storytelling. 

Personally, I get a little upset when I have to go back in time to watch a movie or TV show or read a book that isn't following the current trend only because it's the current trend.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 21, 2013)

Sheriff Woody said:


> It's just a lot easier to write when you have characters with obviously conflicted morals. Writing a more traditional story with more traditional character types is a lot more difficult, in my view.


What do you mean by this?

I for one want clarity on what is considered "gray" in this thread. Having sympathetic characters with flaws isn't terribly revolutionary by itself. Would those be considered "gray"? When I read about grittiness in modern-day fantasy, I keep thinking moral ambiguity.


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Mar 21, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> What do you mean by this?



A grey character can sometimes act as either hero or villain in any given situation, which means their actions are often unpredictable. They can do something "good", they can do something "bad", they can do something that has both positive and negative effects. This often leads to a good deal of internal conflict within that character, and as we all know, conflict is the single most important element of storytelling. 

It's easier to get bored with a guy or gal who's always good or always bad. Moral ambiguity is just more dynamic. It's easier to make that interesting, because the situation in itself is inherently interesting.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 21, 2013)

OGone said:


> I do disagree that Good vs. Good is_ always_ better but the Marvel Civil War storyline was pretty awesome and that is superhero vs. superhero. I didn't understand what you meant though, give an example of when superheroes thought unnecessarily?



Remember the part in Avengers when Iron Man and Thor fight each other? I thought that was stupid. Not that the scene was stupid, the scene was awesome. But the characters were behaving like idiots. They were clearly on the same side, but were fighting each other anyway because of petty bull-headedness.


----------



## OGone (Mar 21, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> I think you're both misinterpreting what Tolstoy's quote means.  It doesn't mean Iron Man vs. Thor, it means throughout history good people have fought good people in numerous wars.  Most people who fight in these wars are doing the deeds of others.



I never misunderstood the quote but I assumed it was posted in relevance to the thread, where we're talking about fiction...


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 21, 2013)

Good v. Good can make for a very compelling plot. The fact that comic book writers can't pull it off doesn't have any substantive effect on my opinion.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 21, 2013)

OGone said:


> I never misunderstood the quote but I assumed it was posted in relevance to the thread, where we're talking about fiction...



Well, _War and Peace_ is a fictionalized account of a French and Russian conflict.  So that's still fiction.  

I agree with Steerpike.  Just because certain comic book writers can't pull off good vs. good doesn't mean it's not a feasible type of conflict.  Writers can do wonders with just about any kind of conflict if they're good writers.


----------



## Zero Angel (Mar 21, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> There's a "realism" movement going through fantasy right now:  some people like it, some people don't.
> 
> I think what some of these writers that have grittier stories and characters are trying to show is that there is no good and no evil in the world.  Everyone is influenced by their background, culture, or environment.  That's how real humans form their morality.
> 
> ...



I agree with the fact that there is a so-called "realism" trend, but it definitely seems that you are saying that this is a good trend and that it is inferior to not follow this. Am I misreading you?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 21, 2013)

Claiming that good vs good stories don't work because of stories involving superheroes isn't very all-encompassing. Although the quote is a bit off center from the morally grey characters under discussion, I mentioned it only to illustrate that there are other options that haven't yet reached popularity within our genre. 

Today's fantasy seems dominated by either good vs evil, grey vs grey, or a mix of the two. Reality should teach us that people with differing points of view, who could both be considered good, can come into serious & dramatic opposition.

If morally grey characters are seen as an evolution in fantasy writing, away from the pure good vs evil...wouldn't a next possible step be a fantasy story of good vs. good? It's at least something to consider without dismissing the idea outright. It's been very successful in many other genres.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 21, 2013)

I'm not saying it's a _bad_ trend.  I think anything that sheds light on different ways of storytelling is good.  We can't have stories told the same ways over and over again or else people get sick of them (see Hollywood remakes).  

My point was that good vs. evil is easier to understand for most people.  That doesn't make it inferior at all, I don't think.  When it comes to marketing and sales, you'd be hard pressed to find "gray" fantasy that outsells "good vs. evil" fantasy (with the exception of GRRM).  When it comes to storytelling, I think there are loads of great good vs. evil stories that I love.  But there are lot of gray ones I love too.  Basically, I love good stories.  

When I mention it's "easy to understand for the masses," I'm not saying that in a negative way.  I am part of the "masses."  I too like to sometimes read a nice good vs. evil plot.  But that's not all I want to read.

That said, I don't think one style of storytelling is better than the other.  Good vs. evil is probably just easier to understand and therefore may be more accessible to readers, while the influx of more realism in stories is an effort to give new perspectives and types of characters.


----------



## OGone (Mar 21, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> Well, _War and Peace_ is a fictionalized account of a French and Russian conflict.  So that's still fiction.
> 
> I agree with Steerpike.  Just because certain comic book writers can't pull off good vs. good doesn't mean it's not a feasible type of conflict.  Writers can do wonders with just about any kind of conflict if they're good writers.



Well you said Tolstoy was speaking about historical wars (I have no idea in which context he said the quote, so I'll take your word for it) but yes, I should've said "fantasy". Even in War and Peace (I'm not sure if Tolystoy's quote was referencing this novel but, again, I have no idea) it's wrote from a Russian perspective and I don't doubt the French are antagonized somewhat.

True "good vs. good" seems really difficult to write me, it all comes down to perspectives. Robin Hood wasn't really a good guy if you look at it. In the Matrix the machines are not good guys and neither is Neo and his pals for killing a bunch of security guards. I think to have true "good vs. good" you have to convert good characters into bad ones - Javert isn't really a good guy and Valijean wasn't always one but because the latter is now it... kind of makes sense? 

I'm really having trouble finding a true example of good vs. good, if somebody could point one out that'd be nice.

As for comic books, they're not really a valid reason to dismiss anything but superheroes are still fantasy so I think they are relevant.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 21, 2013)

OGone said:


> Well you said Tolstoy was speaking about historical wars (I have no idea in which context he said the quote, so I'll take your word for it) but yes, I should've said "fantasy". Even in War and Peace (I'm not sure if Tolystoy's quote was referencing this novel but, again, I have no idea) it's wrote from a Russian perspective and I don't doubt the French are antagonized somewhat.
> 
> True "good vs. good" seems really difficult to write me, it all comes down to perspectives. Robin Hood wasn't really a good guy if you look at it. In the Matrix the machines are not good guys and neither is Neo and his pals for killing a bunch of security guards. I think to have true "good vs. good" you have to convert good characters into bad ones - Javert isn't really a good guy and Valijean wasn't always one but because the latter is now it... kind of makes sense?
> 
> ...



Does _Ender's Game_ count? Both the humans and the aliens ultimately just want to protect themselves.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 21, 2013)

OGone said:


> As for comic books, they're not really a valid reason to dismiss anything but superheroes are still fantasy so I think they are relevant.


Yes, I'd agree. It's certainly relevant. It's also an extremely limited example of good vs. good.

Example of Good vs Good:

Les Miserables


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 21, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> Does Ender's Game count? Both the humans and the aliens ultimately just want to protect themselves.



Yes. I'd think so.


----------



## OGone (Mar 21, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Yes, I'd agree. It's certainly relevant. It's also an extremely limited example of good vs. good.
> 
> Example of Good vs Good:
> 
> Les Miserables



I did mention Les Miserables in my post but it's still historical, same as The Good Earth. Is there anything truly fantasy? Haven't read Ender's Game so can't comment, I'll check it out.

Edit: Just read the synopsis and yeah it seems to fit, it seems misinformation (of the races, not the reader) is the best way to write good vs. good? Although the IF commanders do seem the antagonists in the story because they manipulate Ender.

...and I kind of regret going on to read the full outline now because I just spoiled what sounds like a really good book for myself.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 21, 2013)

OGone said:


> I did mention Les Miserables in my post but it's still historical, same as The Good Earth. Is there anything truly fantasy? Haven't read Ender's Game so can't comment, I'll check it out.



That's kind of my point... I can't think of any fantasy where good versus good has been done. That doesn't mean it can't be done and done well. 

With good versus good, there can still be a backdrop of bad or evil things taking place...there can still be evil or grey characters in the story. Good vs. good is just another type of conflict where two good characters are pitted against one another for valid reasons. In a large character cast I think this would be quite interesting and leave the reader with an overall "morally grey" feeling.

Hmmm....maybe I'll develop that a bit for later use.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Mar 21, 2013)

Tolstoy wrote novels like Anna Karenina, which has no evil characters but plenty of good ones who have weaknesses that ultimately lead to tragedy.  I believe this is what Tolstoy was driving at with his quote, as opposed to Thor vs Iron Man or Kimble vs Gerard (the latter two being manipulated into conflict by the evil one-armed man).  

In Tolstoy's milieu, a transparently evil character would be a sign of weak writing and a failure to understand human beings, none of whom (other than psychopaths) wake up in the morning thinking, "I will be evil today."  Rather, in Tolstoy's world, good characters destroy each other by being true to "good" emotions like love, honor, propriety and societal or familial obligation.

To be fair, Tolstoy was not a fantasy/sci-fi author, a genre where transparently evil characters absolutely have their place.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 21, 2013)

I'm sure we've discussed this somewhere before, but what is a "transparently evil" character?  Does that mean someone who is not developed other than that "I'm evil."  I think the projection of good or evil has a lot to do with the author's attitude toward it.  If a character that is only seen burning villages and sending dragons to kill people, then the author is categorizing him as evil.  If perhaps we see _why_ this character is doing these things (i.e. revenge for villagers that killed his wife because they thought she was a witch) then the author may be wanting to interpret him as gray.

Going back to the point of the thread, truly gray characters can be presented as good or evil by their authors.  If there was a character who on the surface of the story is a hero (fights off goblins) but it's been hidden he killed another guy in a gambling disagreement, then even if the author is trying to portray him as good, the reader may portray him differently since the man killed someone for something that may not be considered a "great cause."  It's up to the author to give the reader a compelling character and up to the reader to decide what they think about that character.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Mar 21, 2013)

When I think transparently evil I think Sauron from LotR, the Wraith Lord from Sword of Shannara, the Wicked Witch of the West from Oz, or whoever Robert Jordan's Big Bad was from Wheel of Time (after 10+ books the name escapes me).  The primary purpose of the character is to be Evil and to give the Good heroes a clear, morally un-nuanced enemy to battle against.  They are essentially fantasy-world Hitlers, so clearly bad that there's no reason to go in-depth about them or try to understand their motivation in any meaningful way.  Indeed, I suppose the transparently evil Dark Overlord has become so commonplace that the term "Big Bad" was coined by Joss Whedon and others.

I may be wrong, but I was thinking the OP was actually asking for examples of Epic Quest fiction (as opposed to just epic fiction) in a time when the genre is pushing "shades of grey" and proper Big Bads aren't so much in demand.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 22, 2013)

Honestly I think this "new direction" fantasy is going in is only temporary. After all it's happened in other genres. Sci-Fi started out being all about the marvels of human progress, then it dipped into dystopia, and then it came out of the dystopia phase (I think?). Superhero stories have had a similar path, from the lighthearted Golden and Silver Ages to the deconstructions and anti-heroes of the 80s and 90s (Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, etc.), and then into the Modern Age with with a plethora of comics and adaptations that acknowledge the deconstructions but incorporate elements of the lighter, brighter versions as well. 

In short, it's the Construction-Deconstruction-Reconstruction cycle. I think that's what fantasy is going through right now. GRR Martin & company are deconstructing the genre, and when this period of development is finished, the reconstruction will kick in and you'll start seeing less "realistic" fantasy become more popular again.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 22, 2013)

I hope it just evens out.  I don't want "realistic" fantasy to go away any more than I want traditional good vs. evil fantasy to.  They all have their place.  Trends do come and go, but some elements of trends stick around if they're good.  I think GRRM is writing some of the best fiction out there and he's inspiring a whole new generation of writers the same way he was inspired by Jack Vance.  And the same way a lot of the early generation (or even now) were inspired by Tolkien, etc. etc.  

Perhaps less writers will be writing "realistic" fantasy in the future, but I hope it doesn't go away anytime soon, because some of the best writers going right now are doing this kind of fiction.  For me, this isn't a bad trend. For me, I hope, it's an addition to an already expansive fantasy genre the same way steampunk and sword and sorcery are.  Right now apparently the term "grimdark" has been coined by reviewers and critics (though I don't think the authors are embracing that title) that don't really get what it's about.  They see death, dark themes, gray characters, and they just say "Oh, this is just bloody fantasy with no soul to it or meaning."   Yet I think they have some kind of hang-ups as people do about horror.  From an outsider's perspective, horror is schlocky B-movies or bad ghost movies.  However, there are lots of awesome horror books and movies out there.    

Already there are writers like Peter V. Brett and Brandon Sanderson who I dare say are writing more traditional fantasy.  And I like a lot of their work the same as I like Martin, Abercrombie, Erikson, Bakker, and others.  

I like good fantasy books.  Period.  I don't really care if they're trendy, old, or whatever.  If they're good, I'll read them regardless of who else likes them.  I personally love Andrezj Sapkowski, but his name is rarely mentioned around here.  Why?  I don't know, but I like him, regardless if he's super popular or not.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 22, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> I hope it just evens out.  I don't want "realistic" fantasy to go away any more than I want traditional good vs. evil fantasy to.  They all have their place.  Trends do come and go, but some elements of trends stick around if they're good.  I think GRRM is writing some of the best fiction out there and he's inspiring a whole new generation of writers the same way he was inspired by Jack Vance.  And the same way a lot of the early generation (or even now) were inspired by Tolkien, etc. etc.
> 
> Perhaps less writers will be writing "realistic" fantasy in the future, but I hope it doesn't go away anytime soon, because some of the best writers going right now are doing this kind of fiction.  For me, this isn't a bad trend. For me, I hope, it's an addition to an already expansive fantasy genre the same way steampunk and sword and sorcery are.  Right now apparently the term "grimdark" has been coined by reviewers and critics (though I don't think the authors are embracing that title) that don't really get what it's about.  They see death, dark themes, gray characters, and they just say "Oh, this is just bloody fantasy with no soul to it or meaning."   Yet I think they have some kind of hang-ups as people do about horror.  From an outsider's perspective, horror is schlocky B-movies or bad ghost movies.  However, there are lots of awesome horror books and movies out there.
> 
> ...



I don't really think one type of fantasy will cause the other type to go extinct. I think it's more of a pendulum thing. Public opinion swings one way, and then it swings back the other way, ad infinitum.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 22, 2013)

Andrezj Sapkowski. <3

The dark fantasy trend, I think, is already fading. It might have another blip back up with _Game of Thrones_ being as popular as it is (though even that isn't as dark as some of the stuff from the late 90s/early 00s), but I think we're already moving towards the sort of fantasy that has its downs but ultimately ends well or at least in a bittersweet kind of way. I've been noticing a lot of stories that are about sort of ambiguously moral protagonists that are still generally light, like with pirates or thieves as protagonists. A lot fewer Thomas Covenants and a few more Robin Hoods. Maybe it's just what I'm reading, though. And I definitely think it is a pendulum - we might hit another spike of good vs. evil in ten years or so when my generation (the 'Harry Potter' generation) hit 30 or so and are publishing their own fantasy novels.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 22, 2013)

Ophiucha said:


> we might hit another spike of good vs. evil in ten years or so when my generation (the 'Harry Potter' generation) hit 30 or so and are publishing their own fantasy novels.



As a matter of fact, I'll be spearheading that. Or at least I would be if I'd stop procrastinating and getting distracted by worldbuilding and actually wrote the story. But if you think about it, once ASOIAF ends, it's going to leave a pretty big void, kinda like Harry Potter did. People are going to be looking for The Next Big Thing in Fantasy. The writer with just enough luck on his/her side to get the timing perfectly right is going to jump right into that slot, and as far as tone goes they'll probably be quite different from ASOIAF. Incidentally, ten years is roughly the amount of time it'll take GRR Martin to _finish_ ASOIAF according to some of his fans.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 22, 2013)

My hope, personally, is to see more adventure type stories in the spirit of sword and sorcery.  Some are using elements of that now, like Joe Abercrombie, Saladin Ahmed, Scott Lynch (not so much S&S, but reminds me of Fritz Lieber's Fafrd and Grey Mouser stuff for some reason) and others.  Sapkowski stories also have a sword and sorcery meets fairytale element to them as well, although Geralt can use magic, so he's on even playing ground with his enemies.  

There's a place for all types of fiction in fantasy.  I'm not sure the pendulum is swinging the other way yet.  I still notice a lot of writers with debut novels and getting their own series are still producing some darker fiction.


----------



## Zero Angel (Mar 22, 2013)

True or False and Why:
It's easier to stand out / make an impression by going dark.​
I'm thinking true just for shock value if nothing else.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 22, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> True or False and Why:It's easier to stand out / make an impression by going dark.​
> I'm thinking true just for shock value if nothing else.



Maybe. Except that once everyone starts going that way, you can stand out by writing a traditional or "light" fantasy.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 22, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> True or False and Why:
> It's easier to stand out / make an impression by going dark.​
> I'm thinking true just for shock value if nothing else.



False.  I think it's easier to stand out if you write good fiction.  There are so many people writing awesome fantasy right now, there's no reason to say one style is superior to the other.  There are good writers of dark fiction the same as there are good writers of good vs. evil fantasy, the same as there are bad in both camps.  Good writing always rises to the top and is carried by word of mouth, not marketing or promoting a certain style.  I'm not sure if you've read any of the authors I've quoted several times, but their writing is not for shock value.  Maybe some people write dark fiction for shock value, but the writers who are doing good stuff right now just happen to fall into this camp of "dark" writers.


----------



## Zero Angel (Mar 22, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> False.  I think it's easier to stand out if you write good fiction.  There are so many people writing awesome fantasy right now, there's no reason to say one style is superior to the other.  There are good writers of dark fiction the same as there are good writers of good vs. evil fantasy, the same as there are bad in both camps.  Good writing always rises to the top and is carried by word of mouth, not marketing or promoting a certain style.  I'm not sure if you've read any of the authors I've quoted several times, but their writing is not for shock value.  Maybe some people write dark fiction for shock value, but the writers who are doing good stuff right now just happen to fall into this camp of "dark" writers.



Well, in the hypothetical it would be the same person writing the dark or light story, so I'd say the writing is equal. I have a large backlog of fantasy I need to work through, but when you read synopses, most of the events are pretty shocking in "dark" fiction. 

Also, somehow we've progressed from talking about gray characters in epics to dark fantasy, not necessarily a 1-1 correspondence there.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 22, 2013)

Gray characters are often in darker stories though, so I think it's relevant to the discussion.  I think maybe what sparked the OP was a recent reading of Mark Lawrence's "Prince of Thorns" (Chilari can correct me if I'm wrong).  Mark Lawrence's writing and main character Jorg are pretty dark, probably the darkest out there right now, but Jorg may be considered gray in some circles, evil in others.  I don't think anyone would interpret him as good.  He's essentially going on a journey from what I understand of what I read so far.  So I think most gray characters inhabit pretty dark worlds with probably more characters who hinge on the evil side than the good side.


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Mar 22, 2013)

Speaking on the current trend, I think it's only a bad thing if *everyone* follows suit. When you have to go very far out of your way to find a new fantasy story that _isn't_ "gritty" and "realistic", something is wrong.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 22, 2013)

I don't think you have to go far out of your way.  There are still a lot of people writing what I would call traditional fantasy, in the sense that it's good vs. evil, epic in scale, lots of magic, etc.


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Mar 22, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> I don't think you have to go far out of your way.  There are still a lot of people writing what I would call traditional fantasy, in the sense that it's good vs. evil, epic in scale, lots of magic, etc.



Yes, they are out there, but you have to do some digging to find them because mostly all current praise is for the current trend. It's kind of annoying.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 22, 2013)

Some recommendations if you don't want "too dark" writing:

Brandon Sanderson
Peter V. Brett
Guy Gavriel Kay
Patrick Rothfuss
Jim Butcher
Terry Pratchett
Scott Lynch

There are others of course, but these are some good ones.  Some of these may have some dark themes, but they're not considered "dark and gritty" stories I don't think.  There may even be some gray characters as well.


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Mar 22, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> Some recommendations if you don't want "too dark" writing:
> 
> Brandon Sanderson
> Peter V. Brett
> ...



Thanks!

I know of all those writers, except Peter V. Brett. Not familiar with his work, but I'll check it out.


----------



## Chilari (Mar 23, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> Gray characters are often in darker stories though, so I think it's relevant to the discussion.  I think maybe what sparked the OP was a recent reading of Mark Lawrence's "Prince of Thorns" (Chilari can correct me if I'm wrong).  Mark Lawrence's writing and main character Jorg are pretty dark, probably the darkest out there right now, but Jorg may be considered gray in some circles, evil in others.  I don't think anyone would interpret him as good.  He's essentially going on a journey from what I understand of what I read so far.  So I think most gray characters inhabit pretty dark worlds with probably more characters who hinge on the evil side than the good side.



Sort of yes, that did inspire the topic. I think Prince of Thorns has got elements of both - there's certainly a lot of darkness, and it's more about power than morality, but in terms of what Jorg wants to achieve, there are elements there of the epic. Prince out for revenge, coming up against sorcerers and necromancers and encountering strange beings and a seer and the undead in more than one guise. Perhaps that's one way to consolidate both the epic and the more shades of grey side of things; but I would not object to seeing more "traditional" fantasy races - eleves, dragons and so on - in tales which also have shades of grey. But that borders on your new topic so I'll expand there if I can find both time and the right words.

But at the same time, no, Prince of Thorns wasn't at the top of my thoughts when I decided to create this thread. I was thinking more of my own WIP and recent works, which follow very personal conflicts, often internal. I have crafted a world which in many ways resembles our own, albeit with some degree of the supernatural in existence. Perhaps because of the way I've built it, heavily inspired by the ancient Mediterranean world, it doesn't natutrally lend itself to the epic - there's no dark lord, no evil threat to civilisation. I suppose I could create one within the context of the world, there's scope for it; maybe it's just the way I see things - I've studied a great many wars from the Greco-Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War to that which gave Rome control of mainland Greece, saw it defeat Carthage once and for all and heralded the beginning of the Empire, and there's always been at least two perspectives and I've never seen one where someone was entirely in the right and someone else was entirely in the wrong. As such I perhaps struggle with that side of the epic; thus I wanted to know if my own worldview and experiences are reconcilable with writing an epic, or at least something influenced by and incorporating elements from the epic.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 23, 2013)

Well, every epic war story I can think of that's set in the real world either involves fighting Nazis, or was written prior to _The Red Badge of Courage_ (which dealt a blow to "glorious" war stories that the genre still hasn't recovered from.) If you want to write an epic and you don't want to involve fantasy Nazis, you'll need to:

1): not write about war,

2): not base it on the real world (e.g. humans vs. vampires),

or 3): bring back the old "glorious war" stories like _The Four Feathers_.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 23, 2013)

The solution seems simple. Write about a group of mostly good protagonists facing a massive threat while also succumbing to their own weaknesses and temptations. 

OR, write about a group of mostly good and heroic protagonists who have to take out an unmistakably evil antagonist. The catch? In order to get at the Dark Lord, they have plow through his minion army, which is composed of mostly decent people who are only serving due to coercion or a sense of loyalty. (Maybe the Dark Lord's father was a great guy and they want to honor his memory?)


----------



## FatCat (Mar 23, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> The solution seems simple. Write about a group of mostly good protagonists facing a massive threat while also succumbing to their own weaknesses and temptations.



Walking Dead sounds like a good example.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 23, 2013)

And for the latter suggestion, _Winds of the Forelands_ involves a rebellion of magic-users, led by a would-be tyrant who really, really needs to be kept out of power. The catch is that magic-users are oppressed in this setting--those protagonists with magic are torn between loyalty to their fellows and hatred for the tyrant. (Then again, WotF isn't what I'd call epic fantasy.)


----------



## glutton (Mar 24, 2013)

I haven't read the whole thread, but don't think there's any reason a traditional epic quest would require the villain to be pure 'evil'. You can be truly wrong without being pure evil, I could definitely picture a great quest to take down a morally grey 'tyrant' mage who thinks he is just keeping order in the world, but uses cruel methods and is uber powerful.


----------



## glutton (Mar 24, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> In order to get at the Dark Lord, they have plow through his minion army, which is composed of mostly decent people



Yeah, this is a little similar to how in my main series, the heroine kills thousands of men in war, but understands that most of them aren't actually 'evil' and are just soldiers fighting for their countries which makes her feel guilty about killing them.

And yes the 'thousands' part is no typo.


----------



## Nihal (Mar 24, 2013)

glutton said:


> I haven't read the wrong thread, but don't think there's any reason a traditional epic quest would require the villain to be pure 'evil'. You can be truly wrong without being pure evil, I could definitely a great quest to take down a morally grey 'tyrant' mage who thinks he is just keeping order in the world, but uses cruel methods and is uber powerful.



^Exactly.

I really don't see why it can't be epic without relying on Good vs Evil. Fully evil characters seems kinda unrealistic, less interesting and immersive than a gray antagonist. Most "evil" people have reasons to commit seemingly cruel acts, they don't do it just because they're ooooh evil, but because they believe it's right. Either because the world needs it and just doesn't know, or because people wronged them and they "deserve" something in exchange... Many reasons, actually. You can learn a lot from watching real people going on their daily affairs.

I enjoy reading the classical Good vs Evil, that's not wrong with this format. Yet, I love gray tales too, they ring truer to my ears, engaging. And they can be definitively Epic.


----------

