# becoming grim-dark



## ascanius (Jan 23, 2014)

So lately with all my world building, plot, characters etc I think I have created the  apex of all crapsack world world's.  Mostly it's my characters though.  Horrible and horrific things happen to them and not one gets justice for what the endure.  There is rape, torture, slavery, prostitution, war, violence, disease.  One of my male MC's goes through all of those but disease, others one or two but on  avarage three.  

I think my problem is how I create my characters.
I usually pluck them from the news.  My favorite character is   inspired by reading about a missing 7 year old girl. I decided I wanted to write a story about a person who survived the atrocities that is humanity and saves others from similar.  She is the type of person that if you ever meet her in real life you would show your pity, try not to stare, be very polite and hope you never have to talk to again.

Another character I got from reading about human trafficking and watching a documentary about a teenage prostitute who ended up killing a man.  The characters just seem to happen, I see our read something and bam a fully developed character pops in my head.   I go home and write it down and work on the little details on how it fits with everything else I have.  Doesn't seem to work with good news though, normal characters tend to be like trying to climb Everest on my hands and knees.

The thing is I like my characters, I like the idea of have the heroes being the people society forgets even exist.  The only thing is I worry it is too much.


----------



## buyjupiter (Jan 23, 2014)

I might set down a book if a writer puts rape/torture on the main set and focuses on it. I'm not saying don't write about those things...it's just a really delicate line between being authentic to the characters and having it seem like intimate authorial confession about their own desires (i.e. their own visions of their sex fantasies playing out). I've read the latter, but have had very few experiences reading authentic to character reactions to either of those scenarios. 

I think the key to writing any of the characters going through any of the items you listed above is to do a ton of research. Research into displaced persons/refugee camps for how war affects people (disease, cramped living quarters, lack of sanitation, limited supplies). Research/read about survivors of rape. Research how torture affects those being tortured and the ones who do the acts of torture (the scandals in the Middle East conflict of the last 10 years would be a good place to start maybe?).

The rest of it? I don't mind so much. However, there should be something that's positive throughout the whole piece. A silver lining, if you will. Yes, it's really really dark, but the MC still has their dog/cat/lucky rabbit, for example.

I would also recommend reading Joe Abercrombie's _Best Served Cold_ if you haven't already. That was dark and the MC was dark as hell. But, you also spent the majority of the book hoping that she triumphed, even if you don't agree with revenge or what she is doing.


----------



## Penpilot (Jan 23, 2014)

It depends. As long as it's not darkness for the sake of being dark, it doesn't matter. As long as you have a point to things happening and the way things are, then you're fine.

But if you're just putting the character through these hardships just because you can and there's not any strong reasoning for it, then it becomes akin to those torture porn movies that were in vogue a little while back.

I wrote a very dark story for a collage writing class once. It was dark for the sake of being dark and to surprise the reader and that was it's whole purpose for existing. I got taken aside by my instructor and we had a talk that took a while to sink in. Violence shouldn't be used in a story without good reason.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 23, 2014)

In my opinion, the key to writing about concepts like these doesn't hinge on the depiction of the events. Rather, it's how the characters respond to these happenings. That's where the story lies.  


I don't need to read about a teenager actively engaging in prostitution to understand the hard life they are living. I don't really need to see every detail of someone's torture. Sometimes strong hints and context can be more effective. It's how that character responds to the environment & other characters that makes the story.    

That doesn't mean you shouldn't be willing to write about the darker elements of humanity. Just make certain you're choosing to write, and describe, those things because they are necessary for the story.    

I've read battle scenes that were marvelous and extremely violent that served the story and its characters well. I've read gratuitous fighting that added nothing more than confusion. I've read books where major battles were completely skipped and it worked wonderfully. It worked because what happened during the battle was not as important as the events leading up to, and immediately after, the combat.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jan 23, 2014)

I posted _Eternal_ chapter by chapter, so I got to see when people stopped reading. The first chapter outlined decent characters in a dark world, with some reference to what they'd undergone, and it got a positive response. The second and third chapters contained depictions of sexual violence, and the story hemorrhaged viewers. However, the story's star rating only took a slight hit, and the comments left were largely positive--even people who couldn't stomach the violence appreciated that I warned for it. In addition, the folks who read through the violence were willing to keep reading when the story turned more optimistic. It's a sample size of one, but I think it at least demonstrates that grimdark can limit your audience whether or not it's well-written.

As for your case, what specifically worries me is the statement that they don't receive justice. Is there any way in which a reader can root for them, or are they so thoroughly doomed as to remove the possibility that they could succeed at something?


----------



## buyjupiter (Jan 23, 2014)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> In my opinion, the key to writing about concepts like these doesn't hinge on the depiction of events like these. Rather, it's how the characters respond to these happenings. That's where the story lies.



Along this line of reasoning, depression/anxiety is going to be one of the major after effects of any of the stuff you'll be handling. The best representation that I've seen of depression in recent memory is the Dr Who episode where the Doctor meets up with Vincent Van Gogh. It does go a little over the top and it gets a little maudlin, but on the worst days of dealing with depression Van Gogh's actions are realistic. (From personal experience, yes depression is dark and apathetic. But there are times where it feels like if only you could cry out all the sadness in the world, surely you would feel better afterwards.)

Like any emotions used in writing, however, this has to be tempered...otherwise you end up with Lucy Manette and Dickensian literature.


----------



## Malik (Jan 23, 2014)

One of my beta readers called my WIP "A Connecticut Yankee in Westeros." 

Write what you write. Grit happens.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jan 23, 2014)

Firstly, I have noticed people using the term grimdark more and more. From what I understand, it's not really a positive label. But perhaps since Joe Abercrombie took it as a badge of honor, it's becoming a more acceptable term? If that's the case, in some instances I might be considered a "grimdark" writer, although I believe my writing is pulling away from that. 

Yes, I have some bits of extreme violence, but the reason for this is because I believe if you have a character fighting demonic presences and monsters, there has to be some kind of violence. And that violence isn't always going to be, "And she cut the demon down." I prefer to be more graphic to convey a certain image. This doesn't mean splaying intestines in every scene, but it does mean I require to write a good amount of bloody scenes. The way I handle this is that I make these scenes more significant. Instead of having each pages blood-soaked in tragedy and horrible images, I try to have moments of peace so the action scenes don't wear out the reader.

So if your writing is just a slog through every single horrible thing that can happen to a person, then it might become tiresome for some. I believe that making your MC suffer in some way is key to having readers connect with him or her. This doesn't have to mean stabbing and beating him, but just keeping him out of reach of his goals. If his goal is to ask a pretty girl on a date, but he gets rejected that can be more devastating than having his eyeball ripped out for some readers. I think even the grimmest of writers balance their worlds between moments of peace and ones of darkness. You just have to let the reader up for air now and again.

However, that said, I think if having your character suffer substantially through the whole novel is working for you, then by all means continue. But I assume since you posted this thread you feel like it may not be the best decision or your questioning it in any case.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 23, 2014)

I thought the term came from Warhammer. So I consider it a positive, because Warhammer


----------



## Jabrosky (Jan 23, 2014)

I don't think of myself as a "grim-dark" fan, but I have a soft spot for bittersweet endings. Maybe they don't count as grim, but they're not all that cheerful either. I guess that puts me in the middle of the spectrum.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jan 23, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I thought the term came from Warhammer. So I consider it a positive, because Warhammer



It came from Warhammer, but it was a phrase used to criticize the darker fiction that was coming out. There are dozens of articles about the topic, most in which grimdark is used as a critical phrase. However, I do think it's taken on a more positive meaning for people that like it, while it still has a more negative meaning for people who don't.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jan 24, 2014)

Phil the Drill said:


> It came from Warhammer, but it was a phrase used to criticize the darker fiction that was coming out. There are dozens of articles about the topic, most in which grimdark is used as a critical phrase. However, I do think it's taken on a more positive meaning for people that like it, while it still has a more negative meaning for people who don't.



I don't know much about Warhammer Fantasy, but it's a noted trend in Warhammer 40K that the game fluff (which is essentially optional to the gameplay) is much more grimdark than the novels (in which you're expected to actually care about the characters.) Furthermore, the most popular Warhammer 40K novels tend to be the least grim of the lot (like the tongue-in-cheek Ciaphas Cain series, or the actiony Gaunt's Ghosts series.)


----------



## ascanius (Jan 24, 2014)

Feo Takahari said:


> I posted _Eternal_ chapter by chapter, so I got to see when people stopped reading. The first chapter outlined decent characters in a dark world, with some reference to what they'd undergone, and it got a positive response. The second and third chapters contained depictions of sexual violence, and the story hemorrhaged viewers. However, the story's star rating only took a slight hit, and the comments left were largely positive--even people who couldn't stomach the violence appreciated that I warned for it. In addition, the folks who read through the violence were willing to keep reading when the story turned more optimistic. It's a sample size of one, but I think it at least demonstrates that grimdark can limit your audience whether or not it's well-written.
> 
> As for your case, what specifically worries me is the statement that they don't receive justice. Is there any way in which a reader can root for them, or are they so thoroughly doomed as to remove the possibility that they could succeed at something?



I mean justice in the sense of justice against their perpetrators.  Case in point, my favorite MC happens upon a funeral in the street, she discovers that the man who died peacefully in his sleep with family and friends around was the same man who kidnapped, imprisoned, mutilated, and raped her for six years when she was a child.  He is the one responsible for how F'd up she is currently.  FYI, The reader never knows exactly what happens.  They learn through nightmares that something happened (vague and larger than life) that left her scarred, with trust and other issues.  I'm just leaving hits that something happened, the reader never knows what.  However for the other characters the reader will know.  I think this is the thing that's been bugging me the most is there is no justice.  The character above is the one who comes closest to it, hell she at least gets closure the others don't.  There is no hero seeking revenge for him/herself or loved ones and slaying the evil villain at the end of the day.  This is the thing that I'm struggling to come to grips with and also the thing that makes everything else so dark, it's not like my characters are out there fighting for social change either.  

Don't get me wrong they each have their own hopes and dreams that they try to accomplish.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 25, 2014)

Hi,

A couple of things occur to me. 

First there is a point at which I and a lot of other readers will walk away - if not run. For me the Gap series - Stephen Donaldson -was that point. After reading the first book and the first part of the second I realised that there was simply no point. As a reader I want to empathise with the characters. I want to root for them. I want them to do well. And in the Gap series I realised that there was no recovery possible for the characters. Even had they killed all the baddies, saved the universe, found true love, been lauded as heroes, made ludicrously rich etc etc, with that sort of background I would prefer to be dead in their shoes.

Second you say there is no justice. Justice isn't necessary, but some sort of upside is. A triumph over the bad that has beset them. A chance of hope etc. Consider that I could write a story about a wrongfully convicted man in the middle ages who was convicted, and sent to a torturer's prison hole where he spent the next five years being whipped and tortured before finally being hung, drawn and quartered. But who the hell would want to read it? Even the Count of Monte Christo escaped after twenty one years. And Braveheart died well but his name and dreams lived on. 

You have to give the reader something.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 25, 2014)

Aw, I liked the Gap series


----------



## psychotick (Jan 25, 2014)

Hi,

I have a colleague who liked it as well. He suffers from severe clinical depression. Just saying.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 25, 2014)

I don't think I'd like that kind of thing if I had depression. But I don't mind books where characters are unlikable. Look at Nabokov's "Lolita," for example. Brilliant book, but you can't like the protagonist.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jan 25, 2014)

Grim-dark will totally put me off as a reader. I've tried a few things on the grim-dark side and swore never again. 

But EVERYTHING you could possibly write will attract certain readers and repel others. There are lots of things besides grim-dark that I don't want to read. I don't, as a rule, want to read urban fantasy or historical fantasy or a fantasy romance. (Though admittedly, I will read any of those things if they seem interesting enough, grim-dark is the only one I'm against on principle.) You can't write a book for everyone. You write a book for the people who WILL like it, not the people who won't.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jan 25, 2014)

It's actually kind of hard to say who is grimdark anyway since it's not really an established sub-genre that most authors own up to. As far as I know, Joe Abercrombie is the only one that does, but he does it in a kind of tongue-in-cheek way. I'm not sure there are lots of writers who say "I write grimdark." Maybe I'm wrong and this is becoming a thing.

Basically it just means stories with dark subject matter in them. Many people die (like real life), people backstab each other (like real life), bad things happen (like real life) and some characters have a grim outlook on life (like real life.) One thing that might work against it in the fantasy genre is that some people come to it for escapism. If they face an onslaught of misery and despair at every turn, then they may want to go back to reality where things are a bit more balance. Even work by Abercrombie, Mark Lawrence, Richard K. Morgan and others aren't dark _all _of the time. I've actually yet to come across a perceived grimdark book that I couldn't stomach. This coming from someone who has read horror writers like Jack Ketchum and Edward Lee. You want to really go grim, go read them. I'd never read stories that made me feel physically drained afterwards (in a good way), but they managed to do it. Those guys make grimdark look like stories about happy unicorns.


----------



## AnneL (Jan 25, 2014)

I think there's a difference between violence and gore. I won't easily read gore. I will read violence, provided that it is an integral part of the story and not thrown in for shock value. Rape is a particularly problematic issue and any graphic description of a rape is likely to be interpreted as misogynistic. A lot of women readers I know are tired of having every heroine in danger of rape at some point in the book; others argue that women *are* in frequent danger of rape, not just in fantasy-type eras but now. The line between depicting something realistically and appearing to endorse or support it is really thin when it comes to rape (and by extension, violence against women).

There are "mainstream" writers who write pretty dark stuff, I would recommend reading some of them. My 2 favorite books at the moment to recommend along these lines are Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian and William Faulkner's Sanctuary. Both get away with writing really horrific, appalling stuff because the language and characterizations are so strong. Toni Morrison's Beloved is pretty brutal and dark in places too, but it's really an amazing book.

Oh, and Flannery O'Connor too.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jan 25, 2014)

AnneL said:


> The line between depicting something realistically and appearing to endorse or support it is really thin when it comes to rape (and by extension, violence against women).



This could be grounds for a separate thread, but isn't it better than the alternative? I read a lot of Japanese stuff, so I've read _way_ too many stories that present something that's obviously rape, but soften and excuse it, even having the victim start to enjoy it halfway through. I'd much rather read a story where rape is presented as something horrific (and that's how I tried to portray it in _Eternal_.)

Actually, maybe this is related to this thread after all. Wouldn't you rather read a war story like _The Forever War_, where war actually feels violent, than one where it feels like a great big game? Or if a story involves drug abuse, isn't it better to be frank about the cycle of addiction? I don't know where the line is between dark and grimdark, but for some subject matter, going dark just means following through and being frank about the elements you've introduced.

Edit: With that said, I should concede that there are times when portraying something feels like endorsing it. I'm not sure how many people here have read _Fifty Shades of Grey_, but the male lead rapes the female lead--and I don't mean anime rape, I mean actual graphic rape. It's still presented as a romance story afterwards.


----------



## kayd_mon (Jan 25, 2014)

50 Shades really can't be taken seriously. 

But when it comes to the "darker" things like rape, I am just not entertained by that as a reader. If the story has too much of it, or even approaches the line of glorification, then I might consider something else to read. I read to enjoy it, and I don't enjoy rape stories. To each his/her own. I can do without unnecessary shock value, which I would expect is a major reason an author might choose to write a bunch of rape scenes. 

But to clarify, there is a line, and it depends on the situation or context. Can the concept of rape be in a story and it still be good? Sure. Will I read a story centered on rape. Most likely not.


----------



## SineNomine (Jan 26, 2014)

Phil the Drill said:


> It's actually kind of hard to say who is grimdark anyway since it's not really an established sub-genre that most authors own up to. As far as I know, Joe Abercrombie is the only one that does, but he does it in a kind of tongue-in-cheek way. I'm not sure there are lots of writers who say "I write grimdark." Maybe I'm wrong and this is becoming a thing.
> 
> Basically it just means stories with dark subject matter in them. Many people die (like real life), people backstab each other (like real life), bad things happen (like real life) and some characters have a grim outlook on life (like real life.)



This does touch on how I would define grimdark as a sub-genre as it were.  It isn't really violence or gore per se, it's a total package outlook of the world.  Grimdark stories are notorious and defined by having a crapsack world with very little to no redeeming features.  There are no good people, there are no altruistic actions.  There is only miserable people doing miserable things to each other with the protagonists SLIGHTLY less awful than the antagonists, and they suffer all the more for that tiny bit less awfulness that they have.

I'd argue that it is no more realistic than a world where the good guys are all perfectly altruistic and perfect, but to each their own.

Still, you have to hit pretty much all those notes to truly be grimdark though.  In that way it does suffer as a description because it is entirely subjective how much dark is grimdark.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jan 26, 2014)

> I'd argue that it is no more realistic than a world where the good guys are all perfectly altruistic and perfect, but to each their own.



This is a good point. Of course our own world isn't miserable only. Sure, it has its miserable parts, but it has its bright parts also. 

One writer considered sort of the "grimdark guy" would be Joe Abercrombie, but honestly his novels don't really give me that feeling. I mean his characters aren't all miserable jerks killing other miserable jerks. In fact, the torturer Glotka is one of the more multi-layered characters in the series. The Northmen seem grim on the surface, but they're like any other "barbarous" group with a strong feeling of kinship and honor (in some circles anyway). This idea that grimdark is just writing that has extreme forms of violence and depressed people scraping by in life is a little overplayed in my opinion. To me, people who hated A Game of Thrones for instance seem to not be able to look past the extreme subject matter to instead see some of the richest characters in all of fantasy. It's this same kind of prejudice that I think non-fantasy fans have when they say "oh, fantasy is all about wizards and elves, I hate that crap." Well, no, it's more than that obviously. 

I would be interested to see an author try an almost completely positive fantasy world full of happy people trying to out-happy each other. With no sense of parody whatsoever, that could be quite an experiment.


----------



## Graylorne (Jan 26, 2014)

> To me, people who hated A Game of Thrones for instance seem to not be able to look past the extreme subject matter to instead see some of the richest characters in all of fantasy. It's this same kind of prejudice that I think non-fantasy fans have when they say "oh, fantasy is all about wizards and elves, I hate that crap." Well, no, it's more than that obviously.



Why always those sweeping statements? 

I don't like Game of Thrones. The characters can be as rich as you say but to me they're all ready for the madhouse. I don't like their behavior, their world and the mood of the books. I don't want to read it. What's prejudiced about that?


----------



## Philip Overby (Jan 26, 2014)

I just get the sense that the reason a lot of people quit the books is because they are turned off by this kind of behavior early on, is all I'm saying. The series isn't a complete slog through horrible people doing horrible things. I don't mean to overgeneralize, but I see a lot of people focus on the darker aspects of the books as the key reasons they don't like them. I don't know,they're just not that terribly dark to me. This is coming from someone with a horror background early on though, so maybe I have a higher tolerance for these kind of things. 

To me, Sansa, Tyrion, Dany and Arya have some of the most interesting character arcs in the series, but people don't get that far to see them. I don't expect everyone to like the same kind of characters and stories obviously. I've heard people say they don't like Lord of the Rings because it's boring to them, but I imagine they're missing out on what other readers see.

This idea of grimdark seems to have been derived from people who prefer classic fantasy. It was meant to be a way to denigrate this kind of fiction, but it sort of backfired and some of the perceived grimdark authors have embraced it. 

Anyway, Abercrombie wrote a post about this a while back which I think highlights why he writes the way he does. http://www.joeabercrombie.com/2013/02/25/the-value-of-grit/ Maybe worth a look to address the OP.


----------



## Graylorne (Jan 26, 2014)

With a horror background, you not only have a higher tolerance, you like this stuff  

I don't. To me, those books are dark, those people are twisted, and there is so much horror in the real world that I refuse to read fictional horror as well. 
That makes it logical I quit after the first few chapters. After all, that's what we discuss often enough. You've got to catch the reader from the beginning, or lose them. That's not prejudice, it's a normal human reaction.


----------



## Chessie (Jan 26, 2014)

^^That's exactly how I view it, as well. I'm a big softy. 

I like Joe Abercrombie's work (except his sex scenes are more than I care to read about). There's a lot I will tolerate in stories if the reading is good, but part of the reason why I don't like GOT is because I thought the first book was boring. I do think it was pretty dark compared to most fantasy I've read. I enjoy all kinds of fantasy but GOT was too intense for me. I'm not looking for that when I read fantasy...or at all, really. I don't see how I'm missing out on anything or how that's prejudice. I like the idea of Grimdark but I'm one of those readers that prefers less needless violence. The reason why I like Abercrombie so much is because his stories seem balanced in this regard...and no rape scenes. I seriously hate rape scenes.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jan 26, 2014)

Phil the Drill said:


> I would be interested to see an author try an almost completely positive fantasy world full of happy people trying to out-happy each other. With no sense of parody whatsoever, that could be quite an experiment.



While it's not a work of fantasy, I think Rose is Rose defines the limits of happy fiction. There are recognizable conflicts, but they're always quickly resolved. The characters face no serious life issues, and the closest thing to a "bad" character would be considered at worst mildly selfish in any other setting. Yet it still has the ability to make fun of its characters' foibles and weaknesses, and every once in a while, it even has something to say.

(I'm not sure what would define the limits of unhappy fiction. Sine Mora, perhaps?)



Phil the Drill said:


> I just get the sense that the reason a lot of people quit the books is because they are turned off by this kind of behavior early on, is all I'm saying. The series isn't a complete slog through horrible people doing horrible things. I don't mean to overgeneralize, but I see a lot of people focus on the darker aspects of the books as the key reasons they don't like them. I don't know,they're just not that terribly dark to me.



Keep in mind that the books have been overhyped as tremendously dark and gritty by people who think dark and gritty are what make stories good. It follows that people who haven't read the books, but have talked to people who say they're really dark and gritty, assume they must be really dark and gritty. The same thing happened to _Madoka Magica_--it's ultimately an idealistic celebration of its genre, but it has some dark aspects, so people started talking about how relentlessly dark and subversive it was, and other people started thinking it must be really dark and subversive.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jan 26, 2014)

Yeah, I try not to ever use absolutes or sweeping generalizations, so sorry for that. It's just ASOIAF changed the way I think I read fantasy fiction. Whereas before I mostly read Dragonlance books, it kind of opened me up to more possibilities within the genre. I've also met many non-fantasy fans who have fallen in love with the TV show as well. And it's not really because of the violence and such, it's because they like the characters (or hate them and want to see what happens.) 



> Keep in mind that the books have been overhyped as tremendously dark and gritty by people who think dark and gritty are what make stories good. It follows that people who haven't read the books, but have talked to people who say they're really dark and gritty, assume they must be really dark and gritty. The same thing happened to Madoka Magica--it's ultimately an idealistic celebration of its genre, but it has some dark aspects, so people started talking about how relentlessly dark and subversive it was, and other people started thinking it must be really dark and subversive.



I think hype can certainly derail a good book's chances in certain cases. I never got into ASOIAF because it was dark and gritty, I just saw it on several "Best of..." lists and thought I'd give it a try. I had been reading Wheel of Time at the time and wasn't really getting into it so I wanted a change of pace. I do think people who don't mind dark subject matter seem to enjoy Martin's work more, but I've known people who hate darker fiction who really love the series because they fall in love with certain characters. I'll admit, I'm not fond of every single character in the series, but the ones I do like I hold out hope for.


----------



## Graylorne (Jan 26, 2014)

> Yeah, I try not to ever use absolutes or sweeping generalizations, so sorry for that.


I know you don't 

I read a major part of Wheels of Time, and of the Sword of Truth, to decide they were repetitive, overrated and only suitable as book dummies in furniture stores. GOT isn't that; they're just the absolute opposite of my books. Quite possibly better written, though...


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Jan 26, 2014)

Phil the Drill said:


> I have some bits of extreme violence, but the reason for this is because I believe if you have a character fighting demonic presences and monsters, there has to be some kind of violence.


First, I agree with this^ and that "grim-dark" doesn't sound like a style that attracts readers.

Second, I'm finally back on the novel-writing horse again and I'm pretty happy with the amount of planning that went into my first seven chapters. When I wrote a chapter yesterday, however, I deviated from the plan mid-chapter. The characters were meant to get through this chapter unscathed, and well… one of them did. But what I liked is that the version I wrote better served the purpose of the chapter, which was simply to establish a friendship between the characters.


*@OP,
*So for your story, you have a plan. As you're writing, bear in mind that you're part of your own test audience. If YOU think it's too grim-dark, or it's problematic that your characters never get the justice they seek, you can always tweak your story. Satisfy yourself first, then find out what other readers think.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 26, 2014)

Hi,

I like Game of Thrones, even when it's grittier and darker than I would normally read. But maybe that's in part because of the characters. Many of them really aren't such terrible people at all. And even among the most evil there is often something to redeem them.

Cersei, a very very bad woman, but her love for her children makes all the terrible things she does (well most of them) understandable. Tyrion is certainly no heroic knight but even when he indulges in his depraved lifestyle, there is something noble about him, as if he battles his own demons. Lord Tywin's a sod and the way he goes about plosecuting his war is simply awful, but in the end he's the lord of a house who seems to have only one goal in life, protecting the house. As for the Stark family, they are actually good (not perfect but good) people. Sansa's a good girl in a bad place, likewise Jon. Arya is a child being slowly corrupted by a violent world. Catelyn is the achetype of a mother fighting for her family. In the end it is their bond of family that raises them above the rest of the characters and makes them "the good guys" even when they slip up.

Contrast that with the Gap series where there is no one among the main cast who could be considered even vaguely good, no one who as a reader I could invest in, no one I would want to see survive, and you'll see I think where a lot of readers get turned off. To my mind GRRM put good people in bad places but left them with their nobler impulses. Donaldson simply wallowed in darkness.

Cheers Greg.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jan 26, 2014)

I haven't read Donaldson so I can't comment on him, but you nailed my feelings about Martin's work. The darkness is there, yes, but I don't see the characters as these irredeemable, drooling evil-doers or anything. The only one that verges on caricature is Joffrey, but I believe he's sort of like the figurative and literal child of all the destructive deeds the Lannisters have done. Other than him, as you said, even Cersei is justified in her actions. And I agree about the Starks. Their tragic flaw is that they're _too good_ or assume people will play by the "rules." When they don't, that's when they have to start being more ruthless to match their enemies. 

This characters just happen to populate a world where murder and death is rampant, so that creates the impression that the whole series is just people murdering each other, when that's not true. One reason I think it's so shocking when characters die, because in fantasy fiction this isn't a common trope. If you put a POV character in your story, it's oftentimes like an invisible shield that's going to protect them throughout the series. When Martin dared to have some of these characters be killed, it was like "Wait, you can't do that!" Well, he did, multiple times. But that's not what makes the series great in my opinion. It's watching how these characters handle the den of vipers they're thrust into that makes it compelling.


----------



## AnneL (Jan 26, 2014)

Phil the Drill said:


> If you put a POV character in your story, it's oftentimes like an invisible shield that's going to protect them throughout the series. When Martin dared to have some of these characters be killed, it was like "Wait, you can't do that!" Well, he did, multiple times. But that's not what makes the series great in my opinion. It's watching how these characters handle the den of vipers they're thrust into that makes it compelling.



Watching the characters is what makes it interesting for me as a reader (tho' the fifth book seemed to be losing focus and meandering, which is probably part of why WoW is taking so long), but it was killing protagonsts off that made me say "OMG you can do that?!?" and is most useful to me as a writer.  Sometimes what I value in a book depends upon which hat I am wearing.


----------

