• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

becoming grim-dark

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. :eek:
 
Last edited:

kayd_mon

Sage
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

Minstrel
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

Staff
Article Team
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

Archmage
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

Staff
Article Team
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.
 
Last edited:

Graylorne

Archmage
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.
 
C

Chessie

Guest
^^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.
 
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?)

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

Staff
Article Team
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

Archmage
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

The HAM'ster
Moderator
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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

Staff
Article Team
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

Closed Account
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.
 
Top