The Epic and shades of grey

[Philip Overby]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

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]

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

Yes. I'd think so.

 

[OGone]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.