ŷ������

Is anybody else sick and tired of these books full of gratuitous violence, where killing someone is the default method for problem solving? I get it -- authors think they're being mature and realistic by depicting these grimdark worlds full of miserable characters who are always angsting about how grim and dark the world is.

But that's bullshit. It's like a teenage boy who mistakes cynicism for maturity.

I don't want stories where fight scenes, torture and war are ways of advancing the plot -- I want stories about people trying to make the world a better place, where violence is actually an obstacle to the heroes achieving their goals, where every fight scene is a failure on the protagonist's part. Classic Star Trek did it all the time. Doctor Who does it all the time. Anime does it all the time. So why does modern fantasy wallow in this bullshit, "The world made me into a thug, and boy do I feel bad about it. Now excuse me, I have to go murder my twelve year old brother."

That's exactly what I think about when arguing with overtly attached ASOIAF fanatics. When they say: 'Man, it's like no character is safe!' I usually say: killing for killing sake does not demonstrate writing prowess, but certain laziness or even lack of storytelling craftmanship.

It's not bad to having characters die, as long as it is with a purpose, as long as it's a catharsis or really solves ulterior, cosmic designs.

It is funny you bring up anime, since right now one of the most popular series is extremely grimdark attack on Titan, while the light fluffy Buck Rogers inspired Space Dandy seems to have plummeted in popularity (Though maybe that's because anime fans aren't comfortable with its excoriating satirization of anime's sexism).

One of the most popular tv shows right now is true detective, which is also pretty darn from dark.

Really the only place where cynicism free, joyful stuff is extremely popular seems to be comics. (But then I think how he dark and edgy series about how Cyclops is a terrorist outsells the adventures of Professor Wolverine as he runs a wacky comedic super high school).

Modern fantasy doesn't wallow in this "bullshit". There're heaps of books out there that do not follow the currently popular dark and ultra-violent trend.

On the other hand there're heaps of other media that do "wallow in this bullshit".

It's also nothing new. It has existed, both in fantasy and elsewhere, since forever.

People not liking this type of stuff is perfectly fine. People saying it can't go hand in hand with great writing and interesting characters just display their own blindness.

I think if grimdark literature would actually do, what you presume in your statement, it wouldn't be that interesting.
What actually happens there, from my point of view is this:

On the character level, people are neither good or bad. Our western way of living, how we try to control other people and cultures with money and our edge in technology leads to a lot of death and destruction in the world. So, for many people, western countries are the bad guys. But you and me get up every morning and don't think about how we can ruin 1000s of lives every day. In our own mind we are good people, caring for those around us, having our own aims and agendas and thinking of us as good people.
And this is how it is for everyone. Everyone has a justification for how he is living and in grimdark literature -if it's done well- we see the justification of the protagonist and the antagonist and both are perfectly understandable.
I'm not sure if I like to go "back" to reading about "good" people doing "good" things, bacause they are just "good" and flawless, whereas the "evil" lord is being "evil" cause he just is. That sounds a lot like cold war talk, when "we" were good and others were evil.
The world isn't that easy. And if you want to read about people who try to make the world a better place, grimdark is actually the way to go, cause both sides want to make the world a better place in their opion, but these opinios clash and thus the plot is advanced.

Now there are two options. You can say, I read because I don't want to have these realistic motivations, cause I have it in my life all day and am sick of it, or you can say even on my own time I'm interested in why people act the way they act. Cause only if I understand how someone is motivated who acts in a way I can't relate to I have a chance to get him and try to work for a better solution. If I just cope out and say "cause he's bad" the world will never be a better place.

And the struggles you are looking for are actually all over grimdark books. If you take Logen Ninefingers from Joe Abercrombie's First Law books, his whole journey is about how to avoid conflict and fighting, cause he is so, so tired of it.
So, I'm totally on board with you when you say you don't want to read about violence for violence sake, but from my point of view grimdark is not about that. It's about showing why 2 perfectly good people with good intentions so often end up in a violent situation. And there is something to learn from this, what isn't to learn from a story, where only one guy is good and the other is evil.

Look, I live in w world where 30 people were buried alive 45 minutes north of me. Where some guy just went batshit crazy and gunned down several people on a military base. Where 200+ people are dead in an airplane crash and tons of other nasty, evil crap happens every damn day. I need my fiction to be dark like a hole in my head.

So I've never liked grimdark. It's always struck me as a teen boy who thinks the hero (almost always some best assassin/warrior whatever) is BAD ASS. It's boring, it's juvenile and it's monotonous and tiresome. Sure, there are probably a few of these books I'd like but in general... no. Thanks. (And yes, I'm skipping this month's choice).

At the moment, dark and violent is what sells - whether that's actually what people actually want or just what gets published is a chicken and egg situation. I'm sure there are uplifting and optimistic books out there but dark and violent is where its at right now.

Personally, I like my fantasy dark and gritty and violent so I say bring it on. Sorry.

It's not everybody's cup of tea but I don't mind dark and bloody fantasy at times. It's a different perspective on life.

In a more upbeat feel good fantasy the rare piece of violence can be used effectively to shock the reader.

Just as effective is when the character in the grim dark fantasy, who is meant to be violent and cold blooded, shows a compassionate side that wants to do right, that goes against everything they have been taught to do. Even to their own detriment.

It is violent with a feel good side to it.

I don't really get the "grimdark" thing, frankly because those elements have been present in fantasy fiction since at least the pulp era and Conan. You can easily mine this stuff from ancient myths like , full of mass slaughter, child-killing, rape, suicide, tragedy, etc.

And I feel there is a difference between writers like George R. R. Martin or Joss Whedon, and a lot of the grimdark crowd. The former have reputations as character-killers, but the reason those deaths work is because they get us emotionally invested in the characters first. We get to know or like them as human beings with emotions and attachments and goals, and thus it compounds the tragedy when they die--especially if they themselves or a loved one was instrumental in their death.

I'm not saying that a story that starts racking up the bodycount of a bunch of characters I don't really care about can't be an exciting read--I found A Dance of Cloaks enjoyable enough, after all. But it's not going to have the same emotional resonance as ASoIaF, or the First Law trilogy.

I would separate the classic Sword and Sorcery from the contemporary in vogue 'Political Fantasy' (which some people call 'Low Fantasy', though I consider this classification inaccurate). In the former you usually had an anti-hero in a gritty setting. In the latter, you have no heroes or real villains, just more-less machiavellan types, with lots of sorrow and tragedy interspersed.

And yes... I'm not the greatest fan of political types in my fantasy, because I have enough of corporate politics (which can be so tiring). Sometimes I just want to be in the shoes of someone who truly believes the old (and now considered corny) credo of 'To dream, the impossible dream. to fight the unbeatable foe... to bear the unbearable sorrow and to run where the brave dare not go'.

And no, I never or wouldn't ever think of basing my appraisal of real world people or events in a black and white setting.

Rob wrote: "It is funny you bring up anime, since right now one of the most popular series is extremely grimdark attack on Titan, while the light fluffy Buck Rogers inspired Space Dandy seems to have plummeted..."

AOT isn't nearly cynical enough to be grimdark. If it were like American fantasy, Jean would try to kill Eren and then rape Mikasa; Levi and Hange would be plotting against each other to take over the Survey Corps; Sasha would sleep with guys to get more food; and Connie and Armin would try to frag Levi for making them go outside the walls.

It's certainly violent and dark, but the story subverts the violence by showing, repeatedly, right from the beginning, that fighting hasn't accomplished anything and suggesting that the character who's the most vocal proponent of killing the Titans is somewhere between psychotic and stupid.

Compare to this book where an eight year old killing his brother is supposed to impress us with how bad-ass he is.

Sean wrote: Compare to this book where an eight year old killing his brother is supposed to impress us with how bad-ass he is.

I that's a bit of an oversimplification. That certainly wasn't my reaction, anyway.

I also think we're conflating excessive violence with dark fantasy/"grimdark" stuff, which I don't believe is the case. Like Joe Informatico said, there's plenty of violence in older fantasy.

The key difference, I think, is in how it's portrayed. Older stuff (like, say, Lord of the Rings or the Narnia books) tend to gloss over all the details - all you get is the glory of fighting for a cause, not all the bodies and blood left behind (I guess Tolkien didn't get as jaded by WWI as some of his fellows).

"Grimdark" does the opposite - it says "this is what violence really is; this is how this would really happen." It's not pretty, it's not romantic, but it's far more realistic.

Sean wrote: "The key difference, I think, is in how it's portrayed. Older stuff (like, say, Lord of the Rings or the Narnia books) tend to gloss over all the details - all you get is the glory of fighting for a cause, not all the bodies and blood left behind (I guess Tolkien didn't get as jaded by WWI as some of his fellows)."

The scene in the Dead Marshes where Sam sees the faces of fallen warriors staring up at him -- a moment taken from Tolkien's own experience on the battlefield -- is far more horrific than any detailed description of viscera.

"Grimdark" does the opposite - it says "this is what violence really is; this is how this would really happen." It's not pretty, it's not romantic, but it's far more realistic.

I'd find that argument a lot more persuasive if these kind of books were ever written from the POV of an ordinary peasant, merchant or tradesman trying to get by in an uber-violent fantasy world. But instead the protagonist is always some awesome warrior or assassin who happens to be the one perpetrating a great deal of the violence in the story. The "realism" argument comes off as an attempt to shield the author from the accusation that they're writing juvenile fiction no different from the Jerry Ahern school of men's adventure novels.

Daniel Abraham's The Dagger and the Coin series might be to your liking. It has violence, but one of the main heros is a person that works for a bank trying to do good when things get bad. She operates with money and wits.

Although I disagree with your comments on realism (the time periods fantasy is based on were often very violent) I would agree that the ultimate BA types of characters tend to get boring if not handled well. It is too easy to get into gratuitous violence who's only point is to show how awesome the character is.

This is the main reason I disliked Scott Bakker's latest book. He had all sorts of stuff in his book just to have it show it was a dark world as opposed to any kind of advancement in character or plot.

In my opinion, the better writes like Abercombie use violence as a way to further explore the character in question.

Nathan wrote: "Daniel Abraham's The Dagger and the Coin series might be to your liking. It has violence, but one of the main heros is a person that works for a bank trying to do good when things get ..."

I agree with Nathan. Or you could try Abraham's The Long Price Quartet. This is an excellent fantasy series that's not overly enamored of violence.

I'm also going to recommend The Dagger and the Coin.

And if you want a really bad example of a book where heroes start most of the fights, read The Three Musketeers. Seriously, they actively look for fights a lot of the time. And for some reason, I'm supposed to like them for it. It's incredibly frustrating.

Sean wrote: "Is anybody else sick and tired of these books full of gratuitous violence, where killing someone is the default method for problem solving? I get it -- authors think they're being mature and realis..."

I can definitely see where you are coming from. I read the whole book and I liked it. However if you think about the dark ages in the 1500's or even the time of rome with Spartacus, That is how people use to be. It really was dark and that violent. People thought that ruling other people was the key to a better world. He who has more possessions wins. He who has more gold, more women, more slave and so on is king. The violence is there to show that it was the only way that people knew how to solve problems. Its not like today where we have lawyers and we can sue one another.

I see this book for what it is. Its another look into the dark ages through the eyes of the author. Is the rich against the poor. The trifect against the thugs in the street trying to conquer.

So for all of you claiming "this is the way it used to be" - what are you basing that on? Because if it's anything less than some fairly detailed reading of histories of the period, then I'm going call, if not BS, caution on your assertions. I don't mean to be too antagonistic here, but in my experience most people don't have a good, detailed grasp of history in general much less any detailed understanding of a given period.

Way to go Rick!

The violence in modern fantasy has nothing to do with historical violence in the Dark and Middle Ages and everything to do with the violence of the 20th Century (the bloodiest in human history). Unfortunately, the 21st century is proving to be just as disastrous , and I think it's right to suggest, as several commenters have, that the best grimdark writers depict something of the moral ambiguity that's evidenced all around them.

Would four years of PhD coursework be enough? If you do not believe me you can try The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Stephan Pinker.

In an interview with Pinker stated the following, which jives with my reading of history:

COOK: Can you give a sense for how violent life was 500 or 1000 years ago?

PINKER: Statistics aside, accounts of daily life in medieval and early modern Europe reveal a society soaked in blood and gore. Medieval knights—whom today we would call warlords—fought their numerous private wars with a single strategy: kill as many of the opposing knight’s peasants as possible. Religious instruction included prurient descriptions of how the saints of both sexes were tortured and mutilated in ingenious ways. Corpses broken on the wheel, hanging from gibbets, or rotting in iron cages where the sinner had been left to die of exposure and starvation were a common part of the landscape. For entertainment, one could nail a cat to a post and try to head-butt it to death, or watch a political prisoner get drawn and quartered, which is to say partly strangled, disemboweled, and castrated before being decapitated. So many people had their noses cut off in private disputes that medical textbooks had procedures that were alleged to grow them back.

A.J. wrote: "However if you think about the dark ages in the 1500's

The "Dark Ages" refers to the early Middle Ages, roughly 500-1000; the 1500s aren't even medieval. In any case, modern historians consider the term "Dark Age" a misnomer. It certainly wasn't a nice time to live, but it wasn't particularly worse than other eras before and after, some of them within living memory.

The bloodiest conflict in European history, measured per capita, was the Thirty Years War in the 17th Century; the bloodiest by total death count were the two World Wars of the Twentieth Century. The bloodiest in world history was the Taiping Rebellion of the 19th Century, which killed more people than lived in the Roman Empire at its height.

Yet oddly grimdark stories focus on medieval-style settings. You don't see much in the way of grimdark steampunk -- but then to do it in the style of grimdark fantasy, the protagonist would have to be some bad-ass Belgian mowing down Congolese with a Gatling gun, or a bad-ass Scotsman strapping Indians to the mouth of a cannon to have their guts blown out.

And that right there is the problem with the whole grimdark thing. The authors and readers insist these books are telling it like it was, and yet instead of showing us how miserable life was for an average person, the POV character is inevitably some bad-ass warrior, often of a privileged class, who spends much of the story doing awful things. It's like an author trying to show the horror of rape by writing a story about a rapist -- which, come to think of it, happens in many of these books.

This "grimdark" tag is a passing fad that will disappear in a few years, like disco and grunge and pompadour haircuts.

When authors' use of violence to punctuate a book takes up more than the story requires, it is a mark of bad writing. Like too many special effects in a movie to distract the viewer from the lack of character development.

On the other hand, this device is no worse than when writers avoid violence done against their main characters out of convenience, as is common in YA fiction.

To me, both stand equally offending practices.

Also, Sean is right about the gratuity of the whole trend. And that gratuity is why it will not last.

Nathan wrote: "Would four years of PhD coursework be enough? If you do not believe me you can try The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Stephan Pinker.

In an interview wit..."

As a fellow academic, spending most of my days alongside other academics, I would say "no." I don't trust any "I have education, trust me claims." And I don't know any other professors who would.

As someone who has done work in medieval history in particular, I can say that Pinker may be an accomplished psychologist but he's a lousy (amateur) historian.

War usually includes horrific atrocities, across time and place. But the "the world used to be a place where everyone murdered everyone whenever the wanted and that's the realism being reflected in grimdark" is nonsense.

Whether you enjoy grimdark or not, it has nothing to do with historical realism.

Nathan - is your PhD in history? If not, why would I care about it?

I don't find Pinker's credentials impressive here - "Steven Arthur Pinker is a prominent Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, and author of popular science." That's nice.... and qualifies him to speak on history why? I don't know Pinker's work but in general my impression of folks who dabble here and there is that they're intellectual butterflies, picking and choosing facts to support the thesis of the book they're writing. I might be doing a HUGE disservice to Pinker, but he's simply not a historian.

Sean wrote: "A.J. wrote: " It's like an author trying to show the horror of rape by writing a story about a rapist -- which, come to think of it, happens in many of these books.
..."
That's another issue I have with these books. FAR too often the authors casually toss in a rape scene just to give the female character a traumatic past or something. It's actually a little disturbing.

Rick wrote: "Nathan - is your PhD in history? If not, why would I care about it?

I don't find Pinker's credentials impressive here - "Steven Arthur Pinker is a prominent Canadian-American experimental psycho..."

Yes. It is. You know people other than Historians can study history well. You are disputing his work based on vague impressions of other people, which, not to be combative, is awfully shallow.

Ryan wrote: "Nathan wrote: "Would four years of PhD coursework be enough? If you do not believe me you can try The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Stephan Pinker.

In a..."

So Ryan,

1. You are contradicting yourself. You say that citing degrees and studies is not a basis for trust, then you make a claim based on someone who has done work in medieval history. Now, either that kind of claim is valid or it is not.

2. Your statement about Grimdark

A. Exaggerates what it is.
B. Makes an argument I never made. I just pointed out the past was more violent than the present, with wars being more common, the legal system being more dependent on violent and brutal punishments, and as far as I can tell, the way people treated each other in society.

If the OP is looking for less violence from something which uses a medieval timeframe as reference, then the OP might be looking in the wrong place.

I just think that this Englightenment view of the Middle Ages is as accurate as the Romantic one

I find this discussion fascinating, even if I´m skipping this month´s read and haven´t really read any grimdark (except aSoIaF, does that really count?). I recently read this post by Joe Abercrombie which I think is relevant to this thread: The Value of Grit.

Nathan wrote: "Would four years of PhD coursework be enough? If you do not believe me you can try The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Stephan Pinker.

In an interview wit..."

Pinker's thesis may be correct if you apply it to the period since WWII, though that has more to do with the softening and then end of the Cold War than any improvement in mankind. His claim that the trend has occurred over all of human history is .

Reading his description of feudal warfare that you quote, I can't help but wonder how that situation is supposed to be significantly worse than things that have gone on in the last 150 years -- the Belgian Congo, British India, Nazi-occupied Poland and Ukraine, Japanese occupied China and Philippines, the Great Terror and the Great Leap forward, Nicaragua during the Contra insurgency, etc., etc.

Nathan wrote: " You are disputing his work based on vague impressions of other people, which, not to be combative, is awfully shallow. ..."

Oh a personal attack. That's convincing. Sorry, but 1) unless your work is in history of the period I'm unconvinced and I find it more than a bit dodgy that you still are being vague. 2) I question Pinker's credentials because it's incredibly popular these days to write a high level, slightly provocative work that feels intellectual but that really has no depth because the author has no real background in the subject. See, well, all of Gladwell.

Finally, you do realize you're both touting your supposed credentials and then citing the work of someone who has zero credentials. Hell, as someone with an MA in Russian History I've got better historian credentials than Pinker does.

PS: the PhD thing rankles for two reason that really have nothing to do with you, Nathan. First, this is a pseudonymous board so anyone can claim anything and second, appeals to authority as the basis for an argument are suspect. And no, this doesn't contradict my point about Pinker. Authority stemming from long study doesn't automatically win an argument sans evidence and logic but that doesn't mean that the discipline and information gained from long study is valueless either. As an historian I'm sure you're familiar with questioning sources, projecting our period's attitudes on other cultures and time periods and many other historiographical issues.

One final thing, at least for now... If the realism argument rests on "well terrible things were done in the wars of the Middle Ages" then, well, yes. They were. Terrible things are done in war in ANY age. In that sense, the argument holds water. But things like the current months' read aren't in war and most of grimdark seems not to be. The sheer volume of brutal death in the current read seems literally incredible. (as in not credible...)

The other issue for me with many of these books is that the reader always follows someone who's an incredible badass. Never the farmboy pressed into service who's an OK fighter but gets wounded in his first battle and spends weeks fighting an infection,etc. I get that this is done for story reasons but a lot of it feels like feeding the wish fulfillment of young men.

I thought the entirety of academia had abandoned the Enlightenment conception of the Middle Ages (as a time of special horror and ignorance) and later history (Things Are Getting Better All The Time) like twenty years ago if not earlier :p

First of all, I would like to say that I really *like* the title of this topic! I think it is so appropriate!

And, speaking in generalities, I think that we have ASoIaF to blame for the influx of grimdark in the same way that we have Twilight to blame for the influx of vampires and werewolves. Neither was first, they were just the first to get redhot. I have no degree or credentials to back up this theory, just a lot of time and experience watching things come and go.

And 'realistic' isn't just in fantasy - it is everywhere these days. I mean, just look at how popular 'reality' tv is . . . But, I would argue that your realistic doesn't equal my realistic . . .

It isn't the violence so much as it is the 'gray' characters with such moral ambiguity. Gone are the days of the super heroes who fight for the good just because it is *good*. And, what is wrong with super heroes. I know they aren't really out there - or maybe they are in some smaller vein - But with so much hatred, animosity and power grabbing, I would like to think that somewhere, somehow, people are out there fighting the good fight! But, maybe that's just me. I'm used to being a group of 1.

Meanwhile, I avoid grimdark books - and I will be avoiding this one.

Rob wrote: "I thought the entirety of academia had abandoned the Enlightenment conception of the Middle Ages (as a time of special horror and ignorance) and later history (Things Are Getting Better All The Tim..."

They did, but Pinker probably last took a history course when Elvis was alive. If you read reviews of his book, a lot of people take him to task for Whiggish history.

Snarktastic Sonja wrote: "Gone are the days of the super heroes who fight for the good just because it is *good*."

I love the gray characters.

I really don´t think anyone has a problem with "good". They´re easy to root for and think most if not all of us consider ourselves to be good people, or at the very least gray and nuanced. What I think many readers, or at least myself, have a problem with is "evil" - it´s not very believable at all. Especially not in the sense of the Evil Dark Lord who is evil because, you know, EVIL. And really, after having read Tolkien (especially The Silmarillion which is far superior to LOTR imo) I don´t need to read about any more Dark Lords threatening the world.

Snarktastic Sonja wrote: "It isn't the violence so much as it is the 'gray' characters with such moral ambiguity. Gone are the days of the super heroes who fight for the good just because it is *good*."

See, that's what I *like* about these kinds of books - no one's either entirely good or evil, they're all a bit of both. It makes things more interesting. I'm not against having Good Heroes and Evil Villains, but that sort of thing makes it too easy to turn them into Designated Heroes and Villains.

I love the whole Arthurian mythos, but I absolutely hated Lancelot, Galahad, and Tristram in Le Mort d'Arthur because they were always presented as being right, regardless of their behavior.

You also mention superheroes. As much as I like Eternal Boy Scouts like Superman and Captain America, it would be really boring if every superhero were exactly the same. I'm not saying the grim, gritty 90s Dark Age stuff is better, but there's no reason there can't be a balance between the two. Same goes for fantasy.

Sean wrote: The scene in the Dead Marshes where Sam sees the faces of fallen warriors staring up at him -- a moment taken from Tolkien's own experience on the battlefield -- is far more horrific than any detailed description of viscera."

I think part of the reason that scene has such impact is because it's highlighted by its uniqueness. If this kind of thing was a constant in LOTR, it'd be diluted.

I brought up that point to make this point: excessive violence and character deaths encourage readers to care less about characters, not more. Game of Thrones fans often say that Martin makes you care about the characters before slaughtering them. But I think readers eventually learn to keep a distance from characters because they know the odds of losing them are high. I really want to care about characters, and I like when they stick around so I can see their ongoing reactions (which, naturally, cease to happen once dead), and that's why I don't enjoy grimdark. It has everything to do with what I want to get out of my reading, not about being right or wrong.

Here's the ultimate proof that this grimdark thing has gone too far: .

I'm finding this conversation very interesting also. I only heard the term "grimdark" for the first time a few days ago. I guess I would agree in the abstract that violence, brutality and nihilism for it's own sake is a negative and it's is something I avoid in other forms of entertainment. However, it seems like the primary examples that are being sited throughout the discussion are ASoIaF and The First Law Trilogy, which are pretty much my two favorite fantasy series. I don't see that going on in those books at all. I don't think the popularity of those books hinges on gratuitous brutality, but on the complexity of the worlds they portray (especially in GRRM's case) and the way they breathe life into their characters (especially in Abercrombie's case).

I actually avoided reading Abercrombie for a long time because I kept hearing his name mentioned as a sort of poster child for excessively brutal fantasy. I was quite surprised when I read the first book and saw how essentially decent the supposed "anti-heroes" like Logen and his crew were. Logen is basically The Hulk - a guy who would pretty much prefer to be left to live his life in peace, but who has an explosive alter-ego that circumstances keep drawing out of him. Many of the other characters are similarly conflicted. Even Glotka, a conniving torturer, is filled with self-loathing over the acts he finds himself committing in the service of his job. The line between realism and glorification of violence can sometimes be a fine one - for me, Abercrombie and GRRM fall pretty comfortably on the realism side of that fence while many other entertainments (Sons of Anarchy and many of Scorcese's movies come to mind) tend too much toward glorification for my tastes (although I still watch those for the great performances and other aspects).

I can understand people wanting a more black and white morality in their entertainment if they're concerned about the kind of lessons that a child might learn from reading them. That's fine for YA and children's fiction I guess, but as an adult I want entertainment that reflects reality, and in reality the world is gray and individuals and their moral codes are complex. Personally I think fiction that separates the world into the good guys who are "with us" and the bad guys who are "against us" is more morally problematic than recognizing the humanity in those we would otherwise root against and the flaws in those we would otherwise identify with.

It's actually not true that there's nothing in between grimdark and children's fiction. Since you indicate that you are new to spec, I highly recommend broadening your reading past just those two authors. You'll find a broad range, it's not all one extreme or the other.

Andy wrote: "
I can understand people wanting a more black and white morality in their entertainment if they're concerned about the kind of lessons that a child might learn from reading them. That's fine for YA and children's fiction I guess, but as an adult I want entertainment that reflects reality, and in reality the world is gray and individuals and their moral codes are complex. Personally I think fiction that separates the world into the good guys who are "with us" and the bad guys who are "against us" is more morally problematic than recognizing the humanity in those we would otherwise root against and the flaws in those we would otherwise identify with."

That's a false dichotomy. You can have a story with moral nuance without going all the way to grimdark -- in fact, I would argue that grimdark is as lacking in nuance as the most simplistic black-and-white morality tale. As I said in my first post, most grimdark fantasy comes across like a teenager who thinks being cynical makes him mature.

A story with real moral nuance isn't one where everybody is an asshole, but one full of good people who come into conflict because their interests aren't compatible -- a story like Antigone, About a Boy or Toradora.

Sean wrote: "Andy wrote: "A story with real moral nuance isn't one where everybody is an asshole, but one full of good people who come into conflict because their interests aren't compatible"

I think you're oversimplifying things, Sean. Just because everyone isn't a perfect-shiny goody-good doesn't mean they're not good people.

And you keep comparing "grimdark" stuff to a cynical teen, but only as a generalization. Could you maybe provide some specific examples? Maybe you just read some really bad books.

Also, if you guys haven't read that blog post from Joe Abercrombie Paolo mentioned earlier, you really should check it out.

Jenz wrote: "I brought up that point to make this point: excessive violence and character deaths encourage readers to care less about characters, not more. Game of Thrones fans often say that Martin makes you care about the characters before slaughtering them. But I think readers eventually learn to keep a distance from characters because they know the odds of losing them are high. I really want to care about characters, and I like when they stick around so I can see their ongoing reactions (which, naturally, cease to happen once dead), and that's why I don't enjoy grimdark. It has everything to do with what I want to get out of my reading, not about being right or wrong."

That's a really great point, especially true for ASOIAF for me. After A Storm of Swords, I found myself questioning why I should care about any of the characters. While reading A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons, I kept wondering why I should invest in any of the characters anymore because of Martin's penchant for killing them off whenever he pleases (which he can do - it's his story after all).

Sean wrote: "That's a false dichotomy. You can have a story with moral nuance without going all the way to grimdark -- in fact, I would argue that grimdark is as lacking in nuance as the most simplistic black-and-white morality tale. As I said in my first post, most grimdark fantasy comes across like a teenager who thinks being cynical makes him mature.

A story with real moral nuance isn't one where everybody is an asshole, but one full of good people who come into conflict because their interests aren't compatible -- a story like Antigone, About a Boy or Toradora."

If I'm not responding accurately to the criticisms of grimdark in this discussion, it's because those criticisms (as the other Sean just pointed out) are so vague. So what defines grimdark is a story where "everyone is an asshole"? Then I'm right to exclude ASOIAF and The First Law Trilogy from that category completely. In fact, I think both of those series come pretty close to being "full of good people (or at the very least people who cannot be reduced to mere "assholes") who come into conflict because their interests aren't compatible." There are hundreds, maybe thousands of characters is ASOIAF. There are self-absorbed assholes, men of principle, regular folks just trying to get along, and every other possible type of human being... just as there are in my own life and presumably yours and everyone else's.

I don't know much about A Dance of Cloaks. If it really is nothing more than a bunch of "assholes" who go around stabbing people because they don't like the way they were looked at (and the author portrays that behavior as something to be celebrated, glorified and emulated), then I wouldn't be interested either. However, if the story's "grimdark" designation means that it has the realism and complexity of GRRM or Abercrombie, then I may have to check it out.

Regarding the issue of this supposed dichotomy, I usually think of The Gormenghast Novels as the purest example of a fantasy that is not black and white and shiny, but it's not brutal and amoral either. It doesn't even have magic.

Characters are profoundly humane by having not conflicted morals, but a whole array of quirks you can find everywhere in real life. Aloofness, Boredom, Depression, Mental handicaps, and yes, some scheming too. There are lots of ways in fantasy to avoid having just boy scouts and dark lords or everyone being a hyper-machiavellan schemer or a starkly inept strategist (pun intended) on the side.

The Abercrombie post is good. He is defending his craft, after all.

Great books are worth reading, whether they be grimdark, steampunk, high fantasy, romance, mystery, mainstream "literature," whatever. Even if Grimdark isn't to your taste, you might like Abercrombie regardless.

I'm not really up on what qualifies as grimdark but if Dance of Cloaks fits the definition of grimdark, then the OP has a point. As a poster in another thread put it, the violence here is like videogame violence where scores of NPCs get slaughtered every chapter without consequences. The times I was liking the book it was with the same part of my brain that enjoys popcorn movies.

Jenz wrote: "But I think readers eventually learn to keep a distance from characters because they know the odds of losing them are high. I really want to care about characters, and I like when they stick around so I can see their ongoing reactions (which, naturally, cease to happen once dead), and that's why I don't enjoy grimdark. It has everything to do with what I want to get out of my reading, not about being right or wrong."

I see it a bit like this: My grandparents, my parents and some other family members are significantly older then I am and -under normal circumstances- they won't be around to react to what happens in my entire life.
But I care for them anyway, cause they are great people (characters). The fact that somebody could die any day shouldn't restrict myself from getting to know a person. Persons aren't less interesting, cause they are going to die eventually. So why should it be different for characters?

To the general discussion: I now read multiple times arguments like "Violence is the only solution in grim-dark", "Everybody is an asshole", "all are cynical badass juvenile fantasies" or "Nobody does heroic deeds".
I can only remember the beginnings of two books that went into that kind of direction, Prince of Thorns and The Sad Tale of the Brothers Grossbart, but even in those books there are good people with good intentions in it.
But the majority of the books considered grim-dark aren't like that.
The violence in it is not pointless and for the sake of simply being violent. It often is either part of the world-building to demonstrate that despite these dire circumstances people can overcome those odds and do something positive or are part of the character development, like in Jamie Lannister, who seemed to solve all his problems with violence. But when we get to know him better (view spoiler)[despite of the fact that he looses his hand(!) (hide spoiler)] we actually see the motivations behind some of his acts and these motivations are "to make the world a better place" (as was mentioned as don't happening here as an argument).

And this "making the world a better place" is something that is totally imminent of grim-dark literature. The only difference ist that "making a world a better place" is not only a one-dimensional, seemingly inter-subjective axiom. It's a matter of perspective. Two or more people are convinced that their actions and motivations will make the world a better place and then clash, cause these opinions clash. And I personally find that to be way more interesting then portraying one of the opinions as clearly better/superior than the other.

Sean wrote: "I think you're oversimplifying things, Sean. Just because everyone isn't a perfect-shiny goody-good doesn't mean they're not good people.

See, this is exactly what I mean about that false dichotomy -- nobody has said they want books about "perfect-shiny goody-good[ies]," and yet that's what you assume they want because they don't like grimdark characters.

And you keep comparing "grimdark" stuff to a cynical teen, but only as a generalization. Could you maybe provide some specific examples? Maybe you just read some really bad books."

A Dance of Cloaks, very first scene -- an eight year old boy casually murders his brother for no real reason other than to demonstrate how hardcore this book is going to be. It makes me think Dalglish is

Mpauli wrote: "I see it a bit like this: My grandparents, my parents and some other family members are significantly older then I am and -under normal circumstances- they won't be around to react to what happens in my entire life.
But I care for them anyway, cause they are great people (characters)."

You're comparing being close to real people to allowing emotional connections to fictional ones? We aren't even in the same conversation. If we equate fiction and real life, then enjoying reading about slaughter makes us some really sick puppies.

The problem in this thread is that a few people are trying to PROVE that grimdark is better or worse because of the level of grim. And you just can't do that. It's simply a matter of preference and what you want to get out of your reading. So we can talk about the pros and cons of it, but at the end of the day if someone says "I just don't/do like it," you're going to have to accept that as their opinion and not a judgment against you.