Another Word: Dear Speculative Fiction, I'm Glad We Had This Talk...

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Great article. Well worth the read.

 

[allmywires]

Nice. Hopefully this kind of thing heralds a turn in the tides. We've had our fun wallowing in despair, now let the nicer, funnier, more hopeful SFF come back into the fore. Please!

 

[alchemist]

There may be a trend towards the oul grimdark now, but there's plenty of other SF and F out there if you want it.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

we need more human stories in sci fi. Like romance. and sex. And people. (No agenda here, then.)

 

[allmywires]

I agree! Let's start a movement. (Except in my case replace sci fi with pseudo-epic fantasy. )

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

A wonderful article. I don't know if it will change anything, but so many of the things she said were long overdue, and she managed to be biting and fun at the same time (which I think went a long way toward proving her point).

Thanks for the link.

 

[Esfires]

And here I thought I was all alone.

 

[Toby Frost]

Well, said, although I think readers are as much to blame as writers here. The viewpoint she attacks is adolescent, and therefore thinks of itself as much more accurate than it really is. Incidentally, I think the phrase "gut wounds and bureaucratic incompetence" is very good. I know exactly what she's mocking here.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I've been reading a lot around the recent grimdark discussions, and while there's a lot of general criticisms of what grimdark is, no one seems really sure of what it is, other than George R R Martin is probably it.

People in some discussions lump Joe Abercrombie in with the grimdark, and then admit they haven't read any of his work - others say his writing is, so it must be true, and therefore too terribly dark to read.

Elizabeth Bear's partner, Scott Lynch, is also sometimes thrown into the mix of grimdark authors, on the grounds that so much swearing shouldn't be acceptable for a fantasy novel.

The argument then focuses on sexual violence against women - apparently, torture, murder, genocide, destruction of the natural world and its life, and the violent exploitation of the lower classes, are not deserving issues for social scrutiny. Violent male rape is suggested as a counter somehow make some stories less violent and rapey, and then shown to be present in the genre anyway.

When individual books are given as examples of grimdark, the discussion then splits as people excuse their favourite authors and those they have not read become shrouded in the grimdark awe.

The result is that we're left discussing grimdark as a term defined according to personal taste, with no real idea of what grimdark actually is other than as a vague concept that some people must be writing it and this isn't right.

I'll freely admit I'm a slow thinker and it takes a long time for ideas to digest, but I'm left perplexed by the whole discussion. What is it exactly is this grimdark that people are against?

 

[Hex]

I don't like 'grimdark' (if that's what I don't like) because I dislike depressing stories where people are nasty to each other and the good ones die. I don't like entrails much, or rape or child murder, but I don't think that's what defines the books I avoid. It's a personal taste thing. I like stories that make me happy, or at least offer the possibility of happiness, and grimdark doesn't.

I loved Abercrombie's first three books -- thought he was a wonderful writer -- but his writing is too dark for me, and I probably won't read more.

I don't think things need to be hideously dark to explore social situations like the exploitation of the lower orders -- lots of other people do it without excessive entrail-exposure -- it's the obsession with the dark and the horrible that upsets some people. I just avoid it. Bleurgh. But I do read about sparkly vampires so I'm not going to argue my taste is better than other people's.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I am feeling like the queen of grimdark. I've just read The Blade Itself, and King of Thorns, and have read GRRM in the past. I don't, actually, have a problem with grim bit of it, more the epic nature of them.

Why read them? Well, firstly, I don't only read grim,I read lots of nice stuff, too. The one I read before Joe and Mark's was a nice chick-lit which I thoroughly enjoyed. I also read horror - less so now than I used to - so, I suppose, I have a darker tendency to my reading tastes. Basically, I am more likely to be moved by a Maeve Binchy story - to be made to cry for instance - than a grim dark, so I'm obviously able to keep a distance between the horrific events and me. And I suppose there is the weird fascination with all things urgh. Plus, I have a pretty happy existence here, so maybe I don't feel they drag me down.

What have all three had in common. A world where morals are different from our own, a world where there are people out to get you, there always seems to be a lot of blood. In all the stuff I've read, a predominance of strong male characters and a dearth of females -- they all have some, but the main characters are indisputably male. (I think George's were the ones with the strongest females of the stuff I've read, which is scary in the extreme.) Whether that's because women struggle to come to pre-eminence in these sorts of stories, given where society places itself, or that the writers struggle to knock a female character around as much as a male one, I'm not sure.

But I don't mind a bit of grim dark. I don't mind a society that is different from ours and challenges what we have. I don't even mind the odd spot of torture, and what not, depending on just how graphic it gets - there was one scene in King of Thorns that came close to my tolerance level.

But I couldn't read it all the time, and it's not my preferred genre. But it's interesting, and the stories were all very well written, which is half the pleasure of a good book for me.

 

[Toby Frost]

What is it exactly is this grimdark that people are against?

In my case, that it's incorrect and bad writing to equate a greater level of violence and/or squalor (or, rather, the detailed portrayal thereof) with a greater level of realism. That in itself is an adolescent attitude, in that it is wrong to suggest that the more wretched the situation, the closer it is to representing the truth about how life really is. But that raises the question of whether it is readers making that mistake or writers. After all, this is something that readers talk about, if only because there are far more readers than writers.

I wonder where the problem actually lies, if it lies anywhere. Can writers be blamed for giving the public what they appear to want? And given that the accusations are always made about the same 4 or 5 very successful writers, is the concern less that there's a deluge of horrible torture-porn on the bookshelves than that an awful lot of people want fantasy to be 30% Lord of the Rings and 70% the London Dungeon?*

Personally, I'd like to see other elements of fantasy challenged beyond this. Such as why stories so often concern the fate of the kingdom/known world, and why they have to be so bloody long. I know this is virtual heresy, but if I could make fantasy writers forget about Lord of the Rings for just one year, I would, just to see what they'd write instead.

(It's also worth pointing out that older books simply couldn't give detailed portrayals of unpleasant things, but managed to make their point perfectly well. Take the murder of Nancy in Oliver Twist, for instance. You don't see Nancy's skull being smashed in, but you know damn well that's what's happening, and the fact it's unseen probably makes it all the nastier.)

* An exaggeration.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The viewpoint she attacks is adolescent, and therefore thinks of itself as much more accurate than it really is.

Yes! It's like the whole epic fantasy genre has turned into an angsty teenager, dressed in black and wearing too much mascara.

Looking away from fantasy for a moment, what group of people is the most determined to show how grown up they are, and that they understand ... oh how they understand! ... what a terrible, horrible place the world is? Adolescents, right?

(I don't say that this is necessarily true of the writers, because I don't know why they write the stuff, but it seems to be true of those who read it and defend it as more realistic than books with a more balanced view of the world. Who act as though there are only two kinds of fantasy: The kind that is tough and grim and dark. And the kind that has unicorns and rainbows. As though there isn't a vast territory in between.)

It's also worth pointing out that older books simply couldn't give detailed portrayals of unpleasant things, but managed to make their point perfectly well. Take the murder of Nancy in Oliver Twist, for instance. You don't see Nancy's skull being smashed in, but you know damn well that's what's happening, and the fact it's unseen probably makes it all the nastier.

Few writers can write scenes more harrowing than Dickens could. Some of his can stay with you all your life. And you're right, there is no blood and guts -- but the shock, and horror, and suffering were there all the same. So many modern readers and writers reject Dickens because he was too wordy and old-fashioned (not for a Victorian, of course) and he could be too sentimental or melodramatic, but he is worth reading and studying for the things he did surpassingly well.

It was more than the art of it, though. He wrote from a place of honest indignation about the cruelty and indifference he saw in the world around him. He bled with his characters. I don't see anyone doing that now. And he also celebrated decency and humanity. All this without a unicorn in sight.

 

[Brian G Turner]

And on a lighter note, reading for pure fun and escapism:
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/04/fantasy-reading-and-escapism

 

[Brian G Turner]

Just found this quote from Holly Isle on writing heroes which I thought was very fitting:

if you're writing unlikable main characters---folks who do stupid, immoral, or evil things---fine. No problem. I'm not saying you couldn't write them or that they weren't appropriate main characters for fiction. I'm simply saying they aren't heroes.

 

[sknox]

I can't say that I've noticed. SF has always had a grim side to it. I just want a good story well told. It can be cheery or depressing or neither (remember interesting?), but the more I read the pickier I get. I'm less and less tolerant of sloppiness, preaching, and ham-handedness.

Maybe because Bear is a writer, she sees the matter differently, tends to notice overall publishing trends and the like.