Keeping up with the Kardashians is the greatest example of grimdark that I can think of. Cynically exploiting your own family for wealth and power, body horror, and no morale protagonist. They would be right at home in Westeros, and probably swimming like fishes.
You're both wrong. The answer is simpler : Grimdark is watching Scotland trying to compete at football. Seriously, enjoyed the discussion. I fondly remember 2000AD, and that time period in general, which undoubtedly was the petri-dish from which modern day Grimdark spawned.
@@ACriticalDragon No worries, P'Rofessor Fireballs! Your mistake over who mistook is understandable. By the way, I would give you an umlaut or three in your name, but my keyboard lacks the symbols, so you'll have to be happy with your apostrophe.
What a great discussion! Grimdark as fantasy trying to catch up to modernism is an interesting idea! I also find it interesting how so many authors distance themselves from the grimdark label. I won't lie: I feel a little more lost on what grimdark means after listening to this discussion, but that's not a bad thing!
Awesome discussion! I wanted to share my 2cents on the genre as well, because ive been wrecking my brain with it for years now. "Grimdark is often called hopeless, but in doing so people miss that it isn't apathetic - it is (for me) characterised by defiance in the absence of hope. Grimdark is often called nihilistic, but this misses the idea that you can accept a nihilistic truth and still choose to die for a principle you know is an emotional construct. A grimdark 'hero' has a tendency to go all in - to burn their bridges even when they don't need the warmth. They are in their way an allegory for hope in so much as having been shown there's no meaning in the world, they still cling to some elements of it. And in those choices they are revealed. The way it's painted by the disapproving you would think that grimdark fiction was the literature of surrender to the inevitable. When in truth it is the story of the battle against it - sharpened by the knowledge that there's no ultimate victory to be had." - Mark Lawrence This basically describes his Broken Empire trilogy perfectly, which literally NEVER gets labeled anything other than "grimdark". I think this definition sums up why I, and many others enjoy the genre so much. Im not a nihilist, i think using the word nihilistic has become so common that people dont realise how extreme of a word that is, rather I much more relate to existentialism. I do accept the 'nihilistic truth', but that does not mean i will mope around and do nothing until i eventually die. On the contrary it gives me motivation to do something, it releases me of the stress of unnecessary things and in turn makes my life goals easier to achieve. It's a coping mechanism for me, maybe If i was a "stronger" person I wouldn't need it, but I think all of our worldviews are somewhat coping mechanisms, and when they are challenged we get uncomfortable because all of the choices we've made that were based on our worldview might have been based on a lie that we tell ourselves. This concept is what my favorite grimdark explores, when you accept such a harsh truth about the world, any fabricated lie that you manifest from that truth can become YOUR truth and reason, and you can use it to steady yourself and lead yourself forward. We all live in self deception, but being aware of that deception and still be willing to "die for it" is what makes it so human, because that self deception is still, just an emotional construct.
I read quite a lot of Gemmell as a teen, especially the early Drenai stuff and the Jon Shannow books. I literally CANNOT WAIT for AP and Philip to go through them on their channels.
I was JUST talking to Christine Vallestad about Moorcock and Swords and Sorcery as the precursor to grimdark, which I didn't talk about at all in my 27 minute long "what is Grimdark" (but that was more about what themes grimdark explores today than the history of the subgenre)
Philip and AP, great stuff as always. Is there any way or would you be interested in creating a video examining the literary merit of the Fantasy genre? Fellow book tuber Daniel Green did a video like this a couple of weeks back and I would love to hear your specific opinions on the subject. I’m sure you have run into those individuals that scoff at Fantasy as not being real literature and I believe people like me need something to reference from when people scoff at what we are reading because it’s Fantasy. One of the reasons why I purchased all of the Malazan Book of the Fallen is because I believe it was one of the driving forces behind Erickson’s creation of his works. That Fantasy is literature and often times better literature than a lot of the literature that is considered “real” literature out there.
Another fantastic discussion! Grimdark has been an aspect of fiction that Iim constantly thinking about in terms of what actually falls under that particular subgenre. What I've come to discover is that for something to be Grimdark it must align with Intent from the author as it relates to specific themes, messages, or even subversions. If we reduce the definition of "Grimdark" strictly to the existence of explicit content, then that line gets a bit more blurry and subjective based on the audiences tolerance and or interpretation of those scenes. This dynamic continues to be the best section on booktube and I can't wait for the next one!
A.P, Philip, really loved this conversation! Had to pause multiple times to think about (and read up on) the points made! Got so many questions/thoughts on the discussion, will try to ask them separately. Apart from graphic language and violence, one aspect which I associate with grimdark is making hard, morally ambiguous choices to complete the objective or to make the best of realistic choices. Video games such as Dragon Age or Mass effect are a good example of this. Depending on how you play and what choices you've made, you can achieve the objective but with devastating impact on people. There is no graphic language or violence (Other than what's already present in the game) but the impact feels very brutal and grim. (I don't know if you've played them so not sharing specific examples)
I use grimdark mainly to talk about Fantasy but I have found a lot of the same themes in Akira Kurosawa's tragedies and in shows like The Expanse so I've come to also use it to describe sci fi.
See? We don't have a settled definition, so trying to have a discussion about it can be so difficult. Are we discussing a sub-genre of fantasy, or a collection of tropes within genre fiction, or a tone and style? I think that is why I like trying to understand the why of it first, and then see if that leads to a workable definition.
In addition to "2000AD" and "Warhammer", I would also mention influences on Grimdark such as New Wave SciFi Writers (Harlan Ellison: "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream"), the Cyberpunk (again influenced by Noir/Neo-Noir) of Phillip K.Dick and William Gibson (among others) and the darker end of the stories from "Heavy Metal" Magazine (and in general Adult European Comics post-60s-Counterculture). Also Cinema: From the Revisionist/Anti/Post-Westerns Films of the 60-70s (The "Dollars"-Trilogy, "The Wild Bunch", "Once Upon a Time in the West" und so weiter ) & the Books by Cormac McCarthy to the Vietnam (Anti-)War movies and Grindhouse/Exploitation films of various sub-genres. I agree with AP that Gemmell is an very interesting synthesis of S&S, Epic Fantasy & New Wave: Proto-Grimdark not in values/ideology, but in World Building. In his own words: "I read Tolkien, Howard's Conan books; Lin Carter, all of Moorcock". (From his wikipedia): "The consistent presence of redemption in Gemmell's work reflects his Christian beliefs. He claimed that all of his novels have a religious basis, calling them "essentially Christian books" and saying that Christianity stopped him from "promoting the cause of evil" by writing "mindless savagery" in the vein of George G. Gilman's "Edge"-westerns." I consider Grimdark to be both nihilistic and existentialist (a legacy from Lovecraft and S&S), which is why I more and more disagree with the argument that Malazan is not Grimdark (To paraphrase from my memory Mike from Mike's Book Reviews on "Memories of Ice": "If this is not Grimdark, I don't know what is! This is way darker than anything I have ever read by Abercrombie!"). I fully agree that Malazan is not on the Nihilistic end of Grimdark (say "Warhammer" & Mark Lawrence), but I would argue that it is Existentialist Grimdark/Dark Epic Fantasy: Compassion/empathy is hard & is an active choice. Another thing: In my opinion, dark humor is a major aspect of Grimdark, whether it be nihilistic or existentialist, on a specter from potty jokes & libertine humor, via dark gallows humor, to downright iconoclastic humor about humanity, society, politics, economics & religion and sadism/Revenge Exploitation.
Hi Mac, you raise a few there that I genuinely had not considered and am now rethinking. New Wave, New Weird, and Cyberpunk are not subgenres that I had considered in this context. That is really interesting. The change in the Western though, I would attribute that more to modernism and post-modernism, and so think more of the general prevailing movement that created them as the thing that had an effect. But that is a really interesting list of different narratives that I genuinely had not thought about in relation to this. Thank you.
@@ACriticalDragonI was just commenting on that, as I seem to notice that Tarantino-movies and McCarthy-books are often mentioned as inspiration by "Grimdark" authors, reviews and bylines: "If Tarantino made Lord of the Rings" etc.
@@ACriticalDragon Found these two articles with Ed Gwynne and Joe Abercrombie on the question on McCarthy as Grimdark/Grimdark influence www.grimdarkmagazine.com/review-blood-meridian-by-cormac-mccarthy/ damiengwalter.com/2015/03/08/grimdark-what-is-it-joe-abercrombie-in-discussion-with-ahimsa-kerp/amp/
This is not quite about grimdark but I just thought it would be really amazing and helpful if you could do some sort of "guide to understanding fantasy" in form of a list of influental series that shaped the fantasy genre. I'm not sure if that would be possible and it's just a suggestion of course. I personally often feel overwhelmed at how many fantasy series there are and I've been trying to get a better understanding of the genre but I feel like I don't have it yet. In terms of "older" fantasy I have only read Tolkien (of course), Glen Cook, some Michael Moorcock, and I'm planning to read Book of the New Sun and Thomas Covenant once I'm done with my Malazan reread. When I started to read grimdark I misunderstood it and I categorized it way too much based on how violent a book is. As a result, I was surprised about the First Law books because I was expecting them to be way more violent and then thought 'but this is not brutal enough to be grimdark'. I still need to give Anna Smith Spark another try though.
Book of the New Sun is at least relatively short. Regarding Covenant, many including myself, found the first hundred pages of Lord Foul tough sledding but it is well worth the effort. Haven't read the final four yet. At some point.
I recommend adding at least the first 2 Gormenghast books by mervyn peake to that list to read Councellor even just so i can watch somebody, anybody!, talk about them lol
@@EricMcLuen I've heard mixed things about Covenant but as far as I know Donaldson has been a big inspiration for Erikson. I have some vague plans to do some discussions with Raf about those series once I get to them.
@@rupertcrump1312 Oh I've read the first Gormenghast book, actually, forgot to add it here! I found it really amazing but I have not continued so far. I have to be in a specific mood to read something like Gormenghast, also the prose is very challenging for me as a non native speaker, so i want to be sure to take my time to appreciate the book. One day I'll get to it again xD
@@CounsellorofMoonsSpawn Yes the prose def can present a challenge, when i first read the series i was i think 12 and I was so confused a lot of the time lol. Glad to hear you are a fan though! Love to discuss the series with you sometime on discord or something if you get back to it :)
Very interesting discussion. I have not given this topic much tought, but just assumed the Grimdark genre started in the mid 00's. Fascinating to hear about it roots, especially the connection to Warhammer40k. I used to collect and paint the figurines when I was younger (never had anyone to play with...), and loved the bleakness of it, but I have never connected it to the Grimdark fantasy genre :) Somehow I have missed Gemmel, might have to put that on my reading list. Keep up the good work!
I am very glad that you enjoyed the discussion. thanks for watching. I was an Eldar fan myself. I loved the Dreadnought figures and the old style wraith guard.
@@jameswitts3793 I might actually recommend Waylander over Legend in terms of Gemmell. Feist's Magician is another good entry point. Abercrombie's The Blade Itself. Daughter of the Empire by Janny Wurts and Raymond E Feist. Butcher's Dresden Files. The Lies of Locke Lamorra by Lynch. The Fifth Season by Jemisin. I suppose on who I was talking to. There are a lot of different approaches.
@@ACriticalDragon Waylander books inspired my first d&d character lol, loved playing sneaky stabby shooty handcrosbow guys ever since lol. I also really enjoyed the Daughter of the Empire trilogy, I liked them more than the first 3 Riftwar books although Magician is prob my single favourite book in the series, it was the first none Tolkein fantasy I read followed quickly Gemmell. Although it was Gemmell i was reading when I was introduced to d&d so that was what i took inspiration from for characters as a 10 year old. I wondered how far intot he Riftwar stuff you read? Because I read all 30 books in that series last year and i felt like it peaked with the end of the serpent war although the ending of the series was pretty good, if i ever reread I prob will end with the serpent war though as i really enjoyed that series of 4 books, they had an almost grimdark feel actually i thought too.
@@jameswitts3793 Hmm, I think Knights of Dark Renown is my favorite Gemmell, and The War Hound and the World's Pain is my favorite Moorcock. The Cornelius Chronicles broke my teenage brain, someday I will have to try those again.
Take a shot every time they say visceral! (seriously don't do that, it could be dangerous) I think Philip is right about grimdark being honest about violence, but it's not only grimdark but also this tragic fantasy that Erikson writes in Malazan which does that. Great point about Orcs, AP.
Hey AP. I like grimdark and I do not like Broken Empire Trilogy either. I find Jorg insufferable. I don't find him to be morally gray. He's either a sociopath or a psychopath and is amoral. Also while enjoying Empires of Dust so far, I find Marith to be a bit cartoonishly evil.
wrt the fandom as the tribe, I think it's absolutely the result of individualism as you say. It's the dissolution of communalism regarding anything meaningful and the fracturing of society into the supposedly isolated "rational actor" neoliberal subject, the "perfect consumer". Fandoms, being an even more distorted extension of brand loyalty, become the only thing that makes people feel like they are who they are, unmoored as they are from any more meaningful sense of community based on shared material interests and solidarity, based on being part of a constituency with the power to shape human life and society. So if someone actively dislikes *thing you've attached your identity to*, that becomes a personal attack, a challenge to your identity.
wrt the valorization of violence in grimdark, I think sometimes this occurs, but one thing I've also noticed, in authors like Richard K Morgan and Joe Abercrombie is a meta commentary on the reader and the authors valorization of extreme violence with the authorial authority behind a subtext which challenges the reader about enjoying that overindulgent glee in extreme graphic violence despite the tremendous consequences for both the victims and the perpetrator. not just physical consequences, but psychological and psychic consequences, and the sort of ripple effect that can come from such actions. I am planning a video about thid topic doing a close reading of two particular scenes from Abercrombie which run back to back. the first scene glorifies the violence and makes it hilarious. the second scene immediately after makes the reader and the protagonist uncomfortable and sickened by the violence, and no satisfaction comes from it. I don't think that this is accidental. I think Abercrombie is making a point.
I think you are right that Grimdark, the authors and works of Grimdark, are far more complex and complicated than the usual simplistic attitude of either acceptance or dismissal suggest. That is one of the reasons why I tried to clearly lay out that this is a topic I am trying to understand and learn about, and I certainly don't have a hill to die on just yet. I don't want to judge the entire sub-genre on my limited understanding and I am trying to come to terms with understanding something that I don't necessarily enjoy, which is always a greater struggle.
@@darkportents9835 Is that because you didn't think Jorg was not written well or written too well? As.the F'lamey One pointed out, the results of critical analysis and personal preference can be different. And the major character shift tonthe Red Queen's was to me show Lawrence is a master at characters even if you don't like them. Just started Holy Sister. Green made an interesting comment that he would make a much better villain instead of a main character.
I feel like there is something a little bit static in a lot of grimdark worlds, in that it doesn't matter what any character does; the bad guys are going to win anyway. If a character we root for ends up winning, they usually have to become a bad guy first. I still like some grimdark, and I hadn't thought of how much of it is a reaction to more classic heroic fantasy. When you talk about how advanced the culture of the orchs would seem to be and how easily Tolkien characters brush off killing them, grimdark worlds actually seems to have the moral high ground. I hadn't thought of it like that before. :)
I watched the discussion and found it very illuminating. Many thanks, gents! I have read George R.R. Martin, and I too have noticed the voyeuristic tinge to some of his depictions of violence, something I rather dislike. I never get that feeling with Steven Erikson's ten big books, because he gets inside everyone, in the victim as much as the perpetrator. I feel I am in safe moral hands, when I read him. I also get what you mean, A.P., when you say about a grimdark narrator that you don't want to hear his story. I hate being inside the head of a revolting character for too long, too. And this extends to writers. You sometimes simply don't want to be mentally intimate with some persons... Keep up the good work!
Two discussion videos from you fine gentlemen in one day! Blessed we are 😁 And a fascinating topic, too. I'm always intrigued by the human need to put things in 'boxes' and label them - despite the lack of true definitions. When it comes to genre, it's more of a 'general idea' than a narrow list of characteristics. It also depends on who's asking, and who's telling. And why. If someone says they like grimdark I still wouldn't know which authors they like, or why. But in general it would be safe to assume they're okay with some graphic violence, some dark humor and some moral ambiguity.
I like "realistic" fantasy that doesn't view everything through rose colored glasses and doesn't feature purely good and evil characters. Basiclly what Philip (weird to say that as that is also my name^^) said about the more honest approach to violence and conflict at about 27:00 and next couple of minutes of the discussion ;) My very low tolerance for these one sided approaches is probably due to mainstream cinema as well, which was one of the reasons I "switched" to reading, I was just fed up with these types of conflicts (or the presentation). Maybe this "conditioning" is the reason why I actually like the extrem side of grimdark (like broken empire), but can't stand the pure good vs evil feel good fantasy on the other side of the spectrum. Edit: About the part of understanding, empathy etc: While I agree about the characters! normally not showing much empathy and understanding, a huge part of the appeal to me is that the authors give YOU as the reader the tools and information for empathy towards "evil" characters by showing the morally grey parts on both sides of the conflicts. This ofc also comes down to the readers ability to forgive atrocious behavior... If you can't, both sides seem mostly evil and you have no empathy part ^^ I just hate how wonky the definition of it is, because in the end we might just agree on everything, but categorize the genre just slightly different. It has come to a point where grimdark has become nearly meaningless when I search for new books to read... Edit: I have no idea why it is formatted this way ^^
Thanks for this. I think that one of the reasons why I struggle with the grim dark label is that I have no clear idea of what it is meant to mean. Just in the comments so far there has been a range of different definitional approaches. Everyone seems to have their own personal definition, and some of them are radically different. If Grimdark is a modernist or postmodernist deconstruction of the just war and violence in Fantasy that gives a very different lens and reading of a text than grimdark is nihilistic, or existentialist. And if it is a combination of various things then what are they? My personal approach to texts is 'read the text in front of you and see what it is doing' but that would be why I don't invent genre terms. So I really am just trying to understand what it is doing.... And so far there is no consensus.
You are in luck, Philip and I talk for hours about lots of things... the problem is usually shutting us up 😂😂😂😂😂😂 Thank you for watching. I am glad that you found it interesting.
A.P currently has those Thom Yorke vibes. Great discussion, gentlemen. Keep content like this coming. Grim Dark appears to be a depiction of nihilism to a degree (40k is the apotheosis of this). However, if nihilism was all a genre could offer, then it would be a pointless - indeed, a nihilistic - endeavour. It would be wallowing and enjoying misery for misery's sake. It seems that literature has to provide some sort of alternative, and authors may differ in the answers that they proffer to combat nihilism. David Foster Wallace has spoken about this when he has castigated other authors (such as Bret Easton Ellis) who offer no potential solution to the darkness of being. Steven Erikson, for example, may have elements of Grim Dark present in his work, but he is always working hard to demonstrate a possible response to nothingness through his exploration and condoning of empathy and compassion.
I used to say I love grim dark, and I still do but I don't love the idea of classifying works as grimdark. To me as I read more and more it all just becomes fantasy for me haha Great discussion gents
Thanks for watching. The issue of genrification and subgenrification, or labelling without understanding it one that is a problem in fantasy. I think that is why I like describing the why of labels, rather than lists of texts that conform to arbitrary definitions. I was very glad that Philip indulged me in this.
There's a pinned comment from Erickson himself on the grimdark topic on Mike's discussion of DG, which suggests it's more of a range: " Definitions for 'grimdark' vary. Some are broad in scope (anything gritty) while others are more specific (nihilist and gratuitous violence)." th-cam.com/video/ef_VS8uA6Oo/w-d-xo.html Also: " Personally, I don't see gestures of humanity in the nihilistic form of Grimdark, unless that gesture is a middle finger." I've consumed lots of Malazan content during past couple months, so it's a bit blurry, but I got the sense that Erickson rejects the grimdark label for his Malazan work. He seems to equate it with hopelessness and so falls on the nihilistic view of it. I'm looking forward to meeting characters like Karsa (Conan-analogue?; also Crom analogue = the God Whos' Doesn't Care/Is Not Willing?), who may be commentaries on the history of grimdark.
Jorg gets an AI? I’ve only finished the first volume so I was counting on the wife coming along as Jorg seems so be quite good at getting his own way with things and people . But I’m with Phillip in that one, Lawrence is incredibly good at making his readers sympathise with his protagonist. Just like AP with his opinions. I’m still reeling from AP’s interpretation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Ten years on and I haven’t found a better interpretation!
Whaaat a pleasure to watch you two discuss and laugh :) We need more videos like this one in the world! Thank you very much for the interesting discussion, it was very enlightening to me...I've always been confused about grimdark :) Hopefully not so confused anymore :)
Really? I am still in the [grim]dark about grimdark. I need to read more and think about it more. Is it a mode, a style, a subgenre? Does it have specific narrative elements, tonal elements, moral elements? I hate not knowing stuff, but also love learning about stuff I don't know. Ahhhh the paradox of the human condition.
@@ACriticalDragon Well, I am not as clueless as I was before, but obviously there's a lot more to know. The fact that you love learning about stuff you don't know, helps a lot. And you are so passionate about the things you love, it's contagious :) Creating this youtube account and sharing with us your knowledge and passion was a brilliant idea :)
@@ACriticalDragon hahah, A.P, there is no doubt that you are brilliant. And lucky to be surrounded by even more brilliant people. And the rest of us are even luckier :) You too, have a lovely weekend! :)
Great video, enjoyed watching this. Especially good to see Gemmell discussed. I've just finished the Drenai series for the first time and find there is a great void in booktube around Gemmell content.
@@ACriticalDragon I can totally understand that, while I wish I had read earlier in life, especially Gemmell. I'm also glad now is the time I'm reading his work for the first time. Next up for me is Lion of Macedon I think.
I agree that writing is an open discussion. We definitely get reactionary works of fiction. On the other side of grim dark Brandon Sanderson has said he wanted to write stories that bring hope and magic back. So we are swing the conversation continue on both sides to this day.
And yet Sanderson's works contain significant levels of violence (albeit he tends to frame it in terms of the jus bellum justum) but he also deals with slavery, depression, genocide, deeply flawed characters who commit atrocities not exactly 'hope and magic'. Post war modernist sensibilities have had a huge impact on our perception of violence and our perception of 'realism'. But I totally agree that there is a broad spectrum of fantasy, and all flavours have their fans as well as critics, and we are better for it because it gives us all something to read.
@@ACriticalDragon Thank you for taking your time to respond. I completely agree with you. By the way I hope you Discuss some Sci-fi novels. I’ve been reading Gene Wolf book of the new sun. It has some excellent philosophy.
@@gregcarter9616 if you look in the background of my videos over my left shoulder you might see the Folio Society's edition of BotNS. It is on the list.
Completely agree getting hung up on the violence. Just compare The Longest Day to Saving Private Ryan for scenes of the D-Day landings. People knew of the carnage but from a societal perspective it just wasn't shown. And as was pointed out, authors are products of their times. There is a radical shift in writing, and art in general, after WWI and WWII for example. People faced things the prior generation simply could not imagine. For from a grey hair perspective, 51, the grimdark term gets thrown out a lot simply because many, cough, have not read what I would call classics like Gemmell or Moorcock so have no foundation to base their opinion on. That being said, Dan Abnett is an amazing author especially considering what he is given to work with.
Fascinating conversation on a topic I still feel I do not fully understand. The idea that Grimdark is not defined by the level of violence resonates with me; but maybe it is because I want to rationalize my reading choices with my pacifist tendencies. What I do see is a sub-genre that probes the complexities of motivations and resulting behaviours. Great authors writing in this space force you to question your initial perceptions of a character and see the shades of grey. I went from hating Jamie to respecting him. This is a stark departure from the good versus evil narrative (did I use this term in its correct context?) where the “moral middle ground” does not exist. I think that Erickson does something different. There are complexities of motivations in his characters, but there is also a subtext (again, not sure I am using the term correctly) that permeates the books. The reader is encouraged to reflect on the meaning of being compassionate and a “good” person. Is it grimdark? Still not sure 🤔
Enjoyed the video. A lot of what you spoke about in regards to Grimdark made me think of a series a read a long time agon and have been meaning to revisit. The Axis Trilogy and the followup The Wayfarer Redemption Trilogy by Sara Douglas's has many elements of what you spoke of. Memories are hazy but I remember the world was not a simple place with many shades of grey and false histories. There were also elements of Sci Fi that had turned into legends.
Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching. I have a dim recollection of reading at least one Sara Douglas book, but for the live of me I can't remember it.
As I'm about to venture into running grimdark 5e D&D, i wanted to incorporate conanesque brutality. This discussion was so good and made me look at the whole genre of fantasy now with more depth.
Hello gents! What a rousing and enthralling discussion. I've mentioned to Philip before that I'm a relative newcomer to fantasy, and therefore I approach it with wanting good stories and compelling characters. The categories and sub-categories don't interest me much as a way to silo fiction into boxes. I'm just as happy with a good drama as I am sci-fi, horror, detective, fantasy, etc. With regard to grimdark, I approached it with some trepidation. I'm not one to revel in the mire, and tend to prefer the more heroic in my fiction. That said, I decided to dive into the First Law trilogy out of sheer curiosity. Was it as morally grey is it was claimed to be? Was it nihilistic? Amoral? My conclusion was: no. While it's true many if not all the characters can come across as grey, it's clear as you read that many of the main characters seek to be better. In other words, I don't think there's a moral grey zone in the sense of "nobody is good or bad." Maybe I'm more philosophically inclined, anyway, and therefore my understanding of ideas stems from digging deeper throughout my life. I see First Law as a set of people striving, with varying degrees of success.
I agree 100% with Philip about Jorg. 59:26 I was warned about the series, many people telling me he (Jorg) is a psychopath or sociopath, and though the first book is rough and I really thought Jorg was a despicable person, at the end of book 3 he was wonderfully complex and CLEARLY for anyone paying close attention, not a psychopath nor a sociopath. [edit: What I have read about psychopathy stated that they do not feel any guild, nor do they have any true empathy. It is therefore in that light I have to say Jorg is neither of those.] Jorg shows moments of empathy, of guilt at his actions, he has internal struggles about those things. I thought he was a compelling character, not someone I want as a friend, but still very interesting.
And this would be why I am very open about the fact that I am very likely wrong in my interpretation of the books. I intend to read a lot more of them, and re-read the ones that I have and see if I can gain a better understanding.
Great discussion. But now I am more confused than ever before about what grimdark is. All I know is that certain series are said to be grimdark, but they are quite different from each other and only seem to fill the definitions of grimdark up to a point. I hope to hear one day your (both of your) impression of the books by R. Scott Bakker. His series is like a film negative of Tolkien, not subversive like Abercrombie but an inversion.
China Mieville's Bas Lag books also take that inversion of Tolkien, although in a very different direction. It may very well be that until such time as the subgenre acquires a more settled and specific definition that it will remain a little too nebulous to have specific value.
Great discussion. I would go as back as RE Howard's Solomon Kane for starting grimdark and also mention "The Black Company" as an influence to the US side of Fantasy
A lot of Howard's stories (and Sword & Sorcery / Sandals) could be reclassified now as proto-Grimdark. But Vietnam War and Korean War fiction certainly are influences. And I think that most people see Glen Cook as a specific influence on Grimdark Fantasy.
@@ACriticalDragon I have read an article a couple years ago stating that grimdark is actually the modern version of S&S. This is why Gemmel and Elric also come up in the video, they are prime S&S
@@ACriticalDragon great minds think alike. This is the article I have read: www.grimdarkmagazine.com/grimdark-is-the-new-sword-and-sorcery/ An thinking about it, grimdark seems to do for epic fantasy what Moorcock did for the S&S stories he loved.
thecriticaldragon.com/2016/03/24/history-repeating-a-return-of-violent-machismo-to-fantasy-and-science-fiction/ This was a draft of a paper that I gave in 2016... Or it might have been 2015. There was a paper and an article. I know that I was discussing it with Donaldson and Erikson at the conference in 2015 after Donaldson's talk.
I'm late to the party here, but it occurred to me that maybe one way to frame the distinction between the literary tradition of Grimdark and the literary tradition that Malazan is a part of would be: Grimdark treats violence primarily as an object of aesthetic attention, while Malazan treats it primarily as an object of moral attention. As I was watching this, I kept thinking about the debate between John Gardner and William Gass on the subject of morality in fiction (which Erikson has referenced before). To oversimplify: Gass is interested in the aesthetic unity of a work of fiction as a self-contained system, while Gardner is more concerned with what a work of fiction is saying about things other than itself. In Gass' approach I see a LOT of the roots of what Grimdark is about -- including some of the nastier, more voyeuristic elements that you touched on, AP, but also just a general sensibility oriented towards the physical, the 'gritty', the 'real'... In short, the effect that Grimdark works are trying to achieve seems to be a mostly aesthetic one, to the point where trying to analyze a Grimdark work through a moral lens is a bit like bringing a toothpick to a gunfight -- wrong tool, wrong place. Seen in this way, any moral conclusion that a Grimdark work might seem to be drawing is almost tangential, since **that was never the point in the first place**. Grimdark often looks like a call to nihilism or existentialism, but I suspect that what's actually going on is that nihilism and existentialism are being generated incidentally, as a byproduct of an aesthetic (i.e. non-moral) pursuit. That's not to say that this kind of fiction is better or worse than moral fiction at all -- just to say that it is trying to do something completely different, and can't really be analyzed under the same rubric. Anyway, those are just some beginning thoughts on the whole 'what do we talk about when we talk about Grimdark?' question... Here's a transcript of the Gardner/Gass debate, for anyone interested: medium.com/the-william-h-gass-interviews/william-h-gass-interviewed-by-thomas-leclair-with-john-gardner-1979-e6de4d424107
Really enjoyed listening to you both discuss the genre, I really liked Philip's take on it being the fantasy genre's anwser to modernism that is something I will think about a lot. I enjoyed seeing you discuss 2000ad and its influence as I think a lot of people miss that when going back to look and they sort of gloss over it and 40k. Made me wonder if you do or used to be a tabletop gamer AP? As in 40k not roleplaying games. I would love to see you and Philip cover more series so excited to see you cover Gemmell after Malazan, would really love to see you both discuss Gormenghast as Mervyn Peake as Moorcock has himself sort of mentioned gets completelty looked over due to the popularity of Tolkien (Moorcock even said Peake's series was the superior fantasy series i think to Tolkien) but as a big big fan of Gormenghast who has looked in vain for anyone discussing the series i would happily send you guys a copy of the trilogy each just to see you discuss it :)
This is a fascinating discussion...I have not read Malazan in its entirety but can't lie, not sure how I feel about tossing my neatly pre-conceived notions of Malazan being VERY MUCH grimdark out the window. lol. Just goes to show somehow how as humans we can potentially get so attached to categories and labels without realizing it (as I pride myself not normally like that, but obviously I am, at least when it comes to that particular thing).
On Other Authors, I didn't quite get the argument about Malazan not being grimdark because it has compassion and empathy. Does grimdark have to be devoid of it in it's entirety? First law has great humour which kind of makes it not grimdark and asoiaf has plenty of elements of honour, sacrifice, kindness which would also then not qualify for grimdark. About First Law and LOTR, which elements of LOTR do you see in his work? His version of the fellowship? On a lighter note now I'm picturing Bayaz leading the fellowship! How'd that go I wonder 😂 About The ending of Broken Empire (keeping in mind spoilers) wouldn't you say that can be a realistic ending? It's not uncommon of for immoral people to achieve success in real life (in fact it's alarmingly common) For him to get the quest objective despite his actions would be in line with the theme of the book wouldn't it? I slightly disliked the ending because I felt he got a happy ending. Would have been much more interesting if he didn't achieve what he wanted. But I guess that would be too controversial an ending even for Lawrence!
Some of the definitions have grimdark being nihilistic and devoid of 'light' in which case if a text is not nihilistic and devoid of 'light' then it is not grimdark or the definition is wrong. That is why we were discussing it.
@@ACriticalDragon I haven't seen any specific definitions but the one you mentioned probably won't fit any books we've come to know as grimdark. The northmen have a strong (moral?) Code about the rules of the dueling ring. Not to mention the two Laws. Asoiaf is full of moral principles (at least for some characters) so Nihilism would be a difficult criteria to meet.
I'm not even gonna lie, I really loved this video. This is the type of discussion that I'll continue to return to as I consume more lit to track my own growth, and 'growth' as I see it within the genre. Thank y'all so much. EDIT: Are Gemmell's books sorta like Vance's 'Dying Earth' series? I ask because 'Dying Earth' definitely does NOT feel like anything contemporary to me, but I can kinda suss out it's greater influence. It felt extremely 'transitional' to me for lack of a better word and I've been searching for something that gives me that same WTF factor as far as themes, narrative style, and all that goes.
@@ACriticalDragon I'm super sorry. I have this bad habit of seeing/hearing something early and then leaving a comment and coming back to it with edits and questions! I make for a bad 'student' I suppose that doesn't want to get through the lecture to dig in :laughing: I'll post my edited in question below. No pressure to answer, I was just sorta asking into the void. I'm certainly not a 'grim dark' person. The only definitely grim dark media I've consumed is the Berserk manga and it's definitely a horrifying, existentialist drama. Listening to y'all makes me want to dig in more though and I'm scrambling to piece together all the works y'all mention so I can get a better picture of it as well. EDITED IN QUESTION: Are Gemmell's books sorta like Vance's 'Dying Earth' series? I ask because 'Dying Earth' definitely does NOT feel like anything contemporary to me, but I can kinda suss out it's greater influence. It felt extremely 'transitional' to me for lack of a better word and I've been searching for something that gives me that same WTF factor as far as themes, narrative style, and all that goes.
Gemmell's work has a Christian-ish morality at its heart, is a fantasy setting but implies a far future post-apocalyptic world, has quite a lot of violence, relatively low levels of magic, shares a certain ethos with Howard's Conan and Hyborian stories but with a more Anglo-European feel. It tends to focus on a small group of characters with varying degrees of moral ambiguity and character flaws. There is a running theme of redemption and correcting the mistakes of the past. Usually quite a few older characters. There is a tendency to have variants on character archetype rather than fully distinct characters, so across the books some will feel very familiar. I don't know if that helps, but it is how I would describe them at least. I was a big fan of the books when I was younger.
I am not very well read in grimdark fantasy (going more into it because I do massively enjoy it), but the way I personally define it is more based on themes and atmosphere. In a way grimdark fantasy is just a close look at the worst in humanity and society and the main theme in all the grimdark I've read is the consequences of violence and a lack of what would be deemed as "moral values" (the close look at the worst of us is at the expense and exclusion of everything else, I guess that's the aspect that specifically makes it grim). In this instance, the violence almost becomes part of the worldbuilding itself and is integral to understanding the dilemmas of the characters. The best example is The First Law Trilogy by Joe Abercrombie who in a way wrote an entire series based on the exploration of 3 types of violent personalities living within a world that almost "encourages" personality disorders, which is made far more interesting when you know that Abercrombie is a psychology major and if you are lucky to work in the field (I'm a therapist so I am biased here) or at least have some knowledge of psychology the novels gain a million extra layers of depth. But I think this is mostly true for grimdark as a hole, it seems to feel like a very intimate exploration of violence, disfunction and trauma (take The Poppy War trilogy, which is a massive exploration of both individual and collective trauma). This is very much my personal and biased opinion, but it's sure as hell fun talking about this stuff lol. I love your talks, keep at it.
Your fellow Malazan-scholar Raf Blutaxt in a dedicated video about Grimdark raised the point that the Grimdark has its roots in Warhammer AND was originally meant to be a satirical label until it morphed into a signifier for gore, despair and gratuitous mutilations. I personally don't care. I know it when I see it ;)
Around 54:50 Hmm, but Logen throughout the original First Law trilogy tries hard to put himself in other's shoes, he wants to be done with the killing, but the killing doesn't want to be done with him... Also West and even Dogman share occasion where they try and understand where others come from. There are multiple people showing empathy, would that then negate the grimdark tag on the First Law world?
yeah, I also didn't get some of this empathy part. It seems as if a grimdark book needs to have a very small list of attributes and cannot show glimpses of other things that don't fit the core elements. I am honestly very confused.
I am confused as well. I have seen so many different definitions now for what it is and isn't... And that is just in the comments section. But I want to understand. I don't want to impose my own definition on it, I honestly want to know what Grim Dark is as a subgenre. It is a popular movement in Fantasy so it deserves attention and analysis. But it is proving elusive to pin down.
@@ACriticalDragon can't we maybe just focus on the actual words? It needs be "Grim" and needs be "dark". A bleak setting but not without hope or humour. I don't know. Was a fantastic discussion though.
@@VicRibeiro777 as long as the discussion is interesting then I am happy. I don't need a concrete answer, but I do like to know if I am asking the right questions.
Yes, i think you are wrong about Marc Lawrence, i agree with Philip 😊 For me, if it's grim and dark, it could be called grim-dark, simple as that. Also, i always thought of Song of Ice and Fire as a modernised and violence-ised (?) version of Tad Williams' series.
I absolutely have no problem being wrong here 😁 . A combination of it not being to my taste at the time, and not having re-read it recently may have greatly coloured my view of the books and the character. I hadn't considered that approach to ASoIaF. I always saw the Shakespearean angle and the pseudo-medievalism. I will have to think about that. Thanks.
Leave it to academics to discuss some simple stuff for hours 😁 Though in all honesty i think i can explain Grimdark. We had the Tolkienesque (along with the golden era of comics) good vs evil characters or translated to colors, white and black characters. After that we transitioned to gray characters where every villain has a purpose and every protagonist has a baggage (or sins if you are religious). That means that every character now is a dot in a spectrum coloured in some shade of gray. Some towards the black some towards the white. You get those dots and you keep a good distance between them and you get Wheel of Time. You keep them as they are and you move them towards the light and you get Sanderson. You move them towards the black where the best is still in the darker half of the spectrum and you get Abercrombie. Thats grimdark And its specifically for fantasy since only fantasy has had such a strong contrast on good vs evil.
Great talk guys. My feeling is that Grimdark is, from a technical standpoint... non existent? You could say that if fantasy is a ball of play dough then Grimdark is (dark) fantasy that has been stretched, in varying degrees out of its core state. And it's only the authors dipping in and out of that 'state' which then is determined wholly as Grimdark. Which in most cases appears to be elements in part of a bigger classification, perhaps just 'dark fantasy' or something like. I could be wrong and it's not an absolute opinion. Just a thought which occurred during your discussion. You guys need a discussion on Annihilation - Jeff Van Demeer. Book or film?? No real reason but it throws around ideas which you touched upon here. Thanks you wizards
To add a little context, all the authors discussed have been said to show elements of Grimdark but also a lot of narrative or plot which indicates that it might not be. So it's difficult to label something with that title if it only displays small elements of its meaning (whatever that is). Is Wheel of time Sci-Fi because in Rand's flashbacks (forwards?) There was a time where JoJo (?) Cars and other technologically advanced devices were part of that time?
Hi Martin, that is part of what Philip and I were discussing. If there are elements that make up Grimdark, what are they? If we can identify what those elements are, instead of it being a nebulous feeling, then we can turn to any given text and look for those elements. If those elements are dominant then we could say that the text is grimdark, but if they are only partially present, or as you say, the author dips in and out of them, then we could say that the author utilises elements of grimdark but is writing in a different subgenre. So WoT, as the dominant elements are fantasy, with only a cursory 'dipping into' SF tropes, then we can be more comfortable saying it is Fantasy with minor SF elements, or it is apparently fantasy with a suggestion of an SF storyworld...
@@ACriticalDragon I was on lunch break when I last posted so it was a tad brief, so I can elaborate more now. Yes, WoT is clearly fantasy and I don't think anyone would think otherwise. As I'm sure you understood anyway, it was to highlight that very fact that many genres contain other 'genre' elements. I would not say I have a deep understanding of Grimdark (I've read all the ones you discussed) and I would be interested to know if anyone can highlight a title that we could say is, absolutely, out and out Grimdark. This would offer a good platform to really pinpoint what it is. Frankly, it's a bit of a murky terminology and you guys put forward some great markers to classify it, but ultimately, it's quite a slippery bugger. My understanding before I had given much thought to it, was that lead characters were nihilists and the world portrayed was brutal and unforgiving. But that would mean Grimdark is one dimensional, which it clearly is not. Brain drain... They also help old people cross the street. Ah redemption. I feel like this is pt1 of this discussion. Pt2 could be a critique on any title people can offer up as full blown, no grey Grimdark. Cheers A.P and Philip!
Didn't know what Grimdark was prior to this stream had heard it mentioned and thought maybe it was stories that were Grim & Dark! and now I still don't know and am content with that!! as it seems it's all a matter of perspective or taste/values and everyone's perspective/taste is different so it doesn't really exist nor matter. On another note isn't the Bible Grimdark? doesn't it tick all the boxeS? just a thought.
On Tolkien, I didn't quite understand why writers wrote as a response to Tolkien or as a retaliation against Tolkien. Either way his work becomes a yardstick. Why not just write what you want to write! Your argument about the Orcs kind of opens up the debate on how to treat your enemies. The orcs gave no quarter and slaughtered when they had power but when the men retaliated, mercy is suddenly expected. Accept surrender, see to the wounded and give them a free lawyer to argue their case 😅 Typical response we get is something along the lines of "We're better than them". The good guys seem to get the short end of the stick! 😂
Tolkien acted as an inspiration to emulate for some, others disagreed with his approach and wrote 'against' his style. So the authors were writing what they wanted, but Tolkien was an influence, either positive or negative.
@@ACriticalDragon The positive influences I understand. But the negative ones surprise me. Even if they wrote something they wanted to, their perspective would still be influenced by the rejection of his work. Could it be perhaps because he was the biggest name in the genre at that time and readers began to associate the genre itself with his work?
It is all a ploy so that when Hollywood comes calling to adapt the adventures of Dr. F'ntasy and Prof. F'reballs that I get played by a young, handsome actor... oh vanity...
@@ACriticalDragon Ah, you can always venture to the pale underbelly of the film industry, after all, Doctor Fantasy and Professor Fireballs are some pretty stylin' porn names. 🤣. (I didn't have to go to any great lengths for this joke, cheers for that). 😆
@@ACriticalDragon Yes, that is why I hope my comment was vague enough. I loved that ending. I find those kinds of endings very satisfying. Where I’m like “yeah, the author told me where they were going all throughout the story, but they obscured it just enough that I still didn’t quite see it coming.” I’m sure there’s a more articulate way to put that, maybe even a literary term for it.
BTW, new sub. I have stayed away from your channel because I haven’t read Malazan and probably won’t, but I enjoyed this discussion and wandered over to your discussion of the Tigana prologue. Great stuff! I might even watch some spoiler Malazan content.
@@thirdspacemaker9141 well thank you for watching and subscribing. I try to include non-Malazan content at least semi-regularly. Plus, Philip Chase and I will be moving on to new books and series when we complete Malazan.
@@thirdspacemaker9141 by the way, you might enjoy the other Prologue videos and my discussions with Erikson as they are writing analyses. Regardless, The Prestige is an excellent example.
@@ACriticalDragon I wanted to check that out, because it sounds intriguing, but so far all I found is Neuropath by Bakker or Neuromancer by William Gibson. Is it one of those ?
@@ACriticalDragon No problem, I will definitely read that one :) I am surprised that I didn't know about this book at all. Goes to show how easy it is to miss stuff in the jungle of literature ^^
Who are the most respected people in the court? The knights. Ergo, violence is valorised. The Dothraki are an entire people based on the most powerful lead.
@@ACriticalDragon I would say that violence is valorised by the culture of the knights or the Dothraki. Not by the writer who 'lingers' on the scenes of violence. Nor is it valorised, in my opinion, by the characters who suffer from it. That does't mean that some of those characters respond through the means of violence, but that's just how some people. sadly enough, respond. Violence births violence
@@Kreamcroque The violence that is valorised by the knights is communicated to the reader by the narrator who was created by the author. This would be the same author that created the culture, and chose to write about, and chose to feature characters from that culture as heroes. Therefore, a book that depicts violence from a narrative perspective of a violent character, and does so without condemnation, and depicts a culture that celebrates 'great warriors' denigrates learned academics, depicts violence as the solution to problem, shames physical weakness, and shows acts of violence in a way that is to entertain could be termed valorising violence. So the cultures of ASoIaF as depicted by their creator and writer venerate, celebrate, reward, and value violence. That does not preclude other characters being victims, but the vast majority of heroes celebrated in the novels are venerated for their martial ability. But you asked where it was valorised, so perhaps a simpler answer would be Westeros and Essos.
@@ACriticalDragon Hmm interesting. I would be of the opinion that creating a world where violence is valorised doesn't automatically mean that the author is valorizing violence. The same as an author of an historic novel about certain specific times in the Mongol history wouldn't automatically valorise violence. There is of course a danger that one should, but imo a SoIaF shows the horrific parts as much as how the culture venerate violence. Also not all violence is the same. Venerating a character because of his/her martial ability isn't the same as valorizing violence.
Which is why I described the genre valorising violence, the book, or the narrator/narrative perspective, or even the nebulous author as a construct, not that Martin the actual person valorised violence. There is a significant difference between inclusion and endorsement, so the narrative is not the same as the author/person. But the author created a world and narrative that does this, this is an effect created by the narrative and the narrative was created by someone, to argue otherwise is redundant. But that then does not mean that I am arguing that Martin or any other author personally endorses violence. But the genre and the narratives quite often do. And no, it is not the same as an historical fiction author writing a story set in a period of extant history in which authenticity and historicity compel certain perspectives. But gain, if you look at what I wrote I said 'a book that depicts violence' not George RR Martin valorises violence. His work does, because that is the genre he is writing in and it is conforming to that narrative paradigm. Plus, to move the goal posts further, as you seem want to do, these characters are not venerated for their martial ability as in a form of martial arts and their 'technique' they are venerated for winning on the battlefield, and the narrative depicts that violence quite often in bloody detail, in an action context that shows how brave, how strong, how powerful, and how that character is. So again, your original question, where is it valorised, it is valorised repeatedly throughout every culture, and land depicted in ASoIaF.
I would call it grimdark if the world has no hope, no way for the world to improve for the benefit of all, not necessarily just for the principal characters. Sometimes the soufflé rises and sometimes it collapses, but the ingredients are the same, it just depends on the what the chef is doing. Oh, and Geoffrey was a little shit and I cheered when he was poisoned to death. 😁 However, making a bunch of despicable characters do bad things just in order to make us cheer when they meet their end is a missed opportunity for something greater.
"And then Jack chopped down what was the world's last beanstalk, adding murder and ecological terrorism to the theft, enticement, and trespass charges already mentioned, and all the giant's children didn't have a daddy anymore. But he got away with it and lived happily ever after, without so much as a guilty twinge about what he had done...which proves that you can be excused for just about anything if you are a hero, because no one asks inconvenient questions." Terry Pratchett, Hogfather I was reminded of this when you were discussing TLotR..
Sir Terry Pratchett was brilliant, and his works remain razor sharp social commentary, and contain brilliant deconstructions of narrative. He was simply one of the best.
Perhaps grimdark has always been a part of the collective unconscious and only relatively recently has it become acknowledged. The Spanish painter Francisco Goya (1746- 1828?) has a series of paintings that are quintessentially grimdark that precede Mordor by a lot. The one with Saturn devouring his children comes to mind. Also, the most common symbol of Christianity is the crucifix, which one could perhaps argue as grim dark. All during my childhood I sat sitting in church, staring up at this poor bearded figure in obvious agony, gushing blood from His wounds. Ummmm....shouldn't the Resurrection be a vastly more important symbol instead, as the most powerful meaning of Christianity? Isn't the triumph over the death of the body and evil vastly more inspiring than the manner of execution of its messenger? But no, instead of a lovely dove, the Church founding Fathers decided to go for the grisly look instead. If Christ had been beheaded, we would be seeing guillotines in altar triptychs instead. So yeah..... okay I will shut up now. :)
From my point of view Grimdark is the more real, in-your-face side of historical-ish fantasy, be it military, quest, political or destroy the bad guy. By that I mean it completely discards the happy-go-lucky fantastical sollutions to every problem and just slams it down to the average human level. It also tends to get existentialist and brutal quite a lot, just as real life does. Tbh for me the most typical quality of Grimdark is cynicism. Also, the "is Malazan grimdark" debate is useless and is already extremely tiresome, you have books like Deadhouse Gates and Dust of Dreams which are some of the grimdarkiest books in existence, but nope, Itkovian gives hugs. Seriously. The definition of the subgenre (if you can call it that) is so mirky, I've seen people call Farseer grimdark. So, who gives a shit. Enjoy the story.
I just got to the part where you complain about Jorg... well, guess who becomes the eventual ruler of the Malazan Empire! Anyway, that was more of a joke, you can safely ignore it xD
I am very sorry that you didn't like the video and thought it was a waste of time. Obviously Philip and I disagree, mainly because we are interested in the debate of why something is classified one way or another as it is revealing about reader perception and genre classification, and how we approach and define things. We feel that discussing this and trying to understand it leads to interesting revelations about the structures, origins and applications of genre, which in turn can be revelatory about how texts are perceived or understood. But each to their own. Given that the definition of grimdark isn't fixed, and that you yourself are conflating realism, cynicism, and existentialism as a personal way of defining it, you can perhaps understand why Philip and I are interested in discussing it to try to get a better understanding. Admittedly, if your goal is to simplistically label Malazan as grimdark or not I can see why such a reductive argument wouldn't appeal. As to historical-ish. I am not sure what you mean. Very few 'Grimdark' texts are historical. Broken Empire is far future dystopian/post-apocalyptic, First Law, Malazan and most others are secondary world... so historical doesn't really fit in terms of setting. If anything, LotR is closer to 'historical' in that sense and it is clearly not grimdark. If you mean tone, then you might mean more modernist, which was what Philip was arguing.
@@ACriticalDragon Oh, no, dont get me wrong. I loved the video. Sorry if I came out as negative. I was just trying to pour some thoughts into word, at which I'm admittedly very bad. I'm just more or less getting a bit tired of the question of Malazan and Grimdark, to me it's quite obvious Malazan is not only Grimdark, it's one of the very best. Literally everyone else disagrees, which is completely fine, that's exactly what I was trying to say. Labeling doesn't matter. It's the content. Grimdark as a word doesn't have a coherent meaning either, which makes labeling something as such very clunky. More on the historical-ish - most of the time Grimdark (or what I have read of it) is set into a vaguely pre-industrial, pre-gunpowder, monarchical setting. Stuff like Acts of Caine and Broken Empire are more or less exceptions to the rule imo. (And, even in Broken Empire, iirc, swords and cold weapons are mostly the means for combat.) Vaguely ancient or Medieval setting, that is to say. And that's exactly what I admire the most about Grimdark - it strips the fantastical and adds brutal realism. Because during the Middle Ages, or Antiquity, or even as close as goddamn WW2 horrendous acts are commited, so viscous that up until recently fantasy dared not go. That's what Grimdark shows, imho. Just a quick overlook of the Assyrian Empire, or the Timurids, or even some as highly regarded as the Romans and the Chinese, will show how brutal and unrelenting humanity can be. Let's not add religiois fanaticism, holy wars and ideological conflicts to the list too... As I see it, Grimdark (or really, just Dark fantasy) arose as a reaction to the overly positive (or morally... simplistic?) outlook of Fantasy to the past and went on the complete extreme the other way. I tend to agree a lot with Philip on the philosophical side, actually. Anyways, I sincerely enjoy your conversations and am once again pardoning if I sounded way too harsh.
No problem at all. If I understand you correctly, and my pardon if I am misunderstanding you, you are talking about the modernist approach to creating a sense of 'gritty realism' or 'unvarnished' depictions of violence as the key attribute of Grimdark. If that is case, by that argument, then Malazan certainly would appear so. But graphic or brutal violence appears in a lot of fantasy so it wouldn't appear to be a sufficiently distinct trait to create or define a subgenre. But if you are talking about cynicism, existentialism, or nihilism, then that would exclude Malazan from it because it is clear that those approaches aren't present in the text as a prevailing approach. The humanist philosophy and emphasis on empathy would preclude reading Malazan as nihilist, cynical, or existentialist. At least in my opinion. And this is why the debate is interesting to me. How you define Grimdark, the qualities you ascribe to it, reveal how you approach and understand certain texts. If you define Malazan solely on the inclusion of brutal violence, and discount subtext, theme, narrative depiction, and tone, then it is easy to see Malazan as Grimdark. Then again, we could class Lord of the Rings that way under the same exclusionary criteria. It does depict the genocide of the orcs outside Helm's Deep after all. But if you add back in tone, philosophy, subtext, and nuance, then Malazan is neither cynical nor existentialist. But if you are using it to describe a sense of gritty perspective, then it is a definition that basically encompasses all fantasy that eschews the Romantic model. Which seems far too broad, as that would include things like the Dresden Files which are very violent, have graphic but not gratuitous acts, contain scenes of horror and brutality, and are not in the Romantic tradition.
@@ACriticalDragon I can see where you're coming from, I do agree partly. I don't define Grimdark just as a brutal violent adventure, that will basically mean nothing in modern media xD, I add to this the notion of gray morality (as in the context of people being defined not as good and bad, but as conflicted inbetween, or struggling to understand the difference, which in my opinion is rather realistic) and the philosophical aspects of existentialism or in more hardcore examples - cynicism (as in the Second Apocalypse by Bakker for example). But existentialism, as far as I understand the term, doesn't at all exclude the humanism? Or empathy? Existentialism is the idea that the individual's free will and willing actions determine the meaning of the world, no? That doesn't exclude a person of being compassionate, or kind, or caring, as Itkovian or Fiddler. That also doesn't exclude a person being a complete piece of shit, as Bidithal or Tanal, to mention a few. Sometimes the first prevails, sometimes the latter. What then I might also add to all this, is that Grimdark is perhaps unsurprisingly very Machiavellian. Good guys, like purely good guys, rarely survive long in the game of politics and war (aSoIaF is probably great for this point). There are exceptions, of course, Cyrus the Great is my favourite example. I'm not sure if Malazan actually applies to this, but... Mallick Rel? xD
Keeping up with the Kardashians is the greatest example of grimdark that I can think of. Cynically exploiting your own family for wealth and power, body horror, and no morale protagonist. They would be right at home in Westeros, and probably swimming like fishes.
You're both wrong. The answer is simpler : Grimdark is watching Scotland trying to compete at football.
Seriously, enjoyed the discussion. I fondly remember 2000AD, and that time period in general, which undoubtedly was the petri-dish from which modern day Grimdark spawned.
Starring Andy Robertson as Coltaine from Malazan
Scotland ran out of money at the czechout counter...
Wait, I thought I was the one who was wrong?! Well, once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.
You never mis taken an opportunity for a dad joke!
@@nickcarlson2708 Missing such an opportunity would be a terrible error, wouldn't it?
I mistook who made the mistake. Apologies oh Dr. F'ntasy.
@@ACriticalDragon No worries, P'Rofessor Fireballs! Your mistake over who mistook is understandable. By the way, I would give you an umlaut or three in your name, but my keyboard lacks the symbols, so you'll have to be happy with your apostrophe.
I have also just realised that I used an extra L in your name on the thumbnail. Sorry... I will try to remember to replace it with an apostrophe.
What a great discussion! Grimdark as fantasy trying to catch up to modernism is an interesting idea! I also find it interesting how so many authors distance themselves from the grimdark label. I won't lie: I feel a little more lost on what grimdark means after listening to this discussion, but that's not a bad thing!
Sometimes being lost is a good sign you’re going somewhere! I think . . . 😁
Awesome discussion! I wanted to share my 2cents on the genre as well, because ive been wrecking my brain with it for years now.
"Grimdark is often called hopeless, but in doing so people miss that it isn't apathetic - it is (for me) characterised by defiance in the absence of hope.
Grimdark is often called nihilistic, but this misses the idea that you can accept a nihilistic truth and still choose to die for a principle you know is an emotional construct.
A grimdark 'hero' has a tendency to go all in - to burn their bridges even when they don't need the warmth. They are in their way an allegory for hope in so much as having been shown there's no meaning in the world, they still cling to some elements of it. And in those choices they are revealed.
The way it's painted by the disapproving you would think that grimdark fiction was the literature of surrender to the inevitable. When in truth it is the story of the battle against it - sharpened by the knowledge that there's no ultimate victory to be had." - Mark Lawrence
This basically describes his Broken Empire trilogy perfectly, which literally NEVER gets labeled anything other than "grimdark". I think this definition sums up why I, and many others enjoy the genre so much. Im not a nihilist, i think using the word nihilistic has become so common that people dont realise how extreme of a word that is, rather I much more relate to existentialism. I do accept the 'nihilistic truth', but that does not mean i will mope around and do nothing until i eventually die. On the contrary it gives me motivation to do something, it releases me of the stress of unnecessary things and in turn makes my life goals easier to achieve. It's a coping mechanism for me, maybe If i was a "stronger" person I wouldn't need it, but I think all of our worldviews are somewhat coping mechanisms, and when they are challenged we get uncomfortable because all of the choices we've made that were based on our worldview might have been based on a lie that we tell ourselves. This concept is what my favorite grimdark explores, when you accept such a harsh truth about the world, any fabricated lie that you manifest from that truth can become YOUR truth and reason, and you can use it to steady yourself and lead yourself forward. We all live in self deception, but being aware of that deception and still be willing to "die for it" is what makes it so human, because that self deception is still, just an emotional construct.
Lawrence is a great writer and makes a convincing argument.
I read quite a lot of Gemmell as a teen, especially the early Drenai stuff and the Jon Shannow books. I literally CANNOT WAIT for AP and Philip to go through them on their channels.
Wow Jon Shannow barely gets mentioned. Loved them
I was JUST talking to Christine Vallestad about Moorcock and Swords and Sorcery as the precursor to grimdark, which I didn't talk about at all in my 27 minute long "what is Grimdark" (but that was more about what themes grimdark explores today than the history of the subgenre)
This might be my favorite video of yours. Incredibly enlightening. Made me rethink a lot of things. Coming from someone who is not a grimdark fan
I am very glad that you enjoyed it.
Ahaa! Hearing this "origin story" of the two of you meeting, now I feel a little less bad about leaving cheeky comments on your videos. XD
Cheeky comments that contain brilliant insight into the topic are always welcome.
@@ACriticalDragon How about double-cheeky comments?
@@marsrock316 that will get you super Secret double probation.
@@ACriticalDragon Alrighty then. Full mooning it is.
Philip and AP, great stuff as always. Is there any way or would you be interested in creating a video examining the literary merit of the Fantasy genre? Fellow book tuber Daniel Green did a video like this a couple of weeks back and I would love to hear your specific opinions on the subject. I’m sure you have run into those individuals that scoff at Fantasy as not being real literature and I believe people like me need something to reference from when people scoff at what we are reading because it’s Fantasy. One of the reasons why I purchased all of the Malazan Book of the Fallen is because I believe it was one of the driving forces behind Erickson’s creation of his works. That Fantasy is literature and often times better literature than a lot of the literature that is considered “real” literature out there.
If AP ever tires of his Professor Fireballs moniker he could always call himself Canavan Orclover.
Just on weekends.
Or clover. Omfg.
Love this!! 🖤🖤🖤
Another fantastic discussion! Grimdark has been an aspect of fiction that Iim constantly thinking about in terms of what actually falls under that particular subgenre. What I've come to discover is that for something to be Grimdark it must align with Intent from the author as it relates to specific themes, messages, or even subversions. If we reduce the definition of "Grimdark" strictly to the existence of explicit content, then that line gets a bit more blurry and subjective based on the audiences tolerance and or interpretation of those scenes.
This dynamic continues to be the best section on booktube and I can't wait for the next one!
Thank you guys, this was a great discussion. Really enjoyed it :) Keep up the great work.
A.P, Philip, really loved this conversation! Had to pause multiple times to think about (and read up on) the points made!
Got so many questions/thoughts on the discussion, will try to ask them separately.
Apart from graphic language and violence, one aspect which I associate with grimdark is making hard, morally ambiguous choices to complete the objective or to make the best of realistic choices.
Video games such as Dragon Age or Mass effect are a good example of this. Depending on how you play and what choices you've made, you can achieve the objective but with devastating impact on people. There is no graphic language or violence (Other than what's already present in the game) but the impact feels very brutal and grim.
(I don't know if you've played them so not sharing specific examples)
Great discussion as always lads.
I use grimdark mainly to talk about Fantasy but I have found a lot of the same themes in Akira Kurosawa's tragedies and in shows like The Expanse so I've come to also use it to describe sci fi.
See? We don't have a settled definition, so trying to have a discussion about it can be so difficult. Are we discussing a sub-genre of fantasy, or a collection of tropes within genre fiction, or a tone and style?
I think that is why I like trying to understand the why of it first, and then see if that leads to a workable definition.
By the way, my first comment on Philip's channel was on that same video!
It was a good video to comment on :)
@@ACriticalDragon Pure genius, eh? Did you notice the seamless visuals? 😁
Great discussion as always, thanks for the upload
In addition to "2000AD" and "Warhammer", I would also mention influences on Grimdark such as New Wave SciFi Writers (Harlan Ellison: "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream"), the Cyberpunk (again influenced by Noir/Neo-Noir) of Phillip K.Dick and William Gibson (among others) and the darker end of the stories from "Heavy Metal" Magazine (and in general Adult European Comics post-60s-Counterculture). Also Cinema: From the Revisionist/Anti/Post-Westerns Films of the 60-70s (The "Dollars"-Trilogy, "The Wild Bunch", "Once Upon a Time in the West" und so weiter ) & the Books by Cormac McCarthy to the Vietnam (Anti-)War movies and Grindhouse/Exploitation films of various sub-genres.
I agree with AP that Gemmell is an very interesting synthesis of S&S, Epic Fantasy & New Wave: Proto-Grimdark not in values/ideology, but in World Building. In his own words: "I read Tolkien, Howard's Conan books; Lin Carter, all of Moorcock". (From his wikipedia): "The consistent presence of redemption in Gemmell's work reflects his Christian beliefs. He claimed that all of his novels have a religious basis, calling them "essentially Christian books" and saying that Christianity stopped him from "promoting the cause of evil" by writing "mindless savagery" in the vein of George G. Gilman's "Edge"-westerns."
I consider Grimdark to be both nihilistic and existentialist (a legacy from Lovecraft and S&S), which is why I more and more disagree with the argument that Malazan is not Grimdark (To paraphrase from my memory Mike from Mike's Book Reviews on "Memories of Ice": "If this is not Grimdark, I don't know what is! This is way darker than anything I have ever read by Abercrombie!"). I fully agree that Malazan is not on the Nihilistic end of Grimdark (say "Warhammer" & Mark Lawrence), but I would argue that it is Existentialist Grimdark/Dark Epic Fantasy: Compassion/empathy is hard & is an active choice. Another thing: In my opinion, dark humor is a major aspect of Grimdark, whether it be nihilistic or existentialist, on a specter from potty jokes & libertine humor, via dark gallows humor, to downright iconoclastic humor about humanity, society, politics, economics & religion and sadism/Revenge Exploitation.
Hi Mac, you raise a few there that I genuinely had not considered and am now rethinking. New Wave, New Weird, and Cyberpunk are not subgenres that I had considered in this context. That is really interesting.
The change in the Western though, I would attribute that more to modernism and post-modernism, and so think more of the general prevailing movement that created them as the thing that had an effect.
But that is a really interesting list of different narratives that I genuinely had not thought about in relation to this. Thank you.
@@ACriticalDragonI was just commenting on that, as I seem to notice that Tarantino-movies and McCarthy-books are often mentioned as inspiration by "Grimdark" authors, reviews and bylines: "If Tarantino made Lord of the Rings" etc.
@@ACriticalDragon Found these two articles with Ed Gwynne and Joe Abercrombie on the question on McCarthy as Grimdark/Grimdark influence www.grimdarkmagazine.com/review-blood-meridian-by-cormac-mccarthy/
damiengwalter.com/2015/03/08/grimdark-what-is-it-joe-abercrombie-in-discussion-with-ahimsa-kerp/amp/
This is not quite about grimdark but I just thought it would be really amazing and helpful if you could do some sort of "guide to understanding fantasy" in form of a list of influental series that shaped the fantasy genre. I'm not sure if that would be possible and it's just a suggestion of course. I personally often feel overwhelmed at how many fantasy series there are and I've been trying to get a better understanding of the genre but I feel like I don't have it yet. In terms of "older" fantasy I have only read Tolkien (of course), Glen Cook, some Michael Moorcock, and I'm planning to read Book of the New Sun and Thomas Covenant once I'm done with my Malazan reread.
When I started to read grimdark I misunderstood it and I categorized it way too much based on how violent a book is. As a result, I was surprised about the First Law books because I was expecting them to be way more violent and then thought 'but this is not brutal enough to be grimdark'.
I still need to give Anna Smith Spark another try though.
Book of the New Sun is at least relatively short.
Regarding Covenant, many including myself, found the first hundred pages of Lord Foul tough sledding but it is well worth the effort. Haven't read the final four yet. At some point.
I recommend adding at least the first 2 Gormenghast books by mervyn peake to that list to read Councellor even just so i can watch somebody, anybody!, talk about them lol
@@EricMcLuen I've heard mixed things about Covenant but as far as I know Donaldson has been a big inspiration for Erikson.
I have some vague plans to do some discussions with Raf about those series once I get to them.
@@rupertcrump1312 Oh I've read the first Gormenghast book, actually, forgot to add it here! I found it really amazing but I have not continued so far. I have to be in a specific mood to read something like Gormenghast, also the prose is very challenging for me as a non native speaker, so i want to be sure to take my time to appreciate the book. One day I'll get to it again xD
@@CounsellorofMoonsSpawn Yes the prose def can present a challenge, when i first read the series i was i think 12 and I was so confused a lot of the time lol. Glad to hear you are a fan though! Love to discuss the series with you sometime on discord or something if you get back to it :)
This was such an insightful conversation on a subgenre I feel very connected to
Very interesting discussion.
I have not given this topic much tought, but just assumed the Grimdark genre started in the mid 00's. Fascinating to hear about it roots, especially the connection to Warhammer40k. I used to collect and paint the figurines when I was younger (never had anyone to play with...), and loved the bleakness of it, but I have never connected it to the Grimdark fantasy genre :)
Somehow I have missed Gemmel, might have to put that on my reading list.
Keep up the good work!
I am very glad that you enjoyed the discussion. thanks for watching.
I was an Eldar fan myself. I loved the Dreadnought figures and the old style wraith guard.
Glad to hear a call out for Gemmell
And even as a big fan of his, I completely get what you mean when you say Abercrombie is a better writer
I am a big fan of Gemmell. His works were a mainstay of mine when I was first getting into fantasy.
@@ACriticalDragon
If someone wanted an introduction into fantasy, his work and most likely Legend is what I would recommend
@@jameswitts3793 I might actually recommend Waylander over Legend in terms of Gemmell. Feist's Magician is another good entry point. Abercrombie's The Blade Itself. Daughter of the Empire by Janny Wurts and Raymond E Feist. Butcher's Dresden Files. The Lies of Locke Lamorra by Lynch. The Fifth Season by Jemisin.
I suppose on who I was talking to. There are a lot of different approaches.
@@ACriticalDragon Waylander books inspired my first d&d character lol, loved playing sneaky stabby shooty handcrosbow guys ever since lol. I also really enjoyed the Daughter of the Empire trilogy, I liked them more than the first 3 Riftwar books although Magician is prob my single favourite book in the series, it was the first none Tolkein fantasy I read followed quickly Gemmell. Although it was Gemmell i was reading when I was introduced to d&d so that was what i took inspiration from for characters as a 10 year old. I wondered how far intot he Riftwar stuff you read? Because I read all 30 books in that series last year and i felt like it peaked with the end of the serpent war although the ending of the series was pretty good, if i ever reread I prob will end with the serpent war though as i really enjoyed that series of 4 books, they had an almost grimdark feel actually i thought too.
@@jameswitts3793 Hmm, I think Knights of Dark Renown is my favorite Gemmell, and The War Hound and the World's Pain is my favorite Moorcock. The Cornelius Chronicles broke my teenage brain, someday I will have to try those again.
Take a shot every time they say visceral!
(seriously don't do that, it could be dangerous)
I think Philip is right about grimdark being honest about violence, but it's not only grimdark but also this tragic fantasy that Erikson writes in Malazan which does that.
Great point about Orcs, AP.
Hey AP. I like grimdark and I do not like Broken Empire Trilogy either. I find Jorg insufferable. I don't find him to be morally gray. He's either a sociopath or a psychopath and is amoral. Also while enjoying Empires of Dust so far, I find Marith to be a bit cartoonishly evil.
wrt the fandom as the tribe, I think it's absolutely the result of individualism as you say. It's the dissolution of communalism regarding anything meaningful and the fracturing of society into the supposedly isolated "rational actor" neoliberal subject, the "perfect consumer". Fandoms, being an even more distorted extension of brand loyalty, become the only thing that makes people feel like they are who they are, unmoored as they are from any more meaningful sense of community based on shared material interests and solidarity, based on being part of a constituency with the power to shape human life and society. So if someone actively dislikes *thing you've attached your identity to*, that becomes a personal attack, a challenge to your identity.
wrt the valorization of violence in grimdark, I think sometimes this occurs, but one thing I've also noticed, in authors like Richard K Morgan and Joe Abercrombie is a meta commentary on the reader and the authors valorization of extreme violence with the authorial authority behind a subtext which challenges the reader about enjoying that overindulgent glee in extreme graphic violence despite the tremendous consequences for both the victims and the perpetrator. not just physical consequences, but psychological and psychic consequences, and the sort of ripple effect that can come from such actions.
I am planning a video about thid topic doing a close reading of two particular scenes from Abercrombie which run back to back. the first scene glorifies the violence and makes it hilarious. the second scene immediately after makes the reader and the protagonist uncomfortable and sickened by the violence, and no satisfaction comes from it. I don't think that this is accidental. I think Abercrombie is making a point.
I think you are right that Grimdark, the authors and works of Grimdark, are far more complex and complicated than the usual simplistic attitude of either acceptance or dismissal suggest. That is one of the reasons why I tried to clearly lay out that this is a topic I am trying to understand and learn about, and I certainly don't have a hill to die on just yet. I don't want to judge the entire sub-genre on my limited understanding and I am trying to come to terms with understanding something that I don't necessarily enjoy, which is always a greater struggle.
@@darkportents9835 Is that because you didn't think Jorg was not written well or written too well? As.the F'lamey One pointed out, the results of critical analysis and personal preference can be different. And the major character shift tonthe Red Queen's was to me show Lawrence is a master at characters even if you don't like them. Just started Holy Sister.
Green made an interesting comment that he would make a much better villain instead of a main character.
I feel like there is something a little bit static in a lot of grimdark worlds, in that it doesn't matter what any character does; the bad guys are going to win anyway. If a character we root for ends up winning, they usually have to become a bad guy first.
I still like some grimdark, and I hadn't thought of how much of it is a reaction to more classic heroic fantasy. When you talk about how advanced the culture of the orchs would seem to be and how easily Tolkien characters brush off killing them, grimdark worlds actually seems to have the moral high ground. I hadn't thought of it like that before. :)
This is one of the reasons why a bunch of Tolkien scholars got mad at me.
@@ACriticalDragon Forest. Trees. Anyone who calls themself a scholar of a single work is a bit suspect and all.
@@Paul_van_Doleweerd All the Shakespeare and Tolkien scholars will start hunting you down.
@@ACriticalDragon Seeing 'Erickson here' on my youtube would be genuinely more frightening than David Mitchell in a funny wig tyvm. 🤣
(Upstart Crow is brilliant btw, just putting that out there as a defense...)
I watched the discussion and found it very illuminating. Many thanks, gents! I have read George R.R. Martin, and I too have noticed the voyeuristic tinge to some of his depictions of violence, something I rather dislike. I never get that feeling with Steven Erikson's ten big books, because he gets inside everyone, in the victim as much as the perpetrator. I feel I am in safe moral hands, when I read him. I also get what you mean, A.P., when you say about a grimdark narrator that you don't want to hear his story. I hate being inside the head of a revolting character for too long, too. And this extends to writers. You sometimes simply don't want to be mentally intimate with some persons... Keep up the good work!
Two discussion videos from you fine gentlemen in one day! Blessed we are 😁
And a fascinating topic, too.
I'm always intrigued by the human need to put things in 'boxes' and label them - despite the lack of true definitions. When it comes to genre, it's more of a 'general idea' than a narrow list of characteristics.
It also depends on who's asking, and who's telling. And why.
If someone says they like grimdark I still wouldn't know which authors they like, or why. But in general it would be safe to assume they're okay with some graphic violence, some dark humor and some moral ambiguity.
I like "realistic" fantasy that doesn't view everything through rose
colored glasses and doesn't feature purely good and evil characters.
Basiclly what Philip (weird to say that as that is also my name^^) said
about the more honest approach to violence and conflict at about 27:00
and next couple of minutes of the discussion ;) My very low tolerance
for these one sided approaches is probably due to mainstream cinema as
well, which was one of the reasons I "switched" to reading, I was just
fed up with these types of conflicts (or the presentation). Maybe this
"conditioning" is the reason why I actually like the extrem side of
grimdark (like broken empire), but can't stand the pure good vs evil
feel good fantasy on the other side of the spectrum. Edit: About the part of
understanding, empathy etc: While I agree about the characters! normally
not showing much empathy and understanding, a huge part of the appeal
to me is that the authors give YOU as the reader the tools and
information for empathy towards "evil" characters by showing the morally
grey parts on both sides of the conflicts. This ofc also comes down to
the readers ability to forgive atrocious behavior... If you can't, both
sides seem mostly evil and you have no empathy part ^^ I just hate how wonky the definition of it is, because in the end we might just agree on everything, but categorize the genre just slightly different. It has come to a point where grimdark has become nearly meaningless when I search for new books to read...
Edit: I have no idea why it is formatted this way ^^
Thanks for this. I think that one of the reasons why I struggle with the grim dark label is that I have no clear idea of what it is meant to mean. Just in the comments so far there has been a range of different definitional approaches.
Everyone seems to have their own personal definition, and some of them are radically different.
If Grimdark is a modernist or postmodernist deconstruction of the just war and violence in Fantasy that gives a very different lens and reading of a text than grimdark is nihilistic, or existentialist.
And if it is a combination of various things then what are they?
My personal approach to texts is 'read the text in front of you and see what it is doing' but that would be why I don't invent genre terms.
So I really am just trying to understand what it is doing.... And so far there is no consensus.
@@ACriticalDragon "And so far there is no consensus." That sums it up perfectly :D
I could listen to your discussion for hours. :) Thank you!
You are in luck, Philip and I talk for hours about lots of things... the problem is usually shutting us up 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Thank you for watching. I am glad that you found it interesting.
A.P currently has those Thom Yorke vibes.
Great discussion, gentlemen. Keep content like this coming.
Grim Dark appears to be a depiction of nihilism to a degree (40k is the apotheosis of this). However, if nihilism was all a genre could offer, then it would be a pointless - indeed, a nihilistic - endeavour. It would be wallowing and enjoying misery for misery's sake. It seems that literature has to provide some sort of alternative, and authors may differ in the answers that they proffer to combat nihilism. David Foster Wallace has spoken about this when he has castigated other authors (such as Bret Easton Ellis) who offer no potential solution to the darkness of being. Steven Erikson, for example, may have elements of Grim Dark present in his work, but he is always working hard to demonstrate a possible response to nothingness through his exploration and condoning of empathy and compassion.
I used to say I love grim dark, and I still do but I don't love the idea of classifying works as grimdark. To me as I read more and more it all just becomes fantasy for me haha
Great discussion gents
Thanks for watching. The issue of genrification and subgenrification, or labelling without understanding it one that is a problem in fantasy. I think that is why I like describing the why of labels, rather than lists of texts that conform to arbitrary definitions. I was very glad that Philip indulged me in this.
@@ACriticalDragon that's absolutely spot on!
There's a pinned comment from Erickson himself on the grimdark topic on Mike's discussion of DG, which suggests it's more of a range: " Definitions for 'grimdark' vary. Some are broad in scope (anything gritty) while others are more specific (nihilist and gratuitous violence)." th-cam.com/video/ef_VS8uA6Oo/w-d-xo.html
Also: " Personally, I don't see gestures of humanity in the nihilistic form of Grimdark, unless that gesture is a middle finger."
I've consumed lots of Malazan content during past couple months, so it's a bit blurry, but I got the sense that Erickson rejects the grimdark label for his Malazan work. He seems to equate it with hopelessness and so falls on the nihilistic view of it. I'm looking forward to meeting characters like Karsa (Conan-analogue?; also Crom analogue = the God Whos' Doesn't Care/Is Not Willing?), who may be commentaries on the history of grimdark.
Jorg gets an AI?
I’ve only finished the first volume so I was counting on the wife coming along as Jorg seems so be quite good at getting his own way with things and people
. But I’m with Phillip in that one, Lawrence is incredibly good at making his readers sympathise with his protagonist.
Just like AP with his opinions. I’m still reeling from AP’s interpretation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Ten years on and I haven’t found a better interpretation!
Aga, there was literally a big banner all over the video to warn you about the Spoilers
Whaaat a pleasure to watch you two discuss and laugh :) We need more videos like this one in the world! Thank you very much for the interesting discussion, it was very enlightening to me...I've always been confused about grimdark :) Hopefully not so confused anymore :)
Really? I am still in the [grim]dark about grimdark. I need to read more and think about it more. Is it a mode, a style, a subgenre? Does it have specific narrative elements, tonal elements, moral elements? I hate not knowing stuff, but also love learning about stuff I don't know. Ahhhh the paradox of the human condition.
@@ACriticalDragon Well, I am not as clueless as I was before, but obviously there's a lot more to know. The fact that you love learning about stuff you don't know, helps a lot. And you are so passionate about the things you love, it's contagious :) Creating this youtube account and sharing with us your knowledge and passion was a brilliant idea :)
And as I have said many times, it wasn't my idea.
The fact that it is brilliant clearly proves that. 😁
Have a great weekend.
@@ACriticalDragon hahah, A.P, there is no doubt that you are brilliant. And lucky to be surrounded by even more brilliant people. And the rest of us are even luckier :)
You too, have a lovely weekend! :)
This was such an enlightening discussion, thank you so much!
I am not sure about enlightening, but it was fun and interesting for me at least. I am glad that you enjoyed it, thank you for watching.
@@ACriticalDragon it was for me, since I'm pretty new to the grimdark genre. Either way, it was interesting and i learned a lot!
Great video, enjoyed watching this. Especially good to see Gemmell discussed. I've just finished the Drenai series for the first time and find there is a great void in booktube around Gemmell content.
Gemmell was a formative fantasy author for me.
@@ACriticalDragon I can totally understand that, while I wish I had read earlier in life, especially Gemmell. I'm also glad now is the time I'm reading his work for the first time. Next up for me is Lion of Macedon I think.
I agree that writing is an open discussion. We definitely get reactionary works of fiction. On the other side of grim dark Brandon Sanderson has said he wanted to write stories that bring hope and magic back. So we are swing the conversation continue on both sides to this day.
And yet Sanderson's works contain significant levels of violence (albeit he tends to frame it in terms of the jus bellum justum) but he also deals with slavery, depression, genocide, deeply flawed characters who commit atrocities not exactly 'hope and magic'. Post war modernist sensibilities have had a huge impact on our perception of violence and our perception of 'realism'.
But I totally agree that there is a broad spectrum of fantasy, and all flavours have their fans as well as critics, and we are better for it because it gives us all something to read.
@@ACriticalDragon Thank you for taking your time to respond. I completely agree with you. By the way I hope you Discuss some Sci-fi novels. I’ve been reading Gene Wolf book of the new sun. It has some excellent philosophy.
@@gregcarter9616 if you look in the background of my videos over my left shoulder you might see the Folio Society's edition of BotNS.
It is on the list.
Completely agree getting hung up on the violence. Just compare The Longest Day to Saving Private Ryan for scenes of the D-Day landings. People knew of the carnage but from a societal perspective it just wasn't shown.
And as was pointed out, authors are products of their times. There is a radical shift in writing, and art in general, after WWI and WWII for example. People faced things the prior generation simply could not imagine.
For from a grey hair perspective, 51, the grimdark term gets thrown out a lot simply because many, cough, have not read what I would call classics like Gemmell or Moorcock so have no foundation to base their opinion on.
That being said, Dan Abnett is an amazing author especially considering what he is given to work with.
Fascinating conversation on a topic I still feel I do not fully understand. The idea that Grimdark is not defined by the level of violence resonates with me; but maybe it is because I want to rationalize my reading choices with my pacifist tendencies. What I do see is a sub-genre that probes the complexities of motivations and resulting behaviours. Great authors writing in this space force you to question your initial perceptions of a character and see the shades of grey. I went from hating Jamie to respecting him. This is a stark departure from the good versus evil narrative (did I use this term in its correct context?) where the “moral middle ground” does not exist. I think that Erickson does something different. There are complexities of motivations in his characters, but there is also a subtext (again, not sure I am using the term correctly) that permeates the books. The reader is encouraged to reflect on the meaning of being compassionate and a “good” person. Is it grimdark? Still not sure 🤔
Enjoyed the video. A lot of what you spoke about in regards to Grimdark made me think of a series a read a long time agon and have been meaning to revisit. The Axis Trilogy and the followup The Wayfarer Redemption Trilogy by Sara Douglas's has many elements of what you spoke of. Memories are hazy but I remember the world was not a simple place with many shades of grey and false histories. There were also elements of Sci Fi that had turned into legends.
Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching.
I have a dim recollection of reading at least one Sara Douglas book, but for the live of me I can't remember it.
As I'm about to venture into running grimdark 5e D&D, i wanted to incorporate conanesque brutality. This discussion was so good and made me look at the whole genre of fantasy now with more depth.
Hello gents! What a rousing and enthralling discussion. I've mentioned to Philip before that I'm a relative newcomer to fantasy, and therefore I approach it with wanting good stories and compelling characters. The categories and sub-categories don't interest me much as a way to silo fiction into boxes. I'm just as happy with a good drama as I am sci-fi, horror, detective, fantasy, etc.
With regard to grimdark, I approached it with some trepidation. I'm not one to revel in the mire, and tend to prefer the more heroic in my fiction. That said, I decided to dive into the First Law trilogy out of sheer curiosity. Was it as morally grey is it was claimed to be? Was it nihilistic? Amoral? My conclusion was: no. While it's true many if not all the characters can come across as grey, it's clear as you read that many of the main characters seek to be better. In other words, I don't think there's a moral grey zone in the sense of "nobody is good or bad."
Maybe I'm more philosophically inclined, anyway, and therefore my understanding of ideas stems from digging deeper throughout my life. I see First Law as a set of people striving, with varying degrees of success.
I agree 100% with Philip about Jorg. 59:26
I was warned about the series, many people telling me he (Jorg) is a psychopath or sociopath, and though the first book is rough and I really thought Jorg was a despicable person, at the end of book 3 he was wonderfully complex and CLEARLY for anyone paying close attention, not a psychopath nor a sociopath. [edit: What I have read about psychopathy stated that they do not feel any guild, nor do they have any true empathy. It is therefore in that light I have to say Jorg is neither of those.]
Jorg shows moments of empathy, of guilt at his actions, he has internal struggles about those things.
I thought he was a compelling character, not someone I want as a friend, but still very interesting.
And this would be why I am very open about the fact that I am very likely wrong in my interpretation of the books. I intend to read a lot more of them, and re-read the ones that I have and see if I can gain a better understanding.
Great discussion. But now I am more confused than ever before about what grimdark is. All I know is that certain series are said to be grimdark, but they are quite different from each other and only seem to fill the definitions of grimdark up to a point. I hope to hear one day your (both of your) impression of the books by R. Scott Bakker. His series is like a film negative of Tolkien, not subversive like Abercrombie but an inversion.
China Mieville's Bas Lag books also take that inversion of Tolkien, although in a very different direction. It may very well be that until such time as the subgenre acquires a more settled and specific definition that it will remain a little too nebulous to have specific value.
@@ACriticalDragon The Bas Lag books, now there's a set of books I'd like to see discussed on booktube!
Great discussion. I would go as back as RE Howard's Solomon Kane for starting grimdark and also mention "The Black Company" as an influence to the US side of Fantasy
A lot of Howard's stories (and Sword & Sorcery / Sandals) could be reclassified now as proto-Grimdark.
But Vietnam War and Korean War fiction certainly are influences.
And I think that most people see Glen Cook as a specific influence on Grimdark Fantasy.
@@ACriticalDragon I have read an article a couple years ago stating that grimdark is actually the modern version of S&S. This is why Gemmel and Elric also come up in the video, they are prime S&S
@@grimreads I wrote an article years ago saying that S&S were proto-Grimdark. How about that coincidence.
@@ACriticalDragon great minds think alike.
This is the article I have read: www.grimdarkmagazine.com/grimdark-is-the-new-sword-and-sorcery/
An thinking about it, grimdark seems to do for epic fantasy what Moorcock did for the S&S stories he loved.
thecriticaldragon.com/2016/03/24/history-repeating-a-return-of-violent-machismo-to-fantasy-and-science-fiction/
This was a draft of a paper that I gave in 2016... Or it might have been 2015. There was a paper and an article.
I know that I was discussing it with Donaldson and Erikson at the conference in 2015 after Donaldson's talk.
I'm late to the party here, but it occurred to me that maybe one way to frame the distinction between the literary tradition of Grimdark and the literary tradition that Malazan is a part of would be: Grimdark treats violence primarily as an object of aesthetic attention, while Malazan treats it primarily as an object of moral attention.
As I was watching this, I kept thinking about the debate between John Gardner and William Gass on the subject of morality in fiction (which Erikson has referenced before). To oversimplify: Gass is interested in the aesthetic unity of a work of fiction as a self-contained system, while Gardner is more concerned with what a work of fiction is saying about things other than itself. In Gass' approach I see a LOT of the roots of what Grimdark is about -- including some of the nastier, more voyeuristic elements that you touched on, AP, but also just a general sensibility oriented towards the physical, the 'gritty', the 'real'... In short, the effect that Grimdark works are trying to achieve seems to be a mostly aesthetic one, to the point where trying to analyze a Grimdark work through a moral lens is a bit like bringing a toothpick to a gunfight -- wrong tool, wrong place.
Seen in this way, any moral conclusion that a Grimdark work might seem to be drawing is almost tangential, since **that was never the point in the first place**. Grimdark often looks like a call to nihilism or existentialism, but I suspect that what's actually going on is that nihilism and existentialism are being generated incidentally, as a byproduct of an aesthetic (i.e. non-moral) pursuit. That's not to say that this kind of fiction is better or worse than moral fiction at all -- just to say that it is trying to do something completely different, and can't really be analyzed under the same rubric.
Anyway, those are just some beginning thoughts on the whole 'what do we talk about when we talk about Grimdark?' question... Here's a transcript of the Gardner/Gass debate, for anyone interested: medium.com/the-william-h-gass-interviews/william-h-gass-interviewed-by-thomas-leclair-with-john-gardner-1979-e6de4d424107
That is really interesting. I hadn't considered that approach. Thank you very much.
I will look at the transcript when I get a chance.
"Fascist Aragorn" changed my mind, haha. Awesome and profoundly interesting conversation!
Thanks for watching. I am glad that you enjoyed it.
Really enjoyed listening to you both discuss the genre, I really liked Philip's take on it being the fantasy genre's anwser to modernism that is something I will think about a lot. I enjoyed seeing you discuss 2000ad and its influence as I think a lot of people miss that when going back to look and they sort of gloss over it and 40k. Made me wonder if you do or used to be a tabletop gamer AP? As in 40k not roleplaying games.
I would love to see you and Philip cover more series so excited to see you cover Gemmell after Malazan, would really love to see you both discuss Gormenghast as Mervyn Peake as Moorcock has himself sort of mentioned gets completelty looked over due to the popularity of Tolkien (Moorcock even said Peake's series was the superior fantasy series i think to Tolkien) but as a big big fan of Gormenghast who has looked in vain for anyone discussing the series i would happily send you guys a copy of the trilogy each just to see you discuss it :)
Rereading those comments on Dr Chase's video now that I realise that was the first interaction between the two of you
If the MBotF has taught us anything, re-reads are important, and understand the context 😁
Haha
In a purely colloquial sense, I call it GrimDerp. Because it’s become a buzzword
As opposed to literally calling it GrimDerp? What an important distinction!
This is a fascinating discussion...I have not read Malazan in its entirety but can't lie, not sure how I feel about tossing my neatly pre-conceived notions of Malazan being VERY MUCH grimdark out the window. lol. Just goes to show somehow how as humans we can potentially get so attached to categories and labels without realizing it (as I pride myself not normally like that, but obviously I am, at least when it comes to that particular thing).
Thanks for watching and the thoughtful comment.
On Other Authors,
I didn't quite get the argument about Malazan not being grimdark because it has compassion and empathy. Does grimdark have to be devoid of it in it's entirety? First law has great humour which kind of makes it not grimdark and asoiaf has plenty of elements of honour, sacrifice, kindness which would also then not qualify for grimdark.
About First Law and LOTR, which elements of LOTR do you see in his work? His version of the fellowship? On a lighter note now I'm picturing Bayaz leading the fellowship! How'd that go I wonder 😂
About The ending of Broken Empire (keeping in mind spoilers) wouldn't you say that can be a realistic ending? It's not uncommon of for immoral people to achieve success in real life (in fact it's alarmingly common) For him to get the quest objective despite his actions would be in line with the theme of the book wouldn't it?
I slightly disliked the ending because I felt he got a happy ending. Would have been much more interesting if he didn't achieve what he wanted. But I guess that would be too controversial an ending even for Lawrence!
Some of the definitions have grimdark being nihilistic and devoid of 'light' in which case if a text is not nihilistic and devoid of 'light' then it is not grimdark or the definition is wrong. That is why we were discussing it.
@@ACriticalDragon I haven't seen any specific definitions but the one you mentioned probably won't fit any books we've come to know as grimdark.
The northmen have a strong (moral?) Code about the rules of the dueling ring. Not to mention the two Laws.
Asoiaf is full of moral principles (at least for some characters) so Nihilism would be a difficult criteria to meet.
I'm not even gonna lie, I really loved this video. This is the type of discussion that I'll continue to return to as I consume more lit to track my own growth, and 'growth' as I see it within the genre. Thank y'all so much.
EDIT: Are Gemmell's books sorta like Vance's 'Dying Earth' series? I ask because 'Dying Earth' definitely does NOT feel like anything contemporary to me, but I can kinda suss out it's greater influence. It felt extremely 'transitional' to me for lack of a better word and I've been searching for something that gives me that same WTF factor as far as themes, narrative style, and all that goes.
You are very welcome. I am still learning and trying to understand the genre, but it seems that the more I learn the less I know.
@@ACriticalDragon I'm super sorry. I have this bad habit of seeing/hearing something early and then leaving a comment and coming back to it with edits and questions! I make for a bad 'student' I suppose that doesn't want to get through the lecture to dig in :laughing: I'll post my edited in question below. No pressure to answer, I was just sorta asking into the void.
I'm certainly not a 'grim dark' person. The only definitely grim dark media I've consumed is the Berserk manga and it's definitely a horrifying, existentialist drama. Listening to y'all makes me want to dig in more though and I'm scrambling to piece together all the works y'all mention so I can get a better picture of it as well.
EDITED IN QUESTION: Are Gemmell's books sorta like Vance's 'Dying Earth' series? I ask because 'Dying Earth' definitely does NOT feel like anything contemporary to me, but I can kinda suss out it's greater influence. It felt extremely 'transitional' to me for lack of a better word and I've been searching for something that gives me that same WTF factor as far as themes, narrative style, and all that goes.
Gemmell's work has a Christian-ish morality at its heart, is a fantasy setting but implies a far future post-apocalyptic world, has quite a lot of violence, relatively low levels of magic, shares a certain ethos with Howard's Conan and Hyborian stories but with a more Anglo-European feel.
It tends to focus on a small group of characters with varying degrees of moral ambiguity and character flaws. There is a running theme of redemption and correcting the mistakes of the past. Usually quite a few older characters. There is a tendency to have variants on character archetype rather than fully distinct characters, so across the books some will feel very familiar.
I don't know if that helps, but it is how I would describe them at least.
I was a big fan of the books when I was younger.
@@ACriticalDragon It sounds like I should at least give it a shot. Thanks for the info!
I am not very well read in grimdark fantasy (going more into it because I do massively enjoy it), but the way I personally define it is more based on themes and atmosphere. In a way grimdark fantasy is just a close look at the worst in humanity and society and the main theme in all the grimdark I've read is the consequences of violence and a lack of what would be deemed as "moral values" (the close look at the worst of us is at the expense and exclusion of everything else, I guess that's the aspect that specifically makes it grim). In this instance, the violence almost becomes part of the worldbuilding itself and is integral to understanding the dilemmas of the characters. The best example is The First Law Trilogy by Joe Abercrombie who in a way wrote an entire series based on the exploration of 3 types of violent personalities living within a world that almost "encourages" personality disorders, which is made far more interesting when you know that Abercrombie is a psychology major and if you are lucky to work in the field (I'm a therapist so I am biased here) or at least have some knowledge of psychology the novels gain a million extra layers of depth. But I think this is mostly true for grimdark as a hole, it seems to feel like a very intimate exploration of violence, disfunction and trauma (take The Poppy War trilogy, which is a massive exploration of both individual and collective trauma). This is very much my personal and biased opinion, but it's sure as hell fun talking about this stuff lol. I love your talks, keep at it.
Thanks for watching and the thoughtful comment. I really appreciate it.
Your fellow Malazan-scholar Raf Blutaxt in a dedicated video about Grimdark raised the point that the Grimdark has its roots in Warhammer AND was originally meant to be a satirical label until it morphed into a signifier for gore, despair and gratuitous mutilations. I personally don't care. I know it when I see it ;)
I might have to chat to Raf about this. He is much better read than I am. That is a great idea.
Thanks.
40k coined the term but the concept is a lot older. Would Animal Farm be considered non-violent grimdark?
Around 54:50 Hmm, but Logen throughout the original First Law trilogy tries hard to put himself in other's shoes, he wants to be done with the killing, but the killing doesn't want to be done with him... Also West and even Dogman share occasion where they try and understand where others come from.
There are multiple people showing empathy, would that then negate the grimdark tag on the First Law world?
yeah, I also didn't get some of this empathy part. It seems as if a grimdark book needs to have a very small list of attributes and cannot show glimpses of other things that don't fit the core elements. I am honestly very confused.
I am confused as well.
I have seen so many different definitions now for what it is and isn't... And that is just in the comments section.
But I want to understand.
I don't want to impose my own definition on it, I honestly want to know what Grim Dark is as a subgenre.
It is a popular movement in Fantasy so it deserves attention and analysis. But it is proving elusive to pin down.
@@ACriticalDragon can't we maybe just focus on the actual words?
It needs be "Grim" and needs be "dark". A bleak setting but not without hope or humour. I don't know. Was a fantastic discussion though.
@@VicRibeiro777 as long as the discussion is interesting then I am happy.
I don't need a concrete answer, but I do like to know if I am asking the right questions.
@@ACriticalDragon you are most definitely asking ones that make us think!
Yes, i think you are wrong about Marc Lawrence, i agree with Philip 😊
For me, if it's grim and dark, it could be called grim-dark, simple as that.
Also, i always thought of Song of Ice and Fire as a modernised and violence-ised (?) version of Tad Williams' series.
I absolutely have no problem being wrong here 😁 . A combination of it not being to my taste at the time, and not having re-read it recently may have greatly coloured my view of the books and the character.
I hadn't considered that approach to ASoIaF. I always saw the Shakespearean angle and the pseudo-medievalism. I will have to think about that.
Thanks.
Leave it to academics to discuss some simple stuff for hours 😁
Though in all honesty i think i can explain Grimdark. We had the Tolkienesque (along with the golden era of comics) good vs evil characters or translated to colors, white and black characters.
After that we transitioned to gray characters where every villain has a purpose and every protagonist has a baggage (or sins if you are religious). That means that every character now is a dot in a spectrum coloured in some shade of gray. Some towards the black some towards the white.
You get those dots and you keep a good distance between them and you get Wheel of Time.
You keep them as they are and you move them towards the light and you get Sanderson.
You move them towards the black where the best is still in the darker half of the spectrum and you get Abercrombie. Thats grimdark
And its specifically for fantasy since only fantasy has had such a strong contrast on good vs evil.
Give two academics room to talk and a topic and we can keep ourselves entertained for hours.
Great talk guys. My feeling is that Grimdark is, from a technical standpoint... non existent? You could say that if fantasy is a ball of play dough then Grimdark is (dark) fantasy that has been stretched, in varying degrees out of its core state. And it's only the authors dipping in and out of that 'state' which then is determined wholly as Grimdark. Which in most cases appears to be elements in part of a bigger classification, perhaps just 'dark fantasy' or something like.
I could be wrong and it's not an absolute opinion. Just a thought which occurred during your discussion.
You guys need a discussion on Annihilation - Jeff Van Demeer.
Book or film?? No real reason but it throws around ideas which you touched upon here.
Thanks you wizards
To add a little context, all the authors discussed have been said to show elements of Grimdark but also a lot of narrative or plot which indicates that it might not be. So it's difficult to label something with that title if it only displays small elements of its meaning (whatever that is).
Is Wheel of time Sci-Fi because in Rand's flashbacks (forwards?) There was a time where JoJo (?) Cars and other technologically advanced devices were part of that time?
Hi Martin, that is part of what Philip and I were discussing. If there are elements that make up Grimdark, what are they? If we can identify what those elements are, instead of it being a nebulous feeling, then we can turn to any given text and look for those elements. If those elements are dominant then we could say that the text is grimdark, but if they are only partially present, or as you say, the author dips in and out of them, then we could say that the author utilises elements of grimdark but is writing in a different subgenre.
So WoT, as the dominant elements are fantasy, with only a cursory 'dipping into' SF tropes, then we can be more comfortable saying it is Fantasy with minor SF elements, or it is apparently fantasy with a suggestion of an SF storyworld...
@@ACriticalDragon I was on lunch break when I last posted so it was a tad brief, so I can elaborate more now.
Yes, WoT is clearly fantasy and I don't think anyone would think otherwise. As I'm sure you understood anyway, it was to highlight that very fact that many genres contain other 'genre' elements.
I would not say I have a deep understanding of Grimdark (I've read all the ones you discussed) and I would be interested to know if anyone can highlight a title that we could say is, absolutely, out and out Grimdark. This would offer a good platform to really pinpoint what it is.
Frankly, it's a bit of a murky terminology and you guys put forward some great markers to classify it, but ultimately, it's quite a slippery bugger.
My understanding before I had given much thought to it, was that lead characters were nihilists and the world portrayed was brutal and unforgiving.
But that would mean Grimdark is one dimensional, which it clearly is not.
Brain drain...
They also help old people cross the street. Ah redemption.
I feel like this is pt1 of this discussion. Pt2 could be a critique on any title people can offer up as full blown, no grey Grimdark.
Cheers A.P and Philip!
Didn't know what Grimdark was prior to this stream had heard it mentioned and thought maybe it was stories that were Grim & Dark! and now I still don't know and am content with that!! as it seems it's all a matter of perspective or taste/values and everyone's perspective/taste is different so it doesn't really exist nor matter. On another note isn't the Bible Grimdark? doesn't it tick all the boxeS? just a thought.
On Tolkien,
I didn't quite understand why writers wrote as a response to Tolkien or as a retaliation against Tolkien. Either way his work becomes a yardstick. Why not just write what you want to write!
Your argument about the Orcs kind of opens up the debate on how to treat your enemies. The orcs gave no quarter and slaughtered when they had power but when the men retaliated, mercy is suddenly expected. Accept surrender, see to the wounded and give them a free lawyer to argue their case 😅
Typical response we get is something along the lines of "We're better than them". The good guys seem to get the short end of the stick! 😂
Tolkien acted as an inspiration to emulate for some, others disagreed with his approach and wrote 'against' his style.
So the authors were writing what they wanted, but Tolkien was an influence, either positive or negative.
@@ACriticalDragon The positive influences I understand. But the negative ones surprise me. Even if they wrote something they wanted to, their perspective would still be influenced by the rejection of his work. Could it be perhaps because he was the biggest name in the genre at that time and readers began to associate the genre itself with his work?
The Anxiety of Influence.
These video titles keep getting better 😂
I am slowly learning to TH-cam... no promises... but I am trying to learn.
And, conspicuously, the, um, actors thumbnails keep getting younger and younger. Certainly a fantasy youtube channel. 🤣🤣🤣
It is all a ploy so that when Hollywood comes calling to adapt the adventures of Dr. F'ntasy and Prof. F'reballs that I get played by a young, handsome actor... oh vanity...
@@ACriticalDragon Ah, you can always venture to the pale underbelly of the film industry, after all, Doctor Fantasy and Professor Fireballs are some pretty stylin' porn names. 🤣. (I didn't have to go to any great lengths for this joke, cheers for that). 😆
At it's most reductionist, perhaps grimdark is just a marketing term.
1:02:30 Have you seen The Prestige?
Yes, but discussing that example would ruin the film. You could still enjoy the book though.
@@ACriticalDragon Yes, that is why I hope my comment was vague enough. I loved that ending. I find those kinds of endings very satisfying. Where I’m like “yeah, the author told me where they were going all throughout the story, but they obscured it just enough that I still didn’t quite see it coming.” I’m sure there’s a more articulate way to put that, maybe even a literary term for it.
BTW, new sub. I have stayed away from your channel because I haven’t read Malazan and probably won’t, but I enjoyed this discussion and wandered over to your discussion of the Tigana prologue. Great stuff! I might even watch some spoiler Malazan content.
@@thirdspacemaker9141 well thank you for watching and subscribing.
I try to include non-Malazan content at least semi-regularly.
Plus, Philip Chase and I will be moving on to new books and series when we complete Malazan.
@@thirdspacemaker9141 by the way, you might enjoy the other Prologue videos and my discussions with Erikson as they are writing analyses.
Regardless, The Prestige is an excellent example.
Chat was great, left disappointed at the lack of fireballs and spells from both speakers. 2/10 dragon shells
CGI is so expensive. We are saving all that for the season finale.
@@ACriticalDragon I was under the impression your were soletaken and could take the form of an unicorn.
Another thought, what would be the grimmest darkest grimdark? The Bible?
Maybe, I think the second Apocalypse by Scott Baker is very dark and beyond redemption is so grim that it is hilarious again ^^
Neuropath by Bakker is possibly the darkest book that I have ever read. Brilliant, but incredibly bleak. I wanted to bleach my brain after reading it.
@@ACriticalDragon I wanted to check that out, because it sounds intriguing, but so far all I found is Neuropath by Bakker or Neuromancer by William Gibson. Is it one of those ?
@@kingplunger6033 Neuropath is what I meant. Sorry.
@@ACriticalDragon No problem, I will definitely read that one :) I am surprised that I didn't know about this book at all. Goes to show how easy it is to miss stuff in the jungle of literature ^^
I would want to know where violence in SoIaF is valorized....
Who are the most respected people in the court? The knights. Ergo, violence is valorised.
The Dothraki are an entire people based on the most powerful lead.
@@ACriticalDragon I would say that violence is valorised by the culture of the knights or the Dothraki. Not by the writer who 'lingers' on the scenes of violence. Nor is it valorised, in my opinion, by the characters who suffer from it. That does't mean that some of those characters respond through the means of violence, but that's just how some people. sadly enough, respond. Violence births violence
@@Kreamcroque The violence that is valorised by the knights is communicated to the reader by the narrator who was created by the author. This would be the same author that created the culture, and chose to write about, and chose to feature characters from that culture as heroes. Therefore, a book that depicts violence from a narrative perspective of a violent character, and does so without condemnation, and depicts a culture that celebrates 'great warriors' denigrates learned academics, depicts violence as the solution to problem, shames physical weakness, and shows acts of violence in a way that is to entertain could be termed valorising violence.
So the cultures of ASoIaF as depicted by their creator and writer venerate, celebrate, reward, and value violence. That does not preclude other characters being victims, but the vast majority of heroes celebrated in the novels are venerated for their martial ability.
But you asked where it was valorised, so perhaps a simpler answer would be Westeros and Essos.
@@ACriticalDragon Hmm interesting. I would be of the opinion that creating a world where violence is valorised doesn't automatically mean that the author is valorizing violence. The same as an author of an historic novel about certain specific times in the Mongol history wouldn't automatically valorise violence. There is of course a danger that one should, but imo a SoIaF shows the horrific parts as much as how the culture venerate violence.
Also not all violence is the same. Venerating a character because of his/her martial ability isn't the same as valorizing violence.
Which is why I described the genre valorising violence, the book, or the narrator/narrative perspective, or even the nebulous author as a construct, not that Martin the actual person valorised violence. There is a significant difference between inclusion and endorsement, so the narrative is not the same as the author/person. But the author created a world and narrative that does this, this is an effect created by the narrative and the narrative was created by someone, to argue otherwise is redundant. But that then does not mean that I am arguing that Martin or any other author personally endorses violence. But the genre and the narratives quite often do. And no, it is not the same as an historical fiction author writing a story set in a period of extant history in which authenticity and historicity compel certain perspectives.
But gain, if you look at what I wrote I said 'a book that depicts violence' not George RR Martin valorises violence. His work does, because that is the genre he is writing in and it is conforming to that narrative paradigm.
Plus, to move the goal posts further, as you seem want to do, these characters are not venerated for their martial ability as in a form of martial arts and their 'technique' they are venerated for winning on the battlefield, and the narrative depicts that violence quite often in bloody detail, in an action context that shows how brave, how strong, how powerful, and how that character is.
So again, your original question, where is it valorised, it is valorised repeatedly throughout every culture, and land depicted in ASoIaF.
I would call it grimdark if the world has no hope, no way for the world to improve for the benefit of all, not necessarily just for the principal characters.
Sometimes the soufflé rises and sometimes it collapses, but the ingredients are the same, it just depends on the what the chef is doing.
Oh, and Geoffrey was a little shit and I cheered when he was poisoned to death. 😁
However, making a bunch of despicable characters do bad things just in order to make us cheer when they meet their end is a missed opportunity for something greater.
"And then Jack chopped down what was the world's last beanstalk, adding murder and ecological terrorism to the theft, enticement, and trespass charges already mentioned, and all the giant's children didn't have a daddy anymore. But he got away with it and lived happily ever after, without so much as a guilty twinge about what he had done...which proves that you can be excused for just about anything if you are a hero, because no one asks inconvenient questions."
Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
I was reminded of this when you were discussing TLotR..
Sir Terry Pratchett was brilliant, and his works remain razor sharp social commentary, and contain brilliant deconstructions of narrative. He was simply one of the best.
@@ACriticalDragon Who says that only Science Fiction is for social commentary? Even his young adult (term used loosely) hits the nails on the head.
Perhaps grimdark has always been a part of the collective unconscious and only relatively recently has it become acknowledged. The Spanish painter Francisco Goya (1746- 1828?) has a series of paintings that are quintessentially grimdark that precede Mordor by a lot. The one with Saturn devouring his children comes to mind. Also, the most common symbol of Christianity is the crucifix, which one could perhaps argue as grim dark. All during my childhood I sat sitting in church, staring up at this poor bearded figure in obvious agony, gushing blood from His wounds. Ummmm....shouldn't the Resurrection be a vastly more important symbol instead, as the most powerful meaning of Christianity? Isn't the triumph over the death of the body and evil vastly more inspiring than the manner of execution of its messenger? But no, instead of a lovely dove, the Church founding Fathers decided to go for the grisly look instead. If Christ had been beheaded, we would be seeing guillotines in altar triptychs instead. So yeah..... okay I will shut up now. :)
i think i'm viewer 666 :O
An auspicious viewer number for a Grimdark discussion.
From my point of view Grimdark is the more real, in-your-face side of historical-ish fantasy, be it military, quest, political or destroy the bad guy. By that I mean it completely discards the happy-go-lucky fantastical sollutions to every problem and just slams it down to the average human level. It also tends to get existentialist and brutal quite a lot, just as real life does. Tbh for me the most typical quality of Grimdark is cynicism.
Also, the "is Malazan grimdark" debate is useless and is already extremely tiresome, you have books like Deadhouse Gates and Dust of Dreams which are some of the grimdarkiest books in existence, but nope, Itkovian gives hugs. Seriously. The definition of the subgenre (if you can call it that) is so mirky, I've seen people call Farseer grimdark. So, who gives a shit. Enjoy the story.
I just got to the part where you complain about Jorg... well, guess who becomes the eventual ruler of the Malazan Empire! Anyway, that was more of a joke, you can safely ignore it xD
I am very sorry that you didn't like the video and thought it was a waste of time. Obviously Philip and I disagree, mainly because we are interested in the debate of why something is classified one way or another as it is revealing about reader perception and genre classification, and how we approach and define things. We feel that discussing this and trying to understand it leads to interesting revelations about the structures, origins and applications of genre, which in turn can be revelatory about how texts are perceived or understood. But each to their own.
Given that the definition of grimdark isn't fixed, and that you yourself are conflating realism, cynicism, and existentialism as a personal way of defining it, you can perhaps understand why Philip and I are interested in discussing it to try to get a better understanding. Admittedly, if your goal is to simplistically label Malazan as grimdark or not I can see why such a reductive argument wouldn't appeal.
As to historical-ish. I am not sure what you mean. Very few 'Grimdark' texts are historical. Broken Empire is far future dystopian/post-apocalyptic, First Law, Malazan and most others are secondary world... so historical doesn't really fit in terms of setting. If anything, LotR is closer to 'historical' in that sense and it is clearly not grimdark. If you mean tone, then you might mean more modernist, which was what Philip was arguing.
@@ACriticalDragon Oh, no, dont get me wrong. I loved the video. Sorry if I came out as negative. I was just trying to pour some thoughts into word, at which I'm admittedly very bad. I'm just more or less getting a bit tired of the question of Malazan and Grimdark, to me it's quite obvious Malazan is not only Grimdark, it's one of the very best. Literally everyone else disagrees, which is completely fine, that's exactly what I was trying to say. Labeling doesn't matter. It's the content. Grimdark as a word doesn't have a coherent meaning either, which makes labeling something as such very clunky.
More on the historical-ish - most of the time Grimdark (or what I have read of it) is set into a vaguely pre-industrial, pre-gunpowder, monarchical setting. Stuff like Acts of Caine and Broken Empire are more or less exceptions to the rule imo. (And, even in Broken Empire, iirc, swords and cold weapons are mostly the means for combat.) Vaguely ancient or Medieval setting, that is to say. And that's exactly what I admire the most about Grimdark - it strips the fantastical and adds brutal realism. Because during the Middle Ages, or Antiquity, or even as close as goddamn WW2 horrendous acts are commited, so viscous that up until recently fantasy dared not go. That's what Grimdark shows, imho. Just a quick overlook of the Assyrian Empire, or the Timurids, or even some as highly regarded as the Romans and the Chinese, will show how brutal and unrelenting humanity can be. Let's not add religiois fanaticism, holy wars and ideological conflicts to the list too...
As I see it, Grimdark (or really, just Dark fantasy) arose as a reaction to the overly positive (or morally... simplistic?) outlook of Fantasy to the past and went on the complete extreme the other way. I tend to agree a lot with Philip on the philosophical side, actually.
Anyways, I sincerely enjoy your conversations and am once again pardoning if I sounded way too harsh.
No problem at all.
If I understand you correctly, and my pardon if I am misunderstanding you, you are talking about the modernist approach to creating a sense of 'gritty realism' or 'unvarnished' depictions of violence as the key attribute of Grimdark.
If that is case, by that argument, then Malazan certainly would appear so. But graphic or brutal violence appears in a lot of fantasy so it wouldn't appear to be a sufficiently distinct trait to create or define a subgenre.
But if you are talking about cynicism, existentialism, or nihilism, then that would exclude Malazan from it because it is clear that those approaches aren't present in the text as a prevailing approach. The humanist philosophy and emphasis on empathy would preclude reading Malazan as nihilist, cynical, or existentialist. At least in my opinion.
And this is why the debate is interesting to me. How you define Grimdark, the qualities you ascribe to it, reveal how you approach and understand certain texts.
If you define Malazan solely on the inclusion of brutal violence, and discount subtext, theme, narrative depiction, and tone, then it is easy to see Malazan as Grimdark. Then again, we could class Lord of the Rings that way under the same exclusionary criteria. It does depict the genocide of the orcs outside Helm's Deep after all. But if you add back in tone, philosophy, subtext, and nuance, then Malazan is neither cynical nor existentialist.
But if you are using it to describe a sense of gritty perspective, then it is a definition that basically encompasses all fantasy that eschews the Romantic model. Which seems far too broad, as that would include things like the Dresden Files which are very violent, have graphic but not gratuitous acts, contain scenes of horror and brutality, and are not in the Romantic tradition.
@@ACriticalDragon I can see where you're coming from, I do agree partly. I don't define Grimdark just as a brutal violent adventure, that will basically mean nothing in modern media xD, I add to this the notion of gray morality (as in the context of people being defined not as good and bad, but as conflicted inbetween, or struggling to understand the difference, which in my opinion is rather realistic) and the philosophical aspects of existentialism or in more hardcore examples - cynicism (as in the Second Apocalypse by Bakker for example). But existentialism, as far as I understand the term, doesn't at all exclude the humanism? Or empathy? Existentialism is the idea that the individual's free will and willing actions determine the meaning of the world, no? That doesn't exclude a person of being compassionate, or kind, or caring, as Itkovian or Fiddler. That also doesn't exclude a person being a complete piece of shit, as Bidithal or Tanal, to mention a few. Sometimes the first prevails, sometimes the latter.
What then I might also add to all this, is that Grimdark is perhaps unsurprisingly very Machiavellian. Good guys, like purely good guys, rarely survive long in the game of politics and war (aSoIaF is probably great for this point). There are exceptions, of course, Cyrus the Great is my favourite example. I'm not sure if Malazan actually applies to this, but... Mallick Rel? xD