Joe Abercrombie defends gritty fantasy

[Mark_Lawrence]

Mark,

There's an obvious difference between:

A) "liking" or "disliking" (alternately, "praising" or "criticizing") X in book Y

B) "complaining about an over-reliance on" or "making a case for the intellectual/artistic justification of" X as a general trend in fiction category Z.

Joe Abercrombie's "pro-grit" post is very much in category B. Aiden Moher's very positive review of your book, by contrast, is an example of category A.

Joe can explain why he writes the way he does, that's fine. Complaining about that list of 5 things though... well, if someone wants to... but what are they hoping to achieve? I ask again. What is the point? Joe's point was presumably to save you the effort and hopefully drain some of the puzzling vitriol seen in other quarters.

I can get that people like to talk, to discuss, to debate. But complain? What is someone actually complaining about when the pick from your list of 5? Were they to knock on my door with an item off the list and begin 'I wish to complain...' how would they finish that sentence?

 

[Nerds_feather]

If you dislike the specific word choice of "complaining," then interject "criticizing" or "taking issue with" instead.

As for the list of 5...well, it's probably much more extensive than that. But those are 5 dimensions, if you will, of grit in fantasy fiction. And I don't personally "criticize" or "take issue with" all five of those--as it happens, I much prefer a moral "grayscale" to a simplistic "black and white" setup. I also like dark themes--have you read Sapkowski's Witcher books? Blood of Elves is, thematically-speaking, one of the darkest books I've ever read. There's a crushing sense of doom about the whole thing, and in my opinion it's exquisitely rendered. (Can't wait for book #3!)

Going back to Joe's post, he cites one person who is "criticizing" or "taking issue with" the fact that gritty fantasy has replaced the older conventions, the ones that had clearer "good vs. evil" dynamics, more High Medieval-style romance, faeries...I don't know what else. That's taking issue with all 5 on that list, I guess. But I don't see tons of critiques along those lines. Usually it's just narrowly about levels of violence/cruelty/gore/etc.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

If you dislike the specific word choice of "complaining," then interject "criticizing" or "taking issue with" instead.

As for the list of 5...well, it's probably much more extensive than that. But those are 5 dimensions, if you will, of grit in fantasy fiction. And I don't personally "criticize" or "take issue with" all five of those--as it happens, I much prefer a moral "grayscale" to a simplistic "black and white" setup. I also like dark themes--have you read Sapkowski's Witcher books? Blood of Elves is, thematically-speaking, one of the darkest books I've ever read. There's a crushing sense of doom about the whole thing, and in my opinion it's exquisitely rendered. (Can't wait for book #3!)

Going back to Joe's post, he cites one person who is "criticizing" or "taking issue with" the fact that gritty fantasy has replaced the older conventions, the ones that had clearer "good vs. evil" dynamics, more High Medieval-style romance, faeries...I don't know what else. That's taking issue with all 5 on that list, I guess. But I don't see tons of critiques along those lines. Usually it's just narrowly about levels of violence/cruelty/gore/etc.

So the person knocking at my door now begins with 'I wish to take issue with...' and they focus on #5 'the level of violence/cruelty/gore/etc'...

I'm still wondering what they're going to say that is different from 'I don't much enjoy it myself and I'm going to read a different book. Goodbye.'

And if that was what they said one might wonder why they bothered to knock at all.

 

[Rolynd]

I must say when I first picked up The Blade Itself I had no idea what I was getting into. It quickly drew me in and I loved the fact that the characters were so diverse. It was refreshing, and in a time of new authors taking over Joe Abercrombie stood out to me as a front runner. I did not find his work too brutal at any point. His characters were realistic in their setting and never felt like they were doing or saying anything they shouldn't. Of course now I have read all of his books and I think they are getting better as they go.

I understand that life is tough and reading is an escape but a good book is a good book. I have not read much "Grimdark". I would think that Paul Hoffman's Left Hand of God might fall under this and I had a hard time reading that book, for some reason I picked up the second in the series a couple years later and put it down soon after. I do have a problem with a MC who has no emotion or reasoning behind what they are doing. If they kill hundreds of people just to kill them and feel nothing about it then it is not for me.

Another one in this category might be Mark Lawrence who has been a hot topic on this site. Again, I think I understood the character more in this and it didn't bother me much. I am re-reading Lord Fouls Bane by Donaldson right now and the rape scene in that is far more disturbing than Lawrence's.

So I think the writer is the one who can make "Gritty" good or bad and it comes down to characters and their believeability.

You blushing Joe?

Really enjoyed the article. I love the coldness of the violence in GRRM and I love the visceral nature of Mr Abercrombie's, they both have a totally different approach and feel to the violence and I think if you can say that and a writer isn't simple writing detailed descriptions of gore that leave the reader disgusted but disconnected then it's all good.

Anyone ever read American Psycho? The rat scene

Distinct purpose in that book maybe, but if that kind of stuff was in a fantasy I doubt I would warm to the book. Not sure I can really explain why. Maybe its because although you can appreciate APsy you dont exactly enjoy it as such, which is the main thing I want from a fantasy.

 

[Nerds_feather]

So the person knocking at my door now begins with 'I wish to take issue with...' and they focus on #5 'the level of violence/cruelty/gore/etc'...

I'm still wondering what they're going to say that is different from 'I don't much enjoy it myself and I'm going to read a different book. Goodbye.'

And if that was what they said one might wonder why they bothered to knock at all.

You'll probably have to wait for someone (who has read Prince of Thorns or the sequels, and specifically identifies #5 in those books and takes issue with that) to knock on your door before you'll find out what they plan to say next.

On a general level, though, when I review books, I try to separate out the "just didn't do it for me" from what I think "doesn't work," and base that distinction on whether I can lay out a cogent case for why I think it "doesn't work." I don't believe in objective truth in literary criticism, but I do believe in well-supported and poorly-supported arguments. If I can't put together what I feel is a well-supported argument for why I have a problem with something, I have to conclude it's just a question of taste.

Here's an example of a book I reviewed whose humor "just didn't do it for me." I didn't dislike the book, but I did feel the style of humor was better suited to other tastes than mine.

Of course, all this applies to positive criticism as well. Take Aiden Moher's review of Prince of Thorns--is this just his "personal taste" or does he lay out a cogent argument for why the violence and dark themes in Prince of Thorns "works," in your opinion?

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

You'll probably have to wait for someone (who has read Prince of Thorns or the sequels, and specifically identifies #5 in those books and takes issue with that) to knock on your door before you'll find out what they plan to say next.

On a general level, though, when I review books, I try to separate out the "just didn't do it for me" from what I think "doesn't work," and if it's the latter, then I write an argument that lays out a case for why I think that is. I don't believe in objective truth in literary criticism, but I do believe in well-supported and poorly-supported arguments, and if I can't put together what I feel is a well-supported argument for why I have a problem with something, I have to conclude it's just a question of taste.

Here's an example of a book I reviewed whose humor "just didn't do it for me." I didn't dislike the book, but I did feel the style of humor was better suited to other tastes than mine.

And yet you and others blog at length about how terrible nasty this type of writing that we'll mock with a silly name is... but you need to specifically read my book to complain about it? Go on... as devil's advocate: take issue with me for writing a book that exceeds your comfort levels of violence. You don't need to read it or an astonishing essay, take it as read that it does. What next. There's more violence in it than you like. What's your complaint? What do you expect to happen about it?

It is, after all, a major item on your list, and it's easy to assume (true or not) that Prince of Thorns does contain more violence than you're comfortable with. How does the business of taking issue proceed from there. What do you say to me next?

Here I'm simply trying to elicit what you're actually trying to say with this list and this complaint/take issue business. What, other than 'I don't want to read it' is your problem?

I ask because (repeating myself) there are plenty of books/genres I don't want to read and yet I don't spend my time taking issue with them (or complaining about them).

 

[Nerds_feather]

Oh dear...and here I was thinking we had progressed on to an actual conversation that might, you know, actually be interesting and stuff. But apparently not...

If you can ever get past the notion that someone found a blog piece that criticized your book to be a good starting point for a broader conversation, and accept that this in and of itself is not a criticism of your book, then we can talk.

If not, then all I can say is: "goodbye for now." I've already responded to you on this topic multiple times in the other thread, and don't feel the need to make the same case again to someone who simply refuses to listen.

 

[Ursa major]

Please, can we all try to keep this civil and, more importantly, on thread.

 

[Rolynd]

Holy **** its Mark Lawrence! I do love this forum sometimes.

Quick gush - I bought PoT randomly in Waterstones cos I needed something to read on the bus, hadn't heard anything about it but it hooked me straight away and I bought KoT the next day.

Here's the worrying thing - if I'd seen some of the descriptions of it first i'm not sure I'd have bought it. Learnt a valuable lesson there - one person's idea of over violent or whatever isnt necessarily the same as mine. Anyone read American psycho? Remember the rat scene? That was not enjoyable reading for me. I could appreciate the quality of the book but I wouldn't say I enjoyed it as such. In a fantasy novel obviously I want enjoyment first and foremost, so something like that would be a bit too far.

PoT and KoT didn't feel that crazy violent to me and a lot of the really nasty stuff (rapes and torture) is either eluded to or flashes of memories. Not that you wouldn't have been perfectly within your rights to have it as violent as you wanted anyway, I'm just stating my opinion.

What surprised me was that I could still root for the little git even though he was a bit of a psycho! I'm not sure how you managed that, as I can't usually get on board with a main protagonist that nasty. I'm quite unforgiving. Maybe because you always feel a bit sorry for him obviously cos of his father and obviously through how he got the coach and thorn bush...

So yeah...what was my point? dunno. Forgotten. But yeah good book.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Oh dear...and here I was thinking we had progressed on to an actual conversation that might, you know, actually be interesting and stuff. But apparently not...

If you can ever get past the notion that someone found a blog piece that criticized your book to be a good starting point for a broader conversation, and accept that this in and of itself is not a criticism of your book, then we can talk.

If not, then all I can say is: "goodbye for now." I've already responded to you on this topic multiple times in the other thread, and don't feel the need to make the same case again to someone who simply refuses to listen.

Which I read as 'I don't have a case so I'll pretend you said something else and ignore you'.

I made it entirely clear that I was standing in as a stalking horse for 'writing a book that's more violent than you're comfortable with'. I asked what is the next step in that conversation other than to say 'not for me' and move on?

That seems to me to be a very difficult question for you to answer. I can see why you might wish to avoid doing so because it would actually require that list to extend to all manner of different things that aren't on it. I am fascinated by what the reply would have been. Perhaps if I change the 'me' to 'Joe' and repeat the question you could answer it?

The simple question is what is there to complain about? Your list is simply 'things I don't like'?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Apparently what you didn't read was Ursa's post.

We are very serious about keeping the conversations on this forum civil.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Holy **** its Mark Lawrence! I do love this forum sometimes.

Quick gush - I bought PoT randomly in Waterstones cos I needed something to read on the bus, hadn't heard anything about it but it hooked me straight away and I bought KoT the next day.

Good to hear. Appreciate it.

PoT and KoT didn't feel that crazy violent to me and a lot of the really nasty stuff (rapes and torture) is either eluded to or flashes of memories. Not that you wouldn't have been perfectly within your rights to have it as violent as you wanted anyway, I'm just stating my opinion.

Well that would be my feeling too. Neither book seemed either crazy violent or to contain more than 61 indirect words regarding rape per 100,000. That of course is just opinion. I'm currently attempting to find out where that turns into complaining or taking issue with. Not having much success.

What surprised me was that I could still root for the little git even though he was a bit of a psycho! I'm not sure how you managed that, as I can't usually get on board with a main protagonist that nasty. I'm quite unforgiving. Maybe because you always feel a bit sorry for him obviously cos of his father and obviously through how he got the coach and thorn bush...

So yeah...what was my point? dunno. Forgotten. But yeah good book.

Cheers.

 

[Nerds_feather]

We are very serious about keeping the conversations on this forum civil.

As well you should. Civil and open discussions marked by dialogue and an genuine exchange of ideas make us all richer. The alternatives do not.

Joe Abercrombie's post is actually a good example of this. A great entry in the broader conversation, no doubt about that.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Apparently what you didn't read was Ursa's post.

We are very serious about keeping the conversations on this forum civil.

Perhaps we have different ideas about what civil is.

If you feel it your duty to boot me from the forums, by all means boot away. I've discovered it's impossible for me to delete my account

I felt I was asking a pointed but pertainent question that was being obviously evaded. If you felt I was insulting someone then you must follow your heart on the matter.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Mark, I don't particularly care what you write. More power to you. I don't like the parody of fantasy others call grimdark or blood-porn, but I know my distaste for it doesn't make it bad, just as your enjoyment of it doesn't make it good.

What bothers me is that there's an audience for this stuff. It skeeves me out that there are thousands or tens of thousands of people out there who wait on line for the next installment from what is, basically, a group of writers racing each other to get the most blood per page, the most hardcore anti-heroes they possibly can, using villains for protagonists and therefore the antagonists have to be even worse by comparison, murdering off all the likeable characters and raping or torturing everyone else. It's somehow loved for reversing every trope and archetype that's existed in fantasy, soaking it in blood, and jamming in our faces that life is terrible, brutish, short, unfair, and no one cares.

Gee, thanks. Now 'shut up and take my money'? Not so much.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

As well you should. Civil and open discussions marked by dialogue and an genuine exchange of ideas make us all richer.

But you won't address a simple question about the list of 5 complaints you posted?

How is this not a dialogue and exchange of ideas?

How is deciding I am not interested in the answer civil and non-insulting?

Instead you start making assertions about the reason I asked the question. This would seem to be exactly the opposite of what you're talking about.

For the last time. A simple, honest question. A given book (or collection of books) is/are too violent for your tastes. Why take issue with it (or complain) as per #5 as opposed to accepting it's not a book for you and moving on. It is this complaining/taking issue with that prompted Joe's post. I'm trying to see why it's there. If the book/s in question were somehow blocking the books you really wanted to read from existing or something along those lines I would understand.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

If the book/s in question were somehow blocking the books you really wanted to read from existing or something along those lines I would understand.

As a published writer you should know the publishing industry well enough to know that is exactly the case. For every one of these kind of books published, a different one isn't. There are only so many houses, only so many slots per year.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Mark, I don't particularly care what you write. More power to you. I don't like the parody of fantasy others call grimdark or blood-porn, but I know my distaste for it doesn't make it bad, just as your enjoyment of it doesn't make it good.

What bothers me is that there's an audience for this stuff. It skeeves me out that there are thousands or tens of thousands of people out there who wait on line for the next installment from what is, basically, a group of writers racing each other to get the most blood per page, the most hardcore anti-heroes they possibly can, using villains for protagonists and therefore the antagonists have to be even worse by comparison, murdering off all the likeable characters and raping or torturing everyone else. It's somehow loved for reversing every trope and archetype that's existed in fantasy, soaking it in blood, and jamming in our faces that life is terrible, brutish, short, unfair, and no one cares.

Gee, thanks. Now 'shut up and take my money'? Not so much.

See, this is a perfectly reasonable and honest reply. I might argue with your characterisation of the undefined set of books in question - but that's not really the point. There's something you don't like and you explained it. There's a way in which it unsettles you on a larger scale and you explained that. Perfectly reasonable opinions that I can understand and respect. We can both move on it different directions. No harm, no foul.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

As a published writer you should know the publishing industry well enough to know that is exactly the case. For every one of these kind of books published, a different one isn't. There are only so many houses, only so many slots per year.

Again a reasonable answer. One I can take issue with, but you've responded directly without needing to cast aspersions on my motivation and ignore the question.

It is true that a decision by a big publishing house to publish one book denies a slot to another. There are however many routes to publication these days, including the simple business of putting out a self-pub kindle. David Daglish is on reddit tonight talking about how he did just that and sold 350,000 books. No amount of books you don't like can stop books you do like reaching the market in such a manner. And if enough people buy them then (like with Dalglish) the big publishers will take that/those authors on.

 

[randomfromamber]

[...] When the truth is clearly a choice to do it a different way, not a failure to do it that way.

What may be obvious to you, the writer, may not be obvious to me, the reader...

Also...(on a more general note) I agreed with a lot of the points in Joe's post (can I call him Joe? I don't know him, I mean not personally...); I can understand, I think, you saying you don't see the value in somebody saying "don't do that, that's wrong." (if I'm paraphrasing correctly?). But I can also respect (and seek out) articulate criticism, especially if it goes beyond the "baaahhhhh, I didn't like that" approach. In other words, I can sympathize with you on the "don't do that" part of your statement, but - speaking as a reader - I don't actually mind the "that's wrong" bit (depending on how it's articulated). Narratives don't happen in a vacuum, and not everything means the same thing to everybody, and it's nice to encounter discussions about that stuff put in a wider context sometimes.

Yeah, sure, sometimes, the way it's expressed comes across as critics taking the moral high ground, and I'm sure that because sometimes a critic will take the moral high ground - or should that be "stand by what they believe in"? Personally, I don't mind, thought it's perfectly possible that, if I was a writer, I'd feel differently. If I've read the book, it won't change my mind about the book; if I haven't, I'll have (probably) have forgotten by the time I read the book. Does it shape which books I read? Maybe a little bit, but not as much as the availability of said book at the local library, if there are enough signs that said book broadly falls on the continuum of "stuff I might enjoy".

For the record, I love GRR Martin and Richard Morgan (Dark? Probably. Gratuitous? Not as far as I'm concerned), and I didn't find Mr Abercrombie's books (the ones that I've read so far; I've only read the First Law trilogy, sorry) that dark - does he gets darker?