Joe Abercrombie defends gritty fantasy

[Rolynd]

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.

I think theres a fair bit of hyperbole in that post. It reads like you feel the incursion of "gritty" fantasy is in some way demeaning your love of classical fantasy. It doesn't in the slightest and isn't purposefully written because someone has though "you know what? Aragorn is a right jessie, I'm gonna a write a book that shows my disdain for the genre and its fans..." Noone writes a book for that reason, or if it was their motivation it would be garbage and never get published. People write what they want to write because they enjoy it and feel others might too. And they're aren't mutually exclusive, I love both sub genres - gritty and shiny, provided they are written well.

I think they co-exist quite peacefully, and you can't be upset at the fact that a gritty fantasy might take the place of something else on a publisher's books because plenty of people love it, what makes your desire to see more heroic fantasy any more worthy than others?

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

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 call him Joe (or sometimes Applecrumble) and I've not met him. Then again I'm not very civil. Apparently.

; 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?).

Almost. It's not so much I don't see the value in it. I don't see the _reason_ in it. If there was a reason then I might see the value. I've asked our mutual friend Nerds of a Feather to expand upon the reason 'not liking' the level of violence turns into 'complaining/taking issue with' but it seems I asked wrong so s/he won't tell me. Beyond that I'm genuinely at a loss.

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?

Don't know - I've not read any of his books

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

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.

That's not entirely accurate though. Yes, anyone can publish anything, regardless of quality through sites like Amazon. But, the fact that anyone can publish anything, regardless of quality also happens to flood the market with more crap than the traditional model typically does. They put out crap too, it's just that they tend to put out better stuff more frequently, etc.

But, that endless flood of mediocrity can drown out the good stuff. Granted there are a very few writers who've managed to be picked up from the wilds of Amazon self-publishing or the like, but they're the exception rather than the rule. Normally it's just you and a few review sites you like, or trusted friends with roughly analogous tastes, to rely on for finding those extremely rare good self-pubbed books.

So yeah, nothing can stop a book you might like from reaching the market, but that fact also makes it that much harder to actually find the books you might like. Which tends to push people back toward the traditional publishing model, both in regards to writers wanting to sell their fiction, and readers looking for something good to read.

 

[Grunkins]

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?

I'd say Best Served Cold does get a bit darker. It is a revenge tale after all. The Heroes has lots of violence and all that good stuff, but also lots of pathos and all that good stuff. Red Country isn't as all together dark as it is..how best to describe it...maybe I'll call it "wistful" - with plenty of violence, and some vomit.

 

[Nerds_feather]

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.

That's an interesting take on the subject. I understand where you are coming from, though I have a somewhat different position.

As I tried to lay out in the blog post, I think there's a clear difference between "grimdark with a purpose" and what someone in this thread (you I think, but I'm not sure) called "blood porn." Perhaps we can use a military metaphor, and distinguish between "targeted" and "indiscriminate" grit? There's a lot of subjectivity when it comes to delineating where one begins and another ends, so when it comes to the stuff I read, I ask a few simple questions:

1. What is the apparent purpose of this?
2. How is it presented?
3. Does it succeed in what it is intending to do?
4. Is that meaningful?

The classic example would be the the scene in GoT where a certain someone loses his head. It's violent and shocking, absolutely. But it has purpose and meaning--both the expectations of the reader for the remainder of the series and the fates of the book's characters are irreversibly altered by this act.

I can also stomach a good deal of grit that isn't this central to the narrative, of course. But I do want it to mean something, and find "my world is daaaaaaark man" to be a superficial and ultimately tedious justification for the inclusion of explicit violence or cruelty.

When I can't identify a purpose beyond "my world is daaaaaaark man," then I assume either none was intended or the author didn't quite succeed in what he or she set out to do. Others may disagree with that assessment--as is their right. And as it happens, I love reading criticism that puts forward different views from my own, especially when someone presents a cogent argument for why something I view negatively should be viewed in a more positive light. I always try to reassess my own views in those cases--sometimes emerging with a stronger sense of why I feel the way I do, and sometimes reversing position.

Looking at the genre as a whole, I agree that there's a cumulative effect of all the attempts to "shock" with grit, and that it's cause for concern when stuff like rape and torture become ubiquitous and unproblematized elements in "successful" fantasy writing. This isn't the fault of any given writer, but there is a cumulative effect for those of us reading a lot in the genre.

 

[randomfromamber]

Almost. It's not so much I don't see the value in it. I don't see the _reason_ in it. If there was a reason then I might see the value.

I can only speak for myself, but to me, it can be about placing things in a bigger context. Now, that can go nowhere fast: ooooh, that book is really misogynistic, and therefore it's responsible for all the rapes that are being committed this month in the state of Kansas (I'm deliberately being ludicrous here, OK?). Or it can be a reflection on...well, things that at least some people find somewhat ugly some of the time, like sexism, and misogyny, and racism, and violence, and [throw in a few more -isms here - it can get abstract, and general, for sure.] Now, personally, I think the existence of these discussions is a good thing. It's not necessarily about the content, it's more about the process. It can be stuff to consider. Not necessarily to agree with... but not necessarily to disagree with, either. But to get a different perspective, sometimes. It goes beyond not enjoying a book. There's a difference, as far as I'm concerned, between reading a book and not enjoying it because it's got vampires in it, or because it doesn't have vampires in it, or because I really wanted to read about spies in spaces, and this book is about dinosaurs in Disneyland; and reading a book that I'm not "enjoying" because I have moral (political?) issues with it. Those books, I think it's healthy and/ or interesting to have a debate about... (Funnily enough I don't - usually...it does depend on many other things - have a problem with violence, which is me kinda sidestepping the whole grimdark thingy, I suppose...but I can totally understand that for some people, it IS something worth discussing).

So that would be my take.

I'd say Best Served Cold does get a bit darker. It is a revenge tale after all. The Heroes has lots of violence and all that good stuff, but also lots of pathos and all that good stuff. Red Country isn't as all together dark as it is..how best to describe it...maybe I'll call it "wistful" - with plenty of violence, and some vomit.

Def want to read Best Served Cold; The Heroes, not so much. Not because of the violence, but because my impression of it is "military fiction", and that doesn't appeal, unless it's written by Bernard Cornwell. I wasn't sure about Red Country....vomit, eh? Eeeek. Thank you. I'll pick it up when I've managed to forget about that last statement.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Nerds, no. I don't agree that being able to justify something in the text gives it a pass. You can justify anything with a little thought and effort. Want a completely irrelevant rape in your story? Say it's an empathy building scene for the victim. Murder a character? The writer grew tired of them. Or they just needed killing. Or their killer needed to be less sympathetic. Or the spouse and kids needed more gravity. You can literally justify anything as a writer. So, no. That's not reason enough. At least not to me.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not some prude who can't handle bloodshed in a book or characters having to piss or so-called vulgar language or sex. None of that bothers me, it all has it's place if it serves the story. What gets me is the unrelenting hammer of emphasis that "the world is dark and unforgiving, the world is random uncaring and cruel, the world is crap, and everyone in it is either crap, selling you something, or stupid." I get enough of that walking around on a daily basis and watching the world around me. I can't really escape the crap real world by reading about a crap fantasy world. That's me. Others like it, clearly. But that's damned depressing to me. The fiction itself and that others actually enjoy that kind of thing.

That's what makes it blood porn / grimdark. The relentless wallowing in nastiness and brutality. Some people just want to see the world burn. That bothers me. Feeding that impulse bothers me. I'm not, and never will, say to anyone "Hey, don't write that." But I'd be lying if I said it doesn't creep me out that people would want to write that kind of stuff. Or want to read it.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Nerds, no. I don't agree that being able to justify something in the text gives it a pass. You can justify anything with a little thought and effort. Want a completely irrelevant rape in your story? Say it's an empathy building scene for the victim. Murder a character? The writer grew tired of them. Or they just needed killing. Or their killer needed to be less sympathetic. Or the spouse and kids needed more gravity. You can literally justify anything as a writer. So, no. That's not reason enough. At least not to me.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not some prude who can't handle bloodshed in a book or characters having to piss or so-called vulgar language or sex. None of that bothers me, it all has it's place if it serves the story. What gets me is the unrelenting hammer of emphasis that "the world is dark and unforgiving, the world is random uncaring and cruel, the world is crap, and everyone in it is either crap, selling you something, or stupid." I get enough of that walking around on a daily basis and watching the world around me. I can't really escape the crap real world by reading about a crap fantasy world. That's me. Others like it, clearly. But that's damned depressing to me. The fiction itself and that others actually enjoy that kind of thing.

That's what makes it blood porn / grimdark. The relentless wallowing in nastiness and brutality. Some people just want to see the world burn. That bothers me. Feeding that impulse bothers me. I'm not, and never will, say to anyone "Hey, don't write that." But I'd be lying if I said it doesn't creep me out that people would want to write that kind of stuff. Or want to read it.

I applaud your honesty. Where you could have shifted into an attack on the tone in which the question was asked and side-stepped it you instead tackle it head on and say your piece.

You've identified a minority of people whose proclivities you disapprove of. These tens of thousands skeeve you out. You feel them to be morally lacking &/or wrong headed in some way. You complain/take issue/condemn. You would like them excluded - not from writing, but from the big publishing slot that should go to someone more worthy.

I was wondering if it were those sorts of thought processes were behind turning 'not for me' into the 'complaint/take issue with' from Nerds' list (the kind of thing that prompted Joe's blog). They have a familiar ring to them.

I can't applaud that condemning of a minority who like something you don't, but I can applaud your honesty in stating your case.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Nerds, no. I don't agree that being able to justify something in the text gives it a pass. You can justify anything with a little thought and effort. Want a completely irrelevant rape in your story? Say it's an empathy building scene for the victim. Murder a character? The writer grew tired of them. Or they just needed killing. Or their killer needed to be less sympathetic. Or the spouse and kids needed more gravity. You can literally justify anything as a writer. So, no. That's not reason enough. At least not to me.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not some prude who can't handle bloodshed in a book or characters having to piss or so-called vulgar language or sex. None of that bothers me, it all has it's place if it serves the story. What gets me is the unrelenting hammer of emphasis that "the world is dark and unforgiving, the world is random uncaring and cruel, the world is crap, and everyone in it is either crap, selling you something, or stupid." I get enough of that walking around on a daily basis and watching the world around me. I can't really escape the crap real world by reading about a crap fantasy world. That's me. Others like it, clearly. But that's damned depressing to me. The fiction itself and that others actually enjoy that kind of thing.

That's what makes it blood porn / grimdark. The relentless wallowing in nastiness and brutality. Some people just want to see the world burn. That bothers me. Feeding that impulse bothers me. I'm not, and never will, say to anyone "Hey, don't write that." But I'd be lying if I said it doesn't creep me out that people would want to write that kind of stuff. Or want to read it.

I see where you're coming from, and yes, I agree with a good portion of what you're saying. We do, however, seem to set the bar of acceptability in different places. For you, it seems, the problem is the presence and seemingly endless reproduction of violence, brutality and cruelty in fantasy fiction, whereas for me, it's a narrower band of what I see as "purposeless"** violence, brutality and cruelty.

But yeah, it also creeps me out that things like rape and torture are presented for "fun" and read for "pleasure." That said, I don't mind if violence is explored in a meaningful and artful manner, in a way that doesn't lose sight of the fact that these are horrible things. But the more violent and more cruel things get, the higher the bar for acceptability rises in my book, and the more convincing an author will have to do for me to see it as having purpose. For example, I find the notion of men writing rape scenes from the point of view of the (male) rapist generally problematic--but especially when all it ends up saying is "ooh, my book is so daaaaark and I am soooo edgy!" That's a high cost for little reward.

**For the record, by "purpose" I don't just mean a rationalization by the author. As you say, one can rationalize anything. Rather, something has purpose to me if I can identify the intention behind it, feel as if the author achieved what they set out to do with the scene in question and feel as if this is, ultimately, a worthy goal and worthy accomplishment. And I also think about the costs involved--what does an emphasis on cruel violence potentially take away from the story and its impact? Because all choices have consequences.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I applaud your honesty. Where you could have shifted into an attack on the tone in which the question was asked and side-stepped it you instead tackle it head on and say your piece.

You've identified a minority of people whose proclivities you disapprove of. These tens of thousands skeeve you out. You feel them to be morally lacking &/or wrong headed in some way. You complain/take issue/condemn. You would like them excluded - not from writing, but from the big publishing slot that should go to someone more worthy.

I was wondering if it were those sorts of thought processes were behind turning 'not for me' into the 'complaint/take issue with' from Nerds' list (the kind of thing that prompted Joe's blog). They have a familiar ring to them.

I can't applaud that condemning of a minority who like something you don't, but I can applaud your honesty in stating your case.

Not quite. I don't condemn them or their tastes. I'm simply expressing my distaste with it. I'm not saying they're lesser than or wrong headed, or that I'm somehow superior or better, no (hell no); it's simply that I can't comprehend why they'd prefer to flounder in that kind of depressing world on purpose. From a writer's perspective: months on end, draft after draft, revision after revision. Just sitting there in this desperately bleak place. Hour after hour, page after page after page. From a reader's perspective: Spend a long day at a thankless job, the boss is on another tirade. The wife/husband wants more stuff or more time. The kids are at each other again. I know, let's escape that by entering a world even more soul-crushingly depressing, only with no sanitation and add swords. Yeesh.

And no, I don't think in terms of more deserving or less deserving of publishing slots. Rather what I'd prefer and wouldn't prefer. I'd prefer that those slots go toward something I like (because I'm selfish, just like everyone else), not that they should (because who the hell am I to dictate what other people can or can't read). If you see the difference. I don't like the subgenre, sure. But that doesn't mean I think it shouldn't exist.

The best analogy I can come up with is sexual proclivities. Some people are really into their subcultures and fetishes. There's nothing wrong with any of that, given consenting adults and all that. But accepting that people are free to do whatever they want with their free time doesn't mean others can't find some of those things creepy or confusing. Some people are turned on by shoes, human waste, or fisting. The existence of these things doesn't really affect me in the slightest, and again, what consenting adults choose to do with their free time is their business. But it can still be kinda creepy to me because I'm outside that subculture or don't share that proclivity.

It's not that it's unacceptable and how dare they and blah blah blah. It's that it's so far beyond what I'd want to do with my free time that it's shocking and odd that others would want to. Go ahead, feel free. But... why? If that makes sense. Bringing it back to the fantasy subgenre, we spend our entire waking lives in what is basically a grimdark world filled with people who wouldn't piss on you to put you out if you were on fire. Why the hell would I want to spend my free time wallowing in a similar or worse kind of world. Only with swords and horses?

So no, not condemnation, just utter confusion. No hints of control or stamping out, just such extreme disinterest that others' interest boggles the mind. Not that this hasn't been fun, but you're clearly more interested in talking with Nerds, so I'll let you kids talk.

(Thanks and keep up the good work. Give something shinier a try and you've got at least one sale in the bag.)

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

There's a difference, as far as I'm concerned, between reading a book and not enjoying it because it's got vampires in it, or because it doesn't have vampires in it, or because I really wanted to read about spies in spaces, and this book is about dinosaurs in Disneyland; and reading a book that I'm not "enjoying" because I have moral (political?) issues with it.

This here is the kind of thing I was trying to winkle out with my question. Sticking to Nerds' list (I know it's not yours), I wanted to hear more about the 'bad' politics or morality behind 'more violence than I like' that seems to turn 'I'm not interested in reading' into 'I object to'.

Much of it appear to be what Monty Python (& earlier Swift) satirised so well in their classic 'forget the Romans, the real enemy of the People's Front of Judea are the Judean People's Front!' sketch. (or Swift's vicious war between the big and little Endians who rather than being united by their love of eggs are bitterly divided by the issue of which end to open.)

There seems to be a huge desire to read politics into fantasy books. To construct the writer's agenda from the most ephemeral of clues, then demonise them for it. When of course the world is packed with actual concrete examples of everything anyone wants to object to.

I've seen people affirm recently that writing a fantasy with kings and queens in it is a sign of deep and entrenched conservatism, an addiction to the status quo, a frightened knee-jerk to protect priviledge... um... no.

I'm not a conservative (if I were I would have no problem saying so), not a monarchist, not seeking to instruct readers in morals or politics... and yet we (not you and I, 'we' in general) keep dancing on the head of our needle, the People's Front of Judea keep back-stabbing the Judean People's Front over some tiny difference in canon, and the Romans march by smirking.

Meh.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Not that this hasn't been fun, but you're clearly more interested in talking with Nerds, so I'll let you kids talk.

Heh. Actually you're my 'can you ask Nerd to pass the salt' guy. That's where we are ... gotta laugh

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Fishbowl, I like dark stuff. A lot of my reading -- not all, I have quite a big trashy chick lit gene, too -- is horror and I tend to write reasonably dark sci fi. I find itvjust as much an escape as the lighter stuff. If -- and this is the big if -- the characters are ones I like and want to root for then I will be happy to read on. I like the odd light moment -- very few don't havevsomething, either a humourous character (Jorg raised the odd smile in me) or a little moving moment. In fact in an unremittingly light book I find myself asking where the shadows are, the questions, the reasons to keep reading. Horses for courses, I guess.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Not quite. I don't condemn them or their tastes. I'm simply expressing my distaste with it. I'm not saying they're lesser than or wrong headed, or that I'm somehow superior or better, no (hell no); it's simply that I can't comprehend why they'd prefer to flounder in that kind of depressing world on purpose.

See, now you're backing off the complain/take issue stance (which you may never have held) you're not a good Nerd proxy anymore.

The list implies there are people not satisfied with simply not understanding or sharing the shoe fetish (to take the easiest of your examples) but who wish to complain about and take issue with it.

I would agree that there are and that they prompted Joe's blog.

What I have yet to find is someone who stands behind complaining about or taking issue with any of the things on Nerd's list.

 

[Boneman]

But yeah, it also creeps me out that things like rape and torture are presented for "fun" and read for "pleasure." That said, I don't mind if violence is explored in a meaningful and artful manner, in a way that doesn't lose sight of the fact that these are horrible things. But the more violent and more cruel things get, the higher the bar for acceptability rises in my book, and the more convincing an author will have to do for me to see it as having purpose. For example, I find the notion of men writing rape scenes from the point of view of the (male) rapist generally problematic--but especially when all it ends up saying is "ooh, my book is so daaaaark and I am soooo edgy!" That's a high cost for little reward.

Then don't read the book.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

"ooh, my book is so daaaaark and I am soooo edgy!"

In a live debate this would be the equivalent of mimicing the other party in a silly voice.

To mix metaphors, if one of the pillars of your argument is the addition of vowels then you probably don't have a leg to stand on.

But enough of civility.

I hear talk of books with rape scenes from the male point of view (subsequently examined or not). Not being very well read in the genre I'm not aware of any such. Could someone identify any fantasy books where this happens? I'm entirely ready to believe it does - but a list of examples would be interesting.

Edit: Let's note that rape wasn't mentioned on Nerd's list of 5 reasons people complain about grit. I'm still trying to find out how the things on that list lead to complaint rather than avoidance.

 

[HareBrain]

(Note, I wrote this away from my PC when I should have been doing something else, and FBH has since made some of it redundant, if it wasn’t already. But I’m posting anyway, nyah.)

I was wondering if it were those sorts of thought processes were behind turning 'not for me' into the 'complaint/take issue with' from Nerds' list (the kind of thing that prompted Joe's blog). They have a familiar ring to them.

I’ve thought about this subject before, and I think this is right. (I pretty much share Fishbowl Helmet’s position.) People complain, for example, about the dumbing down of the BBC, because they fear it will reduce the number of highbrow programmes they like to watch. They bemoan popular trends in publishing because they fear publishers will concentrate on that and neglect the kinds of books they like to read. All of which is entirely natural, and fair enough. But “I don’t like it, therefore it shouldn’t be popular” is obviously a weak argument, so they (or we — I’m as guilty as anyone else) try to construct stronger, social reasons as to why the trend in question is lamentable.

If the current bandwagon were candy-coated unicorns, those social reasons might be hard to find. But Grimdark, because of its focus on the nastier side of life, hovers at the edge of areas of existing social concern to do with the depiction of violence in the media, and maybe this is why it’s drawn stronger flak. But because it’s impossible to demonstrate that reading Grimdark has any actual negative effect on society or readers’ views of it, the critic has to find artistic reasons to dismiss it, which means it is perhaps subjected to more thorough dissections than if it had been less gritty. (Much the same thing happened to Twilight, it seems to me, where some reviewers’ general concern about the dynamics of the central relationship was translated into a pulling apart of the writing style.)

That’s my take on what’s going on, anyway. Could be wrong. For what it’s worth, using my awesome powers of imagination, I can appreciate how frustrating it must be for an author who wrote something largely for his own satisfaction to find himself under attack as though he had published a political manifesto, just because his work happened to be popular. On the other hand, I can also imagine how frustrating it might be for a woman to find a trend in publishing that *seems* (not getting into to what extent it actually *is*) to be regressive in terms of how my gender is portrayed.

 

[Joe Abercrombie]

Good to see this has excited some interesting discussion...

Part of the problem here is that (understandably) no one really seems keen to identify these books that are unremittingly dark and without hope and obviously revelling in splatter, and whenever anyone mentions a book there's a tendency to say, 'well, not them, that's ok, I can see why people might find that useful.' It just seems to be accepted that this mass of fiendish valueless torture porn is out there, chewing at the walls of our dimension. I haven't made an exhaustive survey of the sub-genre by any means, but my own suspicion is that few books are unremittingly grim or very extreme, especially relatively successful books, and most writers do actually have reasons for doing what they do. A lot of them may fail with given readers, but that's not quite the same thing as revelling in filth for the sake of it.

I can't comprehend why they'd prefer to flounder in that kind of depressing world on purpose. From a writer's perspective: months on end, draft after draft, revision after revision. Just sitting there in this desperately bleak place. Hour after hour, page after page after page. From a reader's perspective: Spend a long day at a thankless job, the boss is on another tirade. The wife/husband wants more stuff or more time. The kids are at each other again. I know, let's escape that by entering a world even more soul-crushingly depressing, only with no sanitation and add swords. Yeesh.

A few reasons writers and readers might like this approach that immediately occur:

1. A lot of these books still contain humour, moments of heroism, glimpses of a better world, which may shine all the more brightly amongst the filth.

2. You might come back from your crappy job, open your book and think, phew, someone has it way worse than me, I feel better about life.

3. Dark and dangerous worlds can give a visceral excitement of the kind you get from a tough action or horror film.

4. A book might present a horrible world and a horrible outcome in order to say, 'the real world is awful in many ways, how could it be better, or how might we stop it being worse?' A la 1984.

5. A really powerful depiction of horrible behaviour might make people consider their own behaviour and that of others. Which is to say, some people might read in order to think about our world rather than escape from it.

Off the top of my head, you understand...

This stuff about publishing slots doesn't really represent the industry as I see it from the inside, by the way. An editor doesn't have x number of slots to fill and if they haven't by year end they just publish the next six books through the door. Nor if a fantastic commercial manuscript arrives do they fling up their hands and say, dash it all, it's the best book I've ever read but I have no free slots left this year. There are general concerns about costs and profits, of course, and editors' freedom varies greatly from place to place and according to their success. But generally they're looking at each manuscript on its merits. Whether they like it and whether they think it'll make money. And competition isn't just between fantasy books - more gritty, less shiny, it's at a much more general level - we publish more fantasy this year, fewer thrillers. You're getting more gritty books not because they're stealing slots from shiny books, but because gritty books are selling. Still plenty of more traditional stuff being published, and lots of the old stuff still in print.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

(

On the other hand, I can also imagine how frustrating it might be for a woman to find a trend in publishing that *seems* (not getting into to what extent it actually *is*) to be regressive in terms of how my gender is portrayed.

I'm not actually sure it is anymore regressive. It's certainly not progressive, but there are many, many books out there that portray women characters very poorly, and, in fact, something like the romance genre does a lot more to regress the view of women. I've said it in another thread, but I'll pop it in again here: in the only grimdark fantasy I've read (although I've got through GRRM, so that might count?) women were treated no worse, by and large, than anyone else. Jorg's view on the men around him is dismissive and picks on their weaknesses. He is, at least, an equal ops psycho. I find none of his views pleasant, hence won't read the sequel, but I'm not sure it actually regressed women anymore than anything else does.

Then don't read the book.

See above. And amen to it.

On another codicil, I really do think to comment on a book or genre, you need to have read it. I'm not saying anyone here hasn't read around the genre etc. etc. but there is so much being written about eg. Prince of thorns (and you'll note I haven't mentioned Joe Abercrombie in my posts, I haven't read his stuff) that it's easy to become a sheep to loud voices objecting to it. Better to make up your own mind.

It's why I read GRRM, because I wanted to be able to comment honestly. Now when I say I don't like it, there's too many characters, and the way women are portrayed makes me uncomfortable. And, actually, there is a point: George's portrayal of women makes me much, much more uncomfortable than Mark's. The reason for this is partly the laviscious details he goes into that make me feel, almost, like it's all there to be enjoyed (much like Fishbowl's not wanting to go into a fetish room unless I'm into it, in GRRM I'm sort of forced there -- IF I choose to read it). I find it more misogynistic (I'll not go any further here, I caused a furore in GRRM when I started a thread on it) than the portrayal of a psychopath who demeans everyone who isn't... erm... Jorg.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

(Note, I wrote this away from my PC when I should have been doing something else, and FBH has since made some of it redundant, if it wasn’t already. But I’m posting anyway, nyah.)



I’ve thought about this subject before, and I think this is right. (I pretty much share Fishbowl Helmet’s position.) People complain, for example, about the dumbing down of the BBC, because they fear it will reduce the number of highbrow programmes they like to watch. They bemoan popular trends in publishing because they fear publishers will concentrate on that and neglect the kinds of books they like to read. All of which is entirely natural, and fair enough. But “I don’t like it, therefore it shouldn’t be popular” is obviously a weak argument, so they (or we — I’m as guilty as anyone else) try to construct stronger, social reasons as to why the trend in question is lamentable.

If the current bandwagon were candy-coated unicorns, those social reasons might be hard to find. But Grimdark, because of its focus on the nastier side of life, hovers at the edge of areas of existing social concern to do with the depiction of violence in the media, and maybe this is why it’s drawn stronger flak. But because it’s impossible to demonstrate that reading Grimdark has any actual negative effect on society or readers’ views of it, the critic has to find artistic reasons to dismiss it, which means it is perhaps subjected to more thorough dissections than if it had been less gritty. (Much the same thing happened to Twilight, it seems to me, where some reviewers’ general concern about the dynamics of the central relationship was translated into a pulling apart of the writing style.)

That’s my take on what’s going on, anyway. Could be wrong. For what it’s worth, using my awesome powers of imagination, I can appreciate how frustrating it must be for an author who wrote something largely for his own satisfaction to find himself under attack as though he had published a political manifesto, just because his work happened to be popular. On the other hand, I can also imagine how frustrating it might be for a woman to find a trend in publishing that *seems* (not getting into to what extent it actually *is*) to be regressive in terms of how my gender is portrayed.

All that seems an honest, fair, and well written assessment.

Part of my interest in Nerd's list is that it doesn't mention the best arguments you have at all. There's no mention of gender issues on there, no mention of rape.

1. A "shades of gray" moral scale, where no one is wholly good or wholly bad.

2. A generally pessimistic or cynical worldview, beyond just gray morality.

3. A tendency to favor dark and troubling subject matter over alternatives.

4. A lack of neat or tidy or reassuring conclusions.

5. High levels of violence, cruelty, gore, etc., seen as "excessive" by some

Many people who complain about "grimdark" or "gritty" fantasy are narrowly complaining about #5, and not #s 1-4.

Others are complaining about #s 1-4, but these complaints are not necessarily the same as those strictly complaining about #5.