Joe Abercrombie defends gritty fantasy

[Mark_Lawrence]

Well actually, since we've mentioned Terry Goodkind, (Toby, above) I'd like to ask Nerds Feather and Fishbowl Helmet: why haven't you objected to him, and brought his writing up in the argument?

With complete candor. I feel it's because to the clique that drive this antagonism it's a game. They love making it personal. They love getting a rise out of the target of their vitriol. You only have to look at twitter to see a tight-knit group yukking it up behind the scenes, savouring each successful troll, delighting in any response or reaction. I don't even feel that the particulars of the game being played matter that much - the pursuit's the thing.

They know Goodkind and GRRM will never take the slightest notice of them. Bakker gets it in the neck because he answers back, plays the game with them. If I had never uttered a peep the focus would be on the next person in line.

I'm entirely aware of the mechanics and choosing to participate because I've always enjoyed a robust debate myself. I am growing bored by the whole business though and may soon retire from it. At which point the next person whose skin they think they can get under will find themselves behind the cross-hairs.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Well actually, since we've mentioned Terry Goodkind, (Toby, above) I'd like to ask Nerds Feather and Fishbowl Helmet: why haven't you objected to him, and brought his writing up in the argument? A gang-rape of a queen by a horde of the worst degenerates in a pit in a prison doesn't count as dark? A mother confessor who wields such power over people that she castrates a child rapist and he takes it, because she ensorcled him? And kills a sixteen year old boy just to make a point to other 16 year-old boys? The graphic torture of the MC over many chapters and who is subjected to male rape by his female captors? The torture to death of innocent children to gain access to the spirit world by an entirely unreedemable Darken Rahl? (a tube full of molten lead into the mouth of a child buried up to his neck in sand, IIRC). The skinning of a friend by one apprentice wizard who is promised the rape of another girl as his reward? The list goes on and on and on, and it's graphic and salacious and not very good writing. Don't even get me started on Emperor Jagang and the gang-rapes of whole populations, with rings inserted into the lips of the best, so they can be classified as shaggable or not.

That sounds absolutely awful. I haven't read it though, so I'll have to take your word for it. Thanks for bringing it up.

(Of course I have read Wizards' First Rule, a long time ago, and thought it was garbage.)

Why are NF and FH wasting their time attacking Joe Abercrombie and Mark Lawrence when this type of best-selling author continues to propagate the most appalling trash (I think there were 12 books in the series - oh... no, he's just returned to that world with another one!) and why aren't they 'objecting' to it? It couldn't be because TG is American, could it?

Boneman, could you kindly point out the exact place where I "attacked" the work of either Joe Abercrombie or Mark Lawrence? Since your rather incensed statement here depends on that, I'd very much like to know. You see, I was under the impression that I had praised Joe Abercrombie's work earlier in this thread, for example in this reply to him:

Some books that I think are very grimdark but do, in my opinion, have solid justification for said grimdarkery are: the first three Song of Ice and Fire books, your own Best Served Cold and Sapkowski's Blood of Elves.

...oh, and as for the bizarre accusation that there's some sort of ethnonational bias going on, I'll have you note that one of those authors is American, one is British and the third is Polish.

And as for Mr. Lawrence, I'll kindly refer you to a series of replies across multiple threads that clearly state that I haven't read Prince of Thorns and thus do not feel qualified to assess whether or not the "grit" in his book works, as it does in the aforementioned books that I have read. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't--I wouldn't know. If you do believe it works, then you're of course entitled to say how and why. It would be up to someone other than me to either agree or disagree with you, but I would be happy to hear your opinions on the matter, if you care to share them.

...but I will say that I'm only interested in interacting with you further if you could be a bit more civil and respectful of those who, like me, don't share all your opinions. That's the Chrons way, no? It's a good way of doing things, I'd say.

 

[elvet]

This whole thread is like a car crash to me, I just can't look away. Some of my favorite authors are mentioned (Erikson and Martin) and contributing (Abercrombie and Lawrence) to the discussion. I like their books and this 'gritty' subgenre in particular, and I can't help but feel that some members are saying that I shouldn't like it, or perhaps I'm a little twisted if I do. That's just plain wrong. I don't need to defend why I like a book any more than the authors need to defend why their book is popular.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

That sounds absolutely awful. I haven't read it though, so I'll have to take your word for it. Thanks for bringing it up.

But you haven't read _me_ either...

And the type of content in the multi-million selling Terry Goodkind's work (a man who has reached literally hundreds of times more readers than I) is the stuff of legend on forums.

I haven't read his books but I can cite all manner of rapey torturey stuff about them (on a purely second hand basis) and I'm not even particularly interested. I'm not a genre blogger...

That you're unaware of Goodkind's alleged failings in these areas of particular interest to you is astonishing to me.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

This whole thread is like a car crash to me, I just can't look away. Some of my favorite authors are mentioned (Erikson and Martin) and contributing (Abercrombie and Lawrence) to the discussion. I like their books and this 'gritty' subgenre in particular, and I can't help but feel that some members are saying that I shouldn't like it, or perhaps I'm a little twisted if I do. That's just plain wrong. I don't need to defend why I like a book any more than the authors need to defend why their book is popular.

And the irony of it is that there doesn't even seem to be anyone here who will admit that 'grit' needs defending. As soon as the focus is on the actual issue it all seems to melt away.

We can't find anyone who objects to grit. We can't find anyone who can identify an unrelentingly grim book, or a torture-porn book... it just seems to be vapour-ware and innudendo.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Very interesting thread.

Whilst gritty stuff (Abercrombie, Martin, Lynch) probably comprises most of my favourite reading I also like 'softer' stories and my own writing is (I think) less grim.

I think it's fair enough that people disagree, but nobody's forced to buy gritty and grim stuff. It's just a matter of personal taste.

Interestingly, I'd entirely forgotten about the opening scene in Among Thieves. It was stronger than I'd perhaps expected but whenever I thought of the book Bronze Degan and the way the world was built were my main memories.

Whilst I've read all of Joe Abercrombie's books Best Served Cold was my least favourite. It wasn't that it was grim and had quite a few dark moments, it was the near total lack of optimism/lightness itself made the story seem a little off (the exact opposite of, say, the Lord of the Rings where almost no major cast member dies in enormous battles towards the end of the book).

Even MacBeth had comedy moments (when the porter remarks that wine provoketh the desire and unprovoketh the performance, which I think happens shortly after Duncan's death).

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

But you haven't read _me_ either...

And the type of content in the multi-million selling Terry Goodkind's work (a man who has reached literally hundreds of times more readers than I) is the stuff of legend on forums.

I haven't read his books but I can cite all manner of rapey torturey stuff about them (on a purely second hand basis) and I'm not even particularly interested. I'm not a genre blogger...

That you're unaware of Goodkind's alleged failings in these areas of particular interest to you is astonishing to me.

I'd agree this should be addressed as well. Nerds, pass the salt, please.

And the irony of it is that there doesn't even seem to be anyone here who will admit that 'grit' needs defending. As soon as the focus is on the actual issue it all seems to melt away.

We can't find anyone who objects to grit. We can't find anyone who can identify an unrelentingly grim book, or a torture-porn book... it just seems to be vapour-ware and innudendo.

From the sound of it Goodkind might be a good candidate for unrelentingly dark. But then, his books are door stoppers, so perhaps there's more than just misogynistic torture porn in there. I haven't read him, after hearing a review from a friend who loved it I was too put off to muster interest.

To me Game of Thrones is unrelentingly dark. Not because scene after scene is bleak and depressing but the note is struck over and over again that the world is crap. This is summed up perfectly in a Sansa chapter, the last of the book I think. "There are no heroes," and "In life, the monsters win." This is explicit here, but hit again and again as the story unfolds. Other than a few rapes, it's not particularly graphic or violent. It's the focus on such dark subject matter and the inevitable triumph of evil over good because good is stupid. Almost to a chapter, after Bran's fall, the bad guys just keep winning and things get worse page after page. Sure, a few spots of humor, a few bright spots, but that's basic storytelling to include ups and downs.

To me, GRRM is too dark. The books that have real scumbags as the protagonists are even worse. Sure, harass your protagonists, put them up a tree and throw stones, but at the end you should get them down from the tree. The darker the protag, the darker the antag has to be. It's not grey scale morality when the protag is barely (if at all) more toward the gray while the antag is pitch black on the morality scale. Black on black morality just isn't interesting. The claim is the writer needs gray scale to make it interesting, but then they slide to having both pro- and antagonist vile. So where's the contrast in that? The protag rapes a few dozen people while the antag rapes a few hundred people. So where's the good guy to provide the contrast? They're all unrelenting killers, so where's the contrast? The protag takes a bit less joy in rape and slaughter? Yeah, that doesn't cut it.

I haven't finished Game yet as I'm literally forcing myself to read it. It's odd, his craft is amazing, engaging, so well done I think he's easily the best writer working in fantasy alive today, but the story itself is terrible, literally and figuratively. So 500 pages of the good guys are dumb and get savaged while the bad guys get stronger, aside from a few setbacks, and you end up with a monster on the throne. Yeah. Then it ends, hitting the things are worse, worse, worse button repeatedly.

As an aside, I think trying to imply (not you Mark, someone else) that it's some how a nationality issue is beyond petty. Spell it honor or honour, I don't care.

 

[Ursa major]

Again this is where it seems to me that those wary or disliking of the grimdark encroachment are arguing against a state of affairs that doesn't actually exist.

Is it? Actually, I'm not arguing against "the grimdark encroachment", whatever that is. I would like their to be a variety of books available, and so accept that there will be a spectrum of books, from the very dark and/or cynical to the tooth-decayingly sweet. Given that, I find it hard to see how "this" (which I assume is my post, as it's all you've quoted) is arguing against anything, let alone grimdark (which, in my opinion, is a silly adjective with more than a hint of the pejorative about it).

You're absolutely right Ursula,

who is this Ursula

a one tone book of constant and truly unrelenting grimness probably wouldn't work, but such a book doesn't actually exist. You just mentioned how you don't think GRRM, Joe or even Mark do this, and yet they are at the forefront of this Grimdark invasion people seem to be worried about.

If you look at the previous post to the one you're quoting, I was suggesting that it would probably be hard to find such a tome (even if they exist), because most people wouldn't read it to the end to discover whether the tone does or does not continue. Considering that all sorts of rubbish (that's rubbish by my reckoning, not everyone's) can be and is cobbled together into what their talentless authors believe to be novels, there must be at least one example in the millions of books published (by whatever means) over the years.

If they're not doing it, who actually is?

Who knows? But not good authors, by definition.

Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly legitimate element of debate that has been getting people places since the time of the ancient Greeks...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum




It's not an insult, it's an illustration of the danger of following that line of thought and a hint that you may already have gone too far down it.

I'm perfectly aware of reductio ad absurdum and would have been tempted to mention it, if

1. you hadn't already identified the absurdity of your statement;
2. I thought it was appropriate to apply it to what I said. I didn't, as I'd not been stating a principle (i.e. "you can read any part of a book, however small, and determine its complete character from that"), but simply saying that if a book maintained a certain character for a few chapters, many (most?) wouldn't bother reading further.

That all rather stands on what you consider to be unrelenting and how many chapter after chapters are required to constitute it. I would say that the tone in many books changes paragraph by paragraph.

I would agree. (Or, rather, you seem to be agreeing with what I first said on the matter. Excellent! )

But not "Unrelentingly dark" which she probably would have said if that was what she meant, cos she's hot stuff with the words an' all.

Sorry you missed the play on words. I'll include a helpful smiley next time.


Anyway, we seem to be veering ever further from the original post....

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Unless someone actually shows up to represent the folks who object to 'grit' rather than just don't like it ... I'm done here.

Many thanks all.

 

[Connavar]

I dont really get this debate of grimdark and books that take it too far in recent times in these forums. Because its too subjective topic.

We all know which authors take it too far and become not worth reading if they are only grim,relentless all the time and thus become unrealistic and not interesting to read. Its up to the single reader who are those authors that are too much for you as a reader.

Im reading The Illiad right now and Homer is over 100+ pages of brutal,too dark war scenes, death and violence all the time. Its not question that its too dark but how the author use it. You dont have to be literary legend to make grim,brutal violence,characters interesting and enjoyable read in fantasy form. Its how much we can take as storytelling and what is excess that we dont accept.

 

[JoanDrake]

. It always makes me think of George MacDonald Fraser's war memoirs, which involve a lot of the narrator and his comrades making jokes at each other.

.

Funny how you mention GMF's stuff, cause I think you can describe the Flashman Papers as Grimdark historicals, (and we know they're all really medieval historicals on alternate worlds.

Consider the characteristics of GD and Flashys personality:


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

Fits Flashy to a T. He doesn't kill out of cruelty, no, he's too much of a coward, but he'll lie, cheat and steal with the best of them, and if you trust him further than you can throw him, well, that's your fault.

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

Shown best by his attitude to women who have saved his hide and now need his help. He leaves a fleeing slave to the tender mercies of professioal slavecatchers, sells a woman who rescued him to murderous gamblers he just cheated on her behalf and throws a young Russian countess off he sled they are escaping on so they can run faster

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

As long as he can lay the blame on some one else


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

Here he seems to have few problems, as long as an assured such escap for him is included.
5.Violence


"I wish I could say she had died in my arms after a last kiss. Instead I had to watch her bend double from the pain over the next half hour until she finally bled out.'

He also doesn't rape. Well, once, and she almost cut his pecker off later, so that seems to sour him on the experience












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

 

[randomfromamber]

And that's the problem with making your mind up about a character from snippets, or other people's arguments, you never get the full story, unless you read the whole book. I'd like to change something I said in response to Randomofamber: I said read reviews and browse the book in a store and then choose. Don't rely on reviews, allow them to guide you into picking up the book and making your own mind up.

I'm so glad you say this. I thought about replying to your original comment, but then decided I didn't want to derail the thread further...

I couldn't agree more. You can read as many reviews as you want, but reviews are never ever going to give you the whole picture. It's what I've been saying!

And the irony of it is that there doesn't even seem to be anyone here who will admit that 'grit' needs defending.

Maybe because most people who have participated in the thread so far actually like this darker edge of fantasy, by whichever word it's called? And therefore, no, it doesn't. Not to mention that Joe did a superb job of it, both on his blog and here, and personally, I agree with everything he said.

I was thinking about this thread this afternoon, and I couldn't help thinking "Abercrombie 1 - Grimdark Opponents 0" would make a good summary.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Maybe because most people who have participated in the thread so far actually like this darker edge of fantasy, by whichever word it's called? And therefore, no, it doesn't. Not to mention that Joe did a superb job of it, both on his blog and here, and personally, I agree with everything he said.

Great point - worth underlining.

 

[kromanjon]

Why anyone would need to "defend" gritty fantasy is beyond me. It's fantasy! Just 'cause it has a darker tone (or whatever) doesn't make it some sort of new sub-genre. This is just so those writers, a little weaker of stomach, can keep writing "pure" fantasy and not have to fraternize with the low folk.

Could we all just stop with the sub-genres. Fantasy as a genre is still fighting against the stigma of geekiness, we don't need any fighting within the ranks. Let's all be thankfull that fantasy has the possibility of attracting many kinds of readers.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

The last bit I'll add to the thread is a quote from David Brin, from a blog entry presenting an overview of SF and recommended readings.

"Harbingers of Hope. These tales offer something almost as important as warnings... a tantalyzing glimpse at (guardedly and tentatively) better tomorrows. It's actually much harder to do than issuing dire warnings! (That may be why there's so little optimism in print. Most authors and directors are simply too lazy.)"

 

[Rolynd]

Is it? Actually, I'm not arguing against "the grimdark encroachment", whatever that is. I would like their to be a variety of books available, and so accept that there will be a spectrum of books, from the very dark and/or cynical to the tooth-decayingly sweet. Given that, I find it hard to see how "this" (which I assume is my post, as it's all you've quoted) is arguing against anything, let alone grimdark (which, in my opinion, is a silly adjective with more than a hint of the pejorative about it).


who is this Ursula


Anyway, we seem to be veering ever further from the original post....

Fair enough, maybe I was wrong to quote your post as you're talking hypotheticals. I'm a bit confused now with where we are in this thread. The original argument I thought was between those who thought the rise of grim fantasy is a) somehow a threat to more traditional fantasy b) objectionable in some way because of graphic content that shouldn't be enjoyable, going beyond a mere "i don't like it" to "this stuff shouldn't be being published."

If no-one is actually saying either of these things then I'm probably arguing against myself but that's the impression I garnered from several different posts.

Sorry I called you Ursula.

 

[Dave]

There is also the c) what goes around comes around point already made.

JoanDrake mentioned Conan (which was one of my starting points for Fantasy.) Connavar threw Homer's Illiad into the mix. I'd also give you John Norman's Gor - except I'm not sure if I am allowed to mention that because I haven't read any of them.

 

[Connavar]

There is also the c) what goes around comes around point already made.

JoanDrake mentioned Conan (which was one of my starting points for Fantasy.) Connavar threw Homer's Illiad into the mix. I'd also give you John Norman's Gor - except I'm not sure if I am allowed to mention that because I haven't read any of them.

Conan/Howard is the modern father of heroic fantasy/S&S of Abercrombie type and Homer classic poem is 3000 years old so i find hilarious we still talk about this in this kind of fiction in 2013 like its a new problem.

Some reviewers that only read modern fantasy act like its a new thing.

 

[JoanDrake]

There is also the c) what goes around comes around point already made.

I'd also give you John Norman's Gor - except I'm not sure if I am allowed to mention that because I haven't read any of them.

Don't, the urge to claw your own eyes out can be overwheming. It's what I like to call Grimsilly.

The most ironic thing about that series is that most people admit the first 3 Gor books are actually readable, if not even good in spots, but that's because they were the ones completely rewritten by Judith Merrill.

 

[Kissmequick]

Lawks, this thread exploded while I was away....


A few thoughts that popped into my head while reading (not really answering anyone in particular here)

Ofc people have the right to complain if they find something objectionable (as opposed to just not for them or annoying). And sometimes they should. If women hadn't complained so much about the way we're portrayed in fantasy, it'd probably still be us for the chain mail bikinis, waiting for the Hero to save us with his manly manly man love before we swoon into his arms and that's our lot, liek it or lump it.

Readers don't have to read the books true. Though sometimes you get blindsided after you bought a book and started to read. I can't tell you how many times I'm a good chunk into a book and - OMG graphic rape drawn in Technicolour Extraneous Detail, out of nowhere. Which isn't a problem in and of itself, like 'grit'. Sometimes the story requires it. Sometimes (often, to my tastes) it just feels like it's there gratuitously, the woman is just an almost inanimate object to be manipulated for the male MC's story arc etc and then I complain. Loudly. Should I not? I don't care, tbh - I will. Which of those things a reader thinks it is will be up to them. But they have the right to complain if they find it offensive, or the, well, then that's getting close to censorship .

The flip side to this is: Authors don't need to read the complaints, or take them into account. Not everyone will 'get' your book and what you were trying to do, so there you are. But sometimes the complaints are worth listening to, because they highlight a really good point that the author hadn't considered. And sometimes people just didn't 'get' it and you move on. And occasionally you just have to giggle and ignore them.

TL;DR? Grit, in and of itself, doesn't need defending, because sometimes, like everything in writing, it's required to tell the story the author wants to tell. But like everything, grit can be done well, and poorly. Which it is is going to be subjective for the most part. Sometimes individual parts of 'grit' (gratuitous gore for the sake of it frex) do need complaining about. And the customer/reader has every right to complain if they find something offensive. And the author has every right to listen, or not.