Joe Abercrombie defends gritty fantasy

[randomfromamber]

Genuine question here: I've not read them so I don't know. I'm just plucking Sanderson and Rothfuss as examples of hugely well-selling non-gritty fantasy authors. Are their books set in worlds that meet all these requirements on gender equality, diversity, etc?

Rothfuss I would definitely say no, but because it's a very tightly focused first person POV (and furthermore that character is VERY much into himself), within the context of the story, it works absolutely fine. Disclaimer: I've only read the first one. (I disliked the character so much that I'm definitely not reading the second one, but that had nothing to do with politics.)

Sanderson, well, I've only read the Mistborn trilogy (and it's been a while). As I recall, his universe is pretty different from current society, certainly not based on Victorian England (which I think a lot of "Middle Age" settings heavily borrow from to establish their social structures, but I'm no historian, so feel free to ignore that bit). It's more of a Tyrant versus the Common People setting (written from the POV of the Common People).

Depends where you're inserting their horn....

Wow, sounds like somebody was REALLY really really REALLY keen to deconstruct fantasy tropes.

 

[Joe Abercrombie]

Now it's entirely about representation of gender and minorities.

Well, I think there are two very different, if not to say diametrically opposed schools of complaint about gritty fantasy.

There's a fundamentally conservative complaint (possibly with religious overtones) that gritty fantasy is a dangerously revolutionary liberal debasement of the righteous, clean and simple heroic roots of the genre, polluting our wonderful books with the filth of sex, swearing and violence and possibly representing a serious threat to western civilisation.

Then there's a perhaps somewhat opposite, liberal complaint, that gritty fantasy changes the furniture around but is in fact still a totally conservative form written by, and concentrating almost entirely on, white men, and still perpetuates a load of lazy racism, sexism and homophobia that has always been bubbling away in the core of the genre but is only made worse by a liberal sprinkling of extra-hot graphic grimdark sauce, and passionate assertions of that's life, man, that's reality, that's just the way it is, you can't handle the truth!

I find the first complaint basically risible, as it harks back to a past that never was. There's always been plenty of grit around. Norse myth anyone? Full of sex, violence, antiheroes, poo jokes and everyone dies at the end. You don't get more grimdark.

I find the second argument much more compelling, not necessarily as a fundamental criticism of what gritty fantasy might and perhaps should be, but of what it generally is. I think there's a fair bit of overblown rhetoric and over-generalisation going on there too, and I'm not sure anyone making that you can't handle the truth argument is really taken seriously, but I think there's definitely a case to answer here. Certainly if I'm looking at my own work, I couldn't care less about the first complaint (destruction of western civilisation), but have at times found myself guilty as charged on the second (treatment of women and minorities). Incidentally, I don't know that finding yourself guilty of crappy writing in this way necessitates weeping tears of blood and hanging yourself, so much as making a good faith effort to try and write better in future. But, you know, what I try and take out of any discussion of this kind is - how can I write better?

I know, many of you may think it's impossible for me to write better. But the struggle is still worthwhile...

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Depends where you're inserting their horn....you don't think raping someone with one is gritty? My point remains - graphic rape is out there, and it's not rare (though perhaps becoming rarer). And rarely does the graphicness, often done in loving detail, actually further the story.

...but people are calling grit a synonym for realism... and unicorns are kinda... not real.

And my point remains that, although you cite this unnamed unicorn porn, I've read a great many fantasy books, my tastes tend toward darker fantasy, and I've never seen a graphic rape scene. I can't specifically remember _any_ rape scene except the 36 year old Lord Foul's Bane. I can't of course (and don't wish to) dispute examples exist. What word we use to describe their frequency is of course subjective, but my experience has been that they are rare.

 

[Seli]

Well it certainly changes the debate. None of Nerd's list of things people object to in grit are referenced. Now it's entirely about representation of gender and minorities.

I see complaints about graphic sex, graphic rape, and swearing that targets women..
....

Yes this is the other line of criticism to grit/grimdark, and one that does at ask good questions.

Concepts to keep in mind while reading this school of criticism are 'gaze', 'agency', 'consequence*'.

The idea is that ideally a victim is not just there for that role, or to stimulate the protagonist into action, but has an arc and have to deal with the consequences of a traumatic event themselve as well. Especially when
the victim belongs to one of the traditionally downtrodden classes.
Of course in gritty works with their high level of victimization that becomes more challenging, and opens the works to critique.

*there is probably a better name

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Well, I think there are two very different, if not to say diametrically opposed schools of complaint about gritty fantasy.

There's a fundamentally conservative complaint (possibly with religious overtones) that gritty fantasy is a dangerously revolutionary liberal debasement of the righteous, clean and simple heroic roots of the genre, polluting our wonderful books with the filth of sex, swearing and violence and possibly representing a serious threat to western civilisation.

Then there's a perhaps somewhat opposite, liberal complaint, that gritty fantasy changes the furniture around but is in fact still a totally conservative form written by, and concentrating almost entirely on, white men, and still perpetuates a load of lazy racism, sexism and homophobia that has always been bubbling away in the core of the genre but is only made worse by a liberal sprinkling of extra-hot graphic grimdark sauce, and passionate assertions of that's life, man, that's reality, that's just the way it is, you can't handle the truth!

I find the first complaint basically risible, as it harks back to a past that never was. There's always been plenty of grit around. Norse myth anyone? Full of sex, violence, antiheroes, poo jokes and everyone dies at the end. You don't get more grimdark.

I find the second argument much more compelling, not necessarily as a fundamental criticism of what gritty fantasy might and perhaps should be, but of what it generally is. I think there's a fair bit of overblown rhetoric and over-generalisation going on there too, and I'm not sure anyone making that you can't handle the truth argument is really taken seriously, but I think there's definitely a case to answer here. Certainly if I'm looking at my own work, I couldn't care less about the first complaint (destruction of western civilisation), but have at times found myself guilty as charged on the second (treatment of women and minorities). Incidentally, I don't know that finding yourself guilty of crappy writing in this way necessitates weeping tears of blood and hanging yourself, so much as making a good faith effort to try and write better in future. But, you know, what I try and take out of any discussion of this kind is - how can I write better?

I know, many of you may think it's impossible for me to write better. But the struggle is still worthwhile...

All true. All things I knew. I just wondered why you and Nerd both seemed to be focused on the first group almost as if the second didn't exist. It seemed odd and led to a bizarre debate.

I think it would be funny to put the two groups in a big conference hall under a 'we hate grit' banner and let them sort it out.

The second group (populated by a far more intellectual demographic with views that I share on the large scale) is of course harder to argue against. Primarily because they're lined up behind such laudable declarations. Down with sexism. Down with bias against minorities. No reasonable person can argue with that, and as soon as you might start to dispute any of the particular steps or interpretations that someone may take or make in pursuit of those goals you put yourself in the frame for being misinterpreted as being against those goals rather than the particular path to them.

So there's really no point in trying. All it's sensible to do is point out that you agree with the fundamentals, and to make your own choices about the stories you tell to entertain, just as the readers make their own choices about the stories they read.

 

[Toby Frost]

I do think that if you start reading Writer X with the intention of proving what a terrible person they are, you'll inevitably succeed, at least in your own mind.

With regard to Joe's second group, I think this really becomes a problem - leaving out somehow writing in a gross insult to a group of people, which I suspect is a pretty subjective thing (is Princess Nasty meant to represent all princesses, all women or just herself?) - where the worst of life is portrayed as normal, or even as good as it gets. But this takes sustained miserableness over the course of a book. The odd assassination or surprise death doesn't count, surely.

The more I think about all this, the smaller the problem seems to become. If this whole argument results in more variety in fantasy novels, so much the better. My own view is that if fantasy wants to produce more really good books, the answer isn't to put in more or less tough stuff but to allow different styles of book to be written. If the genre can get rid of the idea that all books have to be about the fate of the entire world, with a huge cast, multiple volumes and Tolkienesque setting, so much the better, because readers will have more choice and writers can say different things. Whatever people may think about their books, both Joe and Mark seem to be moving away from that formula, in different ways, and that change seems like an important step into improving fantasy overall.

 

[Kissmequick]

...but people are calling grit a synonym for realism... and unicorns are kinda... not real.

Really? It's not gritty because of the nature of the dildo they use? And when people say grit = realism, they don't nesc. mean that every single part of the book is 'real'. This is fantasy we're talking about here, right? Or we can't call, Prince of Thorns gritty because it's set in the future and that hasn't happened yet, or ASOIAF can't be because it has dragons in, and they aren't real. Pretty sure, anyway. Sorry, that's sounds like side stepping/dismissing the actual issue, which is of, in this instance, raping someone to death. On the page. Multiple times. (They didn't use the unicorm horn each time though, so perhaps those other times when they rape them and then cut out their hearts counts, but the unicorn horn one doesn't /end sarcasm)

And my point remains that, although you cite this unnamed unicorn porn, I've read a great many fantasy books, my tastes tend toward darker fantasy, and I've never seen a graphic rape scene. I can't specifically remember _any_ rape scene except the 36 year old Lord Foul's Bane. I can't of course (and don't wish to) dispute examples exist. What word we use to describe their frequency is of course subjective, but my experience has been that they are rare.

We'll agree to differ there then, because it's in quite a few well known, well read (award winning even) recent books. Again, it sounds a little dismissive here.

Then there's a perhaps somewhat opposite, liberal complaint, that gritty fantasy changes the furniture around but is in fact still a totally conservative form written by, and concentrating almost entirely on, white men, and still perpetuates a load of lazy racism, sexism and homophobia that has always been bubbling away in the core of the genre but is only made worse by a liberal sprinkling of extra-hot graphic grimdark sauce, and passionate assertions of that's life, man, that's reality, that's just the way it is, you can't handle the truth!

I find the second argument much more compelling, not necessarily as a fundamental criticism of what gritty fantasy might and perhaps should be, but of what it generally is.

Exactly

And most of these people aren't saying 'you must not write about X!' or 'Man, these authors must be racist/sexist/whatever' - but more 'You know, if you're going to write about it, be thoughtful in it'. As writers we write the books that are in us, but we aren't writing in a vacuum. We should still be examining ourselves (and any complaints) to see where we could improve.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Really? It's not gritty because of the nature of the dildo they use?

The point - which you seem unwilling to take in the spirit that it was offered in - is simply that unicorns are (at least to me, not having read them in any other type of book) synonymous with the opposite end of the fantasy spectrum where everything is fantastic. Dragons I've read in sanitised fairytale fantasy and in GRRM and in everything in between. Unicorns I've only ever read in fantasy that's the opposite to this so called gritty realism everyone's on about.

It's entirely possible that this is due to my particular exposure to the genre and there are plenty of gritty realistic books whose only concession to fantasy is that a unicorn trots in. If so I concede my error. If on the other hand _any_ book, no matter how alien or fairytale the setting, is part of this alleged subgenre defined by gritty realism simply because something horrifically violent happens in them then I clearly misunderstood what part of the stories the 'realism' was refering to.

We'll agree to differ there then, because it's in quite a few well known, well read (award winning even) recent books.

Well I keep asking people to name me some. Perhaps putting aside my tone (which I suspect originated from mutual misunderstanding - I certainly didn't intend to be or feel that I was dismissive) you could... name me some?

 

[Nerds_feather]

I think there are a couple of leaps in the argument that don't totally convince.

One is that by portraying a misogynistic or racist or otherwise horrible world you're necessarily promoting or contributing to those things in reality. To return to the 1984 analogy (pathetic or not), you have there a portrayal of totalitarianism that is anything but a promotion of it (not that it's prevented some readers coming to that conclusion, mind you). Closer to home, and I hope people will forgive an example of my own but it's one I'm familiar with, The Heroes is a book about war but I don't think I've ever read a review that doesn't see it as an anti-war book. It may be that gritty writing often trots these things out lazily or superficially as part of the default worldbuilding, but I don't think that necessarily has to be so.

I read it as a probabilistic argument, not a deterministic one. Or, to put it another way, that it doesn't necessarily have to be this way, it just often is.

Related to that, I think it's perfectly possible within sexist or racist worlds to write a full range of women and POC characters, and then see how they react to their circumstances. Isn't it necessary to some degree to do that if you're to investigate racism or sexism at all? It may well be that gritty fantasy often fails to do that or falls short in the attempt, but I don't know that that's inevitable.

She doesn't quite say it, but it's implied (and others have said it explicitly) that a big part of the problem comes down to the fact that gritty fantasy authors are pretty much all straight, white and male, writing about worlds in which the power holders as also straight, white and male and featuring perspective characters who are, for the most part, straight, white and male. So when sexism and racism are explored, it's usually from the perspective of the privileged, exists to color in the world of the privileged and, if it helps produce any character development at all, it's character development for the privileged. It thus reproduces the power dynamics of our world, and often problematically so for female, POC and LGBT readers. That's one set of issues to argue about.

Speaking solely about race for a moment, even when fantasy authors (and not just the gritty ones) are well-intentioned, they can end up treating non-whites as two-dimensional features of the background, exoticize them or rely on character tropes like the "magical negro" (which goes back to the last point about non-SWMs existing solely for the purpose of the SWM). This has probably has gotten better since the days of Tolkein, but it's clearly still an issue.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Well, I think there are two very different, if not to say diametrically opposed schools of complaint about gritty fantasy.

There's a fundamentally conservative complaint (possibly with religious overtones) that gritty fantasy is a dangerously revolutionary liberal debasement of the righteous, clean and simple heroic roots of the genre, polluting our wonderful books with the filth of sex, swearing and violence and possibly representing a serious threat to western civilisation.

Then there's a perhaps somewhat opposite, liberal complaint, that gritty fantasy changes the furniture around but is in fact still a totally conservative form written by, and concentrating almost entirely on, white men, and still perpetuates a load of lazy racism, sexism and homophobia that has always been bubbling away in the core of the genre but is only made worse by a liberal sprinkling of extra-hot graphic grimdark sauce, and passionate assertions of that's life, man, that's reality, that's just the way it is, you can't handle the truth!

I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure it's very useful to put people in these two boxes. Because:

• Most of the critics I've read that object to the "lazy racism, sexism and homophobia" are also explicitly objecting to modes or degrees of violence in "gritty" fantasy. They may couch that criticism in the language of feminism, critical race theory or queer theory, but that criticism is still very much about a perceived excess of violence and "grit" in a given work or in the genre as a whole. For example.
• Few critics of "gritty" fantasy that I have read are actually calling for a return to those supposed "heroic roots" of the genre. Some maybe, but it's a bit of a strawman to say that they necessarily or even probably are.
• Many critics are not actually criticizing *all* "gritty" fantasy, but just some specific aspects, manifestations or applications of it.
• Along those lines, many of the people who have criticized some aspects or manifestations or applications of "grit" in fantasy fiction are (myself included) generally speaking fans of the style.

 

[Joe Abercrombie]

I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure it's very useful to put people in these two boxes. Because:

• Most of the critics I've read that object to the "lazy racism, sexism and homophobia" are also explicitly objecting to modes or degrees of violence in "gritty" fantasy. They may couch that criticism in the language of feminism, critical race theory or queer theory, but that criticism is still very much about a perceived excess of violence and "grit" in a given work or in the genre as a whole. For example.
• Few critics of "gritty" fantasy that I have read are actually calling for a return to those supposed "heroic roots" of the genre. Some maybe, but it's a bit of a strawman to say that they necessarily or even probably are.
• Many critics are not actually criticizing *all* "gritty" fantasy, but just some specific aspects, manifestations or applications of it.
• Along those lines, many of the people who have criticized some aspects or manifestations or applications of "grit" in fantasy fiction are (myself included) generally speaking fans of the style.

Well, I think it's more useful to put them in two boxes than to put them in one. Whenever you put people (or books) in boxes, you're bound to do some injury to some of the many that are harder to categorise, more nuanced etc. but that doesn't necessarily make the categorisation useless.

I certainly have read critics in the former camp. I've linked to a couple in my original piece, Leo Grin and Tom Simon, and I've read others with similar opinions. I don't think I said they were calling for a return to anything per se but the impression they give me is that they don't want to move on very far. It's all been downhill since Tolkien and Howard, doncha know...

 

[AMB]

And my point remains that, although you cite this unnamed unicorn porn, I've read a great many fantasy books, my tastes tend toward darker fantasy, and I've never seen a graphic rape scene. I can't specifically remember _any_ rape scene except the 36 year old Lord Foul's Bane. I can't of course (and don't wish to) dispute examples exist. What word we use to describe their frequency is of course subjective, but my experience has been that they are rare.

We'll agree to differ there then, because it's in quite a few well known, well read (award winning even) recent books. Again, it sounds a little dismissive here.

I disagree with your interpretation of Mark's tone here. He says that in his extensive reading he can't recall anything like you are describing. He isn't saying it doesn't exist, just that in his own reading experience it is rare. He states the only example he can think of, and points out your lack of giving any examples save one you don't actually name. This gives very little to go on when it comes to the point you are trying to make.

I read it not as dismissive, but a call for more information so he has a reference point for debate.

The point - which you seem unwilling to take in the spirit that it was offered in - is simply that unicorns are (at least to me, not having read them in any other type of book) synonymous with the opposite end of the fantasy spectrum where everything is fantastic. Dragons I've read in sanitised fairytale fantasy and in GRRM and in everything in between. Unicorns I've only ever read in fantasy that's the opposite to this so called gritty realism everyone's on about.

Would this scenario allow unicorns in a more gritty setting?
A genetic mutation once created a horse with a bone or keratin stump protruding from their skull. It was a dominant trait, and eventually was bred in, perhaps evolving in size and shape down the generations, creating a race of horned horses. A perceived special quality to these horns could have people hunting them in the same way they go for the horns of the rhinoceros.

Not saying that is how KMQ's unicorn horn dildo came about. You just made my brain do stuff. It hurt.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Well, I think it's more useful to put them in two boxes than to put them in one. Whenever you put people (or books) in boxes, you're bound to do some injury to some of the many that are harder to categorise, more nuanced etc. but that doesn't necessarily make the categorisation useless.

I certainly have read critics in the former camp. I've linked to a couple in my original piece, Leo Grin and Tom Simon, and I've read others with similar opinions. I don't think I said they were calling for a return to anything per se but the impression they give me is that they don't want to move on very far. It's all been downhill since Tolkien and Howard, doncha know...

That's not an opinion I put too much stock in. After all, it's really all been downhill since The Iliad and Odyssey.

But in all seriousness, I guess I can see how someone who feels strongly about that stuff might also feel left out by most modern fantasy, but then there are traditional fantasies still being written and published. Michael Sullivan's series fits that bill, and there are elements of traditional fantasy in Saladin Ahmed's writing as well. (Of course Ahmed's takes place outside pseudo-Europe and both authors' work also contain elements of modern or "gritty" fantasy.)

That said, I don't think a critical argument about violence in modern fantasy necessarily entails nostalgia for the bygone days of clear moralities, fulfillable prophesies and reassuring notions of "good" winning out over "evil."

...and yes, while two boxes are better than one, perhaps no boxes are better than two? I'm not trying to be nitpicky here, but I feel as if you might be setting up a false dichotomy. And though of course you were not responding to me or commenting on my views when you set it up, I still feel as if my own views fit awkwardly into that dichotomy.

I am a fan of gritty fantasy. Many of my favorite fantasy novels of the past two decades count as gritty. Like you, I think grit can be a useful mechanism for storytelling. In a past life, I studied epic poetry and early prose, much of which is extremely gritty, so I can also see clear cultural worth to the gritty approach.

Yet I also see problems with the proliferation of a sort of "sensationalistic" or "minimal purpose" application of grit in fantasy fiction. I do feel as if a lot of gritty fantasy suffers from the problems Foz Meadows mentions, though I also don't think it necessarily has to. And while I do perceive an overabundance of "sensationalistic" or "minimal purpose" grit, I also think there are plenty of judicious and intellectually/artistically justified applications of it as well.

Of course, I understand full-well that the line between "sufficient purpose" and "minimal purpose" is subjective and in many respects in the eye of the beholder, but I also believe strongly in the power of reasoned argument, and value attempts to lay out a systematic argument--as both you and Foz Meadows do quite well. For me, the distinction in any given work of fiction is qualitative rather than quantitative--in the sense of "do the benefits of this approach or the application of this approach outweigh the costs, as I perceive them after doing some critical thinking?" Earlier in this thread, Brian described Best Served Cold as "arguably a stunning commentary on the pointlessness of violence." That kind of thing, to me, counts as a judicious use of grit as a tool.

I suspect that most people commenting on "grit" in a critical way, most certainly in this thread but also generally, have similarly nuanced views of it--though of course not necessarily nuanced in the same way.

 

[Kissmequick]

I read it not as dismissive, but a call for more information so he has a reference point for debate.

Perhaps because I have had this said to me, too many times to count, (and in all seriousness) 'Well I haven't read any, so it can't be a problem'

A mutual misunderstanding perhaps, as Mark said.

Rather than clog up the thread, I PM'd him with a nice list.

And I think we discussed this not to long ago here: http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/539494-gratuitous-rape-in-fantasy-novels.html



We'll agree to disagree on the unicorn perhaps -- for myself, I don't see how their presence immediately marks a work as 'non gritty', any more than the presence of say rabbits, or children. It's all in the execution. (If the unicorns are pooping sparkly rainbows, then yes, probably non gritty. If they are trying to impale everyone they meet...)

 

[Seli]

...

That said, I don't think a critical argument about violence in modern fantasy necessarily entails nostalgia for the bygone days of clear moralities, fulfillable prophesies and reassuring notions of "good" winning out over "evil."
....

I assume that is a result of most of the people (that I have encountered) who make this complaint are not critics but readers. Often from a conservative and christian (US) background.
This does seem to be a group that is not well represented in critic/academic circles, at least the bits of it I encounter. So that we don't see a critical argument for that case might just be a result of self-selection and cultural biases.

But just because the critical analysis for this view does not exist, does not mean that there are no complaints from people that hold this view.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I assume that is a result of most of the people (that I have encountered) who make this complaint are not critics but readers. Often from a conservative and christian (US) background.
This does seem to be a group that is not well represented in critic/academic circles, at least the bits of it I encounter. So that we don't see a critical argument for that case might just be a result of self-selection and cultural biases.

But just because the critical analysis for this view does not exist, does not mean that there are no complaints from people that hold this view.

I wasn't claiming that these kinds of "nostalgics" don't exist, but rather problematizing the assumption that a critique of violence in fantasy (wether limited like my own or more expansive like the one put forward by Fishbowl Helmet) implies this kind of nostalgia. You'd have to go to deeper into the individual arguments to see if it does or not.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Rather than clog up the thread, I PM'd him with a nice list.

And I think we discussed this not to long ago here: http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/539494-gratuitous-rape-in-fantasy-novels.html

Thanks for that.

I was after examples graphic rather than gratuitous but there were several in your list that you identified as graphic. Orcs and The Windup Girl prime among them. No chance of me ever getting around to reading them but at least I now have a baseline for purposes of discussion.

 

[Joe Abercrombie]

That's not an opinion I put too much stock in. After all, it's really all been downhill since The Iliad and Odyssey.
...and yes, while two boxes are better than one, perhaps no boxes are better than two? I'm not trying to be nitpicky here, but I feel as if you might be setting up a false dichotomy.

A bit like the one you set up when you arbitrarily split grimdark fantasy into GOOD and BAD in that post of yours, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

But seriously, I agree with you on most things.

Especially about Best Served Cold being great.

 

[Kissmequick]

Thanks for that.

I was after examples graphic rather than gratuitous but there were several in your list that you identified as graphic. Orcs and The Windup Girl prime among them. No chance of me ever getting around to reading them but at least I now have a baseline for purposes of discussion.

To be fair, the Windup Girl was about the FMC being treated as an object/breaking free. But -- actually the buts I have would seriously derail the thread even further! That said, I suspect the author's intent was basically not a mesh with my tastes. Opinions may vary on that, but it seemed a pertinent, high profile example of graphic rape.

To get back to grimdark -- I think the point here is it is not only possible but believable to have women whose backstory does not include rape (or if it does, it isn't their prime motivation or source of angst) This even happens in the Warhammer universe the term grimdark came from. Even in a sexist society, rape is not a given. Same with war - plenty of women have gone through wars without being raped. Etc etc. Some variety would be nice in women's characters.


And, just to reiterate, I'm not against having it in a book, and I don't think authors who use it are automatically misogynists/promoting rape or violence etc. I've used it myself (rarely, but naturally in the most prominent book I have out *rolls eyes*....though it's only implied, and it doesn't feature at all in the next 8 or 9 books I have written/plan to write). I think it can be done well, and when done well can shine a light on what is happening around us right now. I just think it needs bearing in mind.

Especially about Best Served Cold being great.

Better had be, I bought it today. If not, I shall hunt you down....

 

[Nerds_feather]

A bit like the one you set up when you arbitrarily split grimdark fantasy into GOOD and BAD in that post of yours, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

But seriously, I agree with you on most things.

Especially about Best Served Cold being great.

That's a fair point, and if I were to rewrite the piece, I would go for more of a "sliding scale" type distinction than a dichotomous one. But of course it's easier to recognize these things after people point them out to you than to recognize them as you are writing