Grimdark vs Supernatural Horror

[Fishbowl Helmet]

An interesting article though I'm not sure I entirely agree with the conclusion, though it does seem to be a better working definition than 'I know it when I see it'.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

This is good start anyway, which I'd agree with.

Horror is defined as literature which is written with the intention of inflicting the emotions of fear or terror. Not many will disagree with that definition. Horror can then be divided into two very broad camps of either supernatural horror or psychological thrillers. Since psychological thrillers tend to have no fantastical elements, I’m confining my discussion to the differences between supernatural horror and grimdark.

I'd add that there are thrillers, fantasy and SF with horror elements. Which I think doesn't automatically make them "grim dark".

I dislike the word “realistic” being attributed to grimdark fiction. Frankly, grimdark is no more realistic than supernatural horror.

This also is true, I think it's not realistic. Very little fiction is truly realistic anyway.

In most grimdark literature, the supernatural is a passive force controlled by humans, whereas in horror, the supernatural becomes an active entity with agency.

I'm not convinced. I don't think it's true.
So:

Perhaps a better definition of grimdark would be:

“Grimdark is a subgenre or a way to describe the tone, style, or setting of speculative fiction (especially fantasy) that is, depending on the definition used, markedly dystopian or [,] amoral, or[and] particularly graphic in its depiction of violence. In most grimdark literature the supernatural is a passive force, controlled by humans—unlike supernatural horror where the preternatural forces are most often an active entity with agency.”

My edit of his definition. Also I think "grimdark" is a tone, a style, but in contrast true horror genre sets out to "inflicted the emotions of fear or terror." I think grimdark can be a flavour of story that may or may not be horror genre. I think it's a voyeuristic inflicting of amoral violence on the reader.

Just my opinion. So I think like pornography vs the erotic, it's exploitive (of the reader) and you will know grimdark vs horror elements when you see them. Obviously some people will be attracted to it. TV is trying to push the boundaries of it as it gets viewers and very dedicated fans.

Is it harmful? I've no idea.

 

[Toby Frost]

Good find, Mr Helmet. I agree with you that I don't agree with the article's conclusions, but I suspect that my definition of "grimdark" may be different to that of many other people. I think it is what happens when the setting is artificially manipulated or rigged to always provide a cynical or miserable ending. 40k is a good example because, in order to protect mankind from demons, the Emperor must be fed with souls. This isn't realistic: there's no reason for it except that the writers say so. The setting is rigged to always require human sacrifice and to keep the tone downbeat.

Say a beggar is approached by a rich man, who offers to toss a coin. "Heads I give you a million pounds, tails you die". In a noir story or a horror story, the beggar might win the toss or refuse the bet (perhaps with serious consequences, perhaps not). He could do that in a grimdark setting, but he has to lose out overall because he is weak and good (or at least morally better than the other guy).

At least, that's how I see it. That probably means that there are less stories which I'd call "grimdark" than others. Violence won't do it alone (Where Eagles Dare isn't, and nor is Aliens), nor will realistic depiction of grim events (Schindler's List, say) or ambiguous or downbeat settings/endings (The Last of Us). I think it's less the pornography of violence and more the pornography of cynicism, if that makes any sense at all.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I think it's less the pornography of violence and more the pornography of cynicism,

Could be.

 

[J Riff]

I don't like the word itself... 'grimdark'. Who invented it, and why? No need for new words for old writings, is there? Did I miss something? Grimdark, huh?
No, I refute thee! There is no Grimdark, I banish thee and schtick with good ol' horror, terror, macabre, (see Roget's) and whatnot.

 

[soulsinging]

I don't like the word itself... 'grimdark'. Who invented it, and why? No need for new words for old writings, is there? Did I miss something? Grimdark, huh?
No, I refute thee! There is no Grimdark, I banish thee and schtick with good ol' horror, terror, macabre, (see Roget's) and whatnot.

I suspect they are the same people that invented "grunge" music in the 90's and for the same purposes... marketing and sales.

The distinction I see is the arbitrariness. In horror, there's usually a victim of the horror/terror and that person is specific. The residents of the haunted house, trespassers, guilty people haunted by past sins. The story tends to be those characters being subjected to a relentless campaign of terror, but there is a purpose to it and the protagonists have some measure of control over their ultimate fate through the choices they make. Grimdark is all about death being doled out arbitrarily. The good hero dies in a stupid, pointless battle, while the most bloodthirsty tyrant thrives due to exploiting good's propensity to believe there is some inherent order/god/justice in the world. Suffering has a purpose in horror. Not so much in grimdark.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I don't like the word itself... 'grimdark'. Who invented it, and why? No need for new words for old writings, is there? Did I miss something? Grimdark, huh?
No, I refute thee! There is no Grimdark, I banish thee and schtick with good ol' horror, terror, macabre, (see Roget's) and whatnot.

I don't think many of the writers really like it - certainly Joe Abercrombie said something to that effect at Titancon. But really, it's just a group of writers who've emerged at the same time, writing a broad theme of 'no one is safe', gritty fantasy. Actually, it's becoming more and more a fantasy title and that defies the origin of the genre (modern genre) which was Warhammer 40k.

 

[Pedro Del Mar]

Horror novels tend to have the evil defeated by the end of the story, not always so in grimdark

 

[tinkerdan]

Grimdark is a slippery slimy mess that often seems to defy clear definition.

When I think of Grimdark I think of the original batman before the comic code authority. And in a large way I look at the landscape that Dickens often painted of the desperate world his characters live in. And I always transfer that to the steampunk; because that's the same world only in alternate form. But a big difference from Dickens is that Grimdark often has no characters with redeemable qualities.

At least in Dickens you had someone whose triumphs and failures were felt by the reader because they are people you care about and those characters managed to triumph in the end.

That's not so much with Grimdark; because not only are there no redeemable characters, but the hopelessness and emptiness manages to choke the life out of the work right to the end.

 

[Randy M.]

I keep hearing about grimdark but I haven't read grimdark. Sounds noir to me: corruption in high places, everyone out for themselves, the good guys (such as they are) using the same tactics as the bad guys. Sure you're not talking about James M. Cain, Cornell Woolrich and Jim Thompson?


Randy M.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Sounds noir to me

No, Noir can be a flavour, though more a detective genre. IMO grim dark is a flavour of violence and nihilism and practically voyeuristic (like porn I think) exploiting the emotion of the reader in a different way to horror. It might not involve horror at all and can be I think overlaid on any genre, a step beyond edgy and gritty.

 

[tinkerdan]

I always thought the movie Sin City and the Comics they came from as a good example of grimdark.