Just what the heck do you mean by "gritty"???

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally posted by Gollum in another topic:

Kate is a talented writer although the series itself is not as gritty as say a Martin or Erikson offering. For me there's a mixture of the more black and white style of character and some interesting grey characters, perhaps along the lines of Greg Keyes Kingdom of Thorn and Bone series?


Forgive me, Gollum, for appropriating your words, but reading your comment in another thread rather brought the whole issue to a head for me.

The folks around here are always saying that this writer or that writer is more "gritty" than others, but just what do we, individually and as a group, comprehend by that term?

Does it mean more blood, sweat, and grime on the main characters? Does it mean more scrofulous beggars roaming in the streets? Does it mean more sympathetic characters die horrible deaths? Does it mean the story concentrates more on the minute details of everyday life: the pot-scrubbing, and the knife-grinding, and the trips out back to the privy?

I'd really like to how everyone defines this term that we read so often in these forums.

 

[GOLLUM]

First of all thank you for bringing this up on a seperate thread. I think it's probably a useful exercise to help clarify the term.

Here's what I posted on that other thread in relation to my understanding of the term "Gritty":

To get back to the term itself I admit it's a little vague and as such everyone probably has a slighly diffrerent angle to what they have in mind as a definition here. For me it automatically invokes images of blood and guts often of a military nature but not always, rough or hardened characters who tend to be fairly callous in nature, possibly the use of strong language, a potentially tough and unocomprimisng storyline that doesn't often give the reader much respite, a healthy dose of grey or ambigiuos characters and endings that often don't potray the "hero" always winning. I think it also implies a certain level of harsh realism in relation to our own society eventhough the story is genereally set within a fantasy style realm.

Given this crietia I just personally found Martin and Erikson's work to be a bit more gritty or harsher if that's a better word than Kates although her work is still pretty gritty stuff and of course all 3 are excellent writers IMO and non-gritty books can naturally still make for a good read.

It will be fascinating to see what other members come up with though.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I think you listed various features that could come under such an umbrella term, Kelpie - personally I would interpret "gritty" as meaning a movement away from general romanticism, and instead involving aspects of unforgiving realism - the ugly, dirty, and more complex side of humanity and life.

 

[Brys]

I always see "gritty" as being closely linked to realism. It means that bad things can happen to main characters for example, but it also shows the horrible day to day life of the characters, something that's often forgotten (I personally view Erikson as a lot more "gritty" than Martin, because Erikson deals with the ordinary soldiers and their everyday struggles as well as the larger picture). A novel which is gritty is generally believable - except, of course, for the obvious elements of fantasy (like magic) - as I, Brian said, there's no romanticism.

There's some element of everything you said there in what is "gritty" - being harsh to sympathetic characters, blood sweat etc - no romantic imagery of war, and the ordinary person's view. Not all are necessary for it to be gritty, and you can have these elements without the novel being gritty, but there's an underlying dark, realistic depressing tone generally in gritty novels.

 

[Culhwch]

...personally I would interpret "gritty" as meaning a movement away from general romanticism, and instead involving aspects of unforgiving realism - the ugly, dirty, and more complex side of humanity and life.

I'd agree with this. Perfectly stated. I remember reading Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles for the first time and being astounded by how 'real' it was - unflinching, dirty and bloody. That was the first time I really came across such 'gritty' storytelling. My previous forays into fantasy were pretty much limited to Feist and Tolkien, both of whom are quite, I guess, 'romantic' in their writing. I haven't read Elliott and only read a small amount of Erikson, but Martin certainly does lean this way in his writings, though I don't know that he is as gritty as some would make out; he still tends to the romantic on occasion.

 

[Brys]

Just thinking about this again a bit - I was just reading Tim Powers' The Drawing of the Dark, and towards the end it struck me as being an almost perfect example of what gritty is, at least in a military context.
It's unforgiving, real and showing what warfare is really like. It shows that things don't always go to plan, the reality of what a siege was like (having to eat rats, cats, dogs meat, the cart going around the city at night calling for the dead, the constant thunder of cannons, the terrible injuries and destruction war causes etc).

Martin I'm always hesitant to call gritty - he's unforgiving to his characters, yes, but war itself seems very romanticised. He's got a very realistic grip on politics and the reality of chivalry and nobility of the time, but with battles, it never seems as if they themselves are terrible things - this in part comes from the viewpoints he's giving you, but it still in a military sense isn't gritty. Also the lack of lower social group viewpoints tends to take away from it.

 

[rune]

I think others have already put into words what I mean when I think of 'gritty'. For me it's a story that doesnt flinch from difficult decisions and really puts their characters through the mill in a harsh way at times. Also I would say has a modern feel to it.

 

[littlemissattitude]

Probably mostly what the others said.

When I think if "gritty", I think of fiction where the writer doesn't pull his or her punches. If something bad happens, especially to a sympathetic character, the writer doesn't soften it up so that the consequences to the character are lessened. The characters speak in appropriate language - if a character curses, he or she doesn't pussyfoot around with it or use substitute words that might be more palatable to the sensitive reader. The writer does not use euphemisms to describe less than savory incidents and characters.

In fantasy, I would definitely describe Stephen R. Donaldson's Covenant books as gritty. I'd probably use his work as an example for science fiction as well, from what little I've read of his Gap series. In the mystery genre, I'd name James Ellroy's work as example of "gritty" writing.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Except for the cynicism and (perhaps) the bad language, it seems to me that many writers who aren't generally considered "gritty" have more of all those other things mentioned than some of the writers who are generally considered gritty.

So why do so many readers insist on saying "gritty and realistic" when they really mean dark and cynical?

Can it be that people are prone to use these terms ... somewhat loosely?

It's interesting that this topic came out of comments made about Kate Elliott, because she has an interesting story that she tells from time to time. She was on a panel at a convention discussing ... I forget exactly what, but something along these lines ... when a male panelist turned to her and asked her scornfully if she had ever been engaged in a life and death struggle. She responded by telling how she had been rushed to the hospital in premature labor when the twins were about to be born. The gentleman could not see how this experience of hers applied.

Hand-to-hand combat was the only form of life and death struggle he was willing to acknowledge as relevant. Childbirth, and hospitals, and incubators, were somehow less real to him than fists and knives. I imagine he wouldn't have acknowledged that what I was going through last year at this time with my dying mother was a genuine life-and-death struggle either, though it sure felt like it to me when I was spooning water into her mouth because she could no longer suck on a straw.

But when it comes down to it, how many of us here will die in battle (or being tortured to death in a dungeon, or any of the other ways people die in fantasy novels), compared to how many of us will die in our beds while our loved ones struggle with questions about which heroic measures they should authorize and for how long?

I mean if we're really looking for realism, why so many battles in our preferred form of fiction and so few childbirths? Why so many assassinations and executions and so few deathbed vigils?

 

[Brys]

Well, what authors do you have in mind? The authors I don't tend to think of as gritty are authors like David Eddings, or Raymond E Feist, or JRR Tolkien - generally the more traditional authors. They have very few of the elements we've mentioned.

I agree about all the life and death struggles you mention, and they equally deserve to be acknowleged. But they're unlikely to appear in fantasy novels, because readers don't want to read about it, and in a lot of cases writers don't want to write about it. That said, (though it was considered the weakest storyline) in Steven Erikson's Memories of Ice the issue of childbirth and aging is tackled through the Mhybe storyline. And a lot of other non-violent life or death struggles do occur in fantasy.
A couple of examples:
Thomas Covenant
Fitz in the Farseer trilogy
Severian in the Book of the New Sun
Elric (though the way it's done is often through violence, though it's clear the real life or death struggle is simply survival, first physically, then mentally, not the battles he fights).

While these non-violent struggles aren't addressed as often as violent ones, that's simply a reflection of what most readers want. There are quite a few which do include these, if you know where to look. It's rare to find it in epic fantasy, because epic fantasy is what the name suggests - if it was about childbirths rather than battles, people would get understandably angry about being misled.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, that's my point: readers don't want to read about certain things, for all they say about wanting grit and realism. Aren't the darker, more cynical books romanticized and unrealistic, too, just in a different way? Don't they concentrate on the adrenaline and testosterone-driven struggles at the expense of the the grinding, prolonged, endurance struggles which are as much (or more) a part of real life? Of course the one sort offers more in the way of drama than the other, but that's not the point if people really want grit and realism.

As for the authors I'm talking about, who are realistic and gritty as I understand the term, I'm thinking of writers like Kate Elliott, Katharine Kerr, Tad Williams, Judith Tarr, and C. J. Cherryh, whose works never come up when people are talking about this new trend toward darker, tougher, more realistic fantasy -- and note that all of these writers have been around and writing that way for quite some time.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Thinking about it, it occurs to me that rune may be closer to the mark than anybody when she says that the books that are widely supposed to be dark and gritty have a more modern feel to them.

The characters do seem to have a modern outlook on life, whereas in the books I think are realistic the characters seem more historically based, more products of their own cultures rather than ours.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Except for the cynicism and (perhaps) the bad language, it seems to me that many writers who aren't generally considered "gritty" have more of all those other things mentioned than some of the writers who are generally considered gritty.

I think it's simply that we're dealing with tones of grey here - for example, different writers may have a preference to explore different themes, and even the same writer can tackle very different elements of a story in different books. I don't think generalisations are going to be anything other than illustrative, rather than definitive.

I would suggest the age of the audience being pitched at is an important aspect - that "gritty" essentially boils down to tackling more adult themes in a way the readership can appreciate.

I mean if we're really looking for realism, why so many battles in our preferred form of fiction and so few childbirths? Why so many assassinations and executions and so few deathbed vigils?

Actually, I agree - the mediaeval world was a very violent, dirty, gruesome place. There's so much everyday life waiting to be written into any fantasy story based on the period.

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

Well, far too late, but my interpretation pg 'gritty' is just having situations were the 'hero' character makes mistakes and pays for them. Too often in fantasy and sci-fi the hero character makes the right choice by luck or design and avoids the. more interesting, consequences of the 'wrong' choices.

Sorry to hark back to the 'warfare; cliche Kelpie, but what if Henry V decided Longbowmen were useless and deployed them as footmen? Having said that, I regard 'Bladerunner' as a gritty world - for me gritty is more a 'mood' than a particular character trait.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Now it's interesting that you should use Henry V as an example, WS. Because I would have said that Henry V at Agincourt was a fine illustration of a historic instance of not having to live with the consequences of one's actions and surviving by dumb luck instead.

With all due respect for the longbowmen of Old England, as I understand it Henry's victory owed a lot more to the land, the weather, and a whole host of other factors from the French not sticking with their own battle plan, to the fact that the French supply wagons had not yet arrived with the pavises their crossbowmen needed to be effective.

Not as often as it happens in SFF novels, but sometimes a person really does catch a whole series of lucky breaks. There's a difference between highly improbable and unrealistic.

 

[Brys]

Well, that's my point: readers don't want to read about certain things, for all they say about wanting grit and realism. Aren't the darker, more cynical books romanticized and unrealistic, too, just in a different way? Don't they concentrate on the adrenaline and testosterone-driven struggles at the expense of the the grinding, prolonged, endurance struggles which are as much (or more) a part of real life? Of course the one sort offers more in the way of drama than the other, but that's not the point if people really want grit and realism.

As for the authors I'm talking about, who are realistic and gritty as I understand the term, I'm thinking of writers like Kate Elliott, Katharine Kerr, Tad Williams, Judith Tarr, and C. J. Cherryh, whose works never come up when people are talking about this new trend toward darker, tougher, more realistic fantasy -- and note that all of these writers have been around and writing that way for quite some time.

I haven't read any of those writers, so I can't comment on them. But I disagree with "they concentrate on the adrenaline and testosterone-driven struggles ". In some cases, that is true, but it is far from being a rule in gritty fantasy. The military fantasy novels, when they are considered gritty, do. But then if they didn't, they wouldn't be military fantasy. And there are plenty of other authors considered gritty who concentrate on very different things - some of the better known ones: Robin Hobb, Stephen Donaldson, Mervyn Peake - they aren't generally what I'd describe as adrenaline driven, but they are certainly gritty. Others, as I mentioned before, use these struggles just to highlight the internal struggles of characters, like in the Elric stories, where the actual battles are inconsequential compared to what is happening to Elric himself. And I hadn't really thought of this as a new trend, except in epic fantasy. It's been around pretty much since fantasy has been, it just hasn't been hugely evident in epic fantasy because of Tolkien's influence.

the grinding, prolonged, endurance struggles which are as much (or more) a part of real life

This, to me, points to one fantasy novel above all others - In Viriconium, by M John Harrison. It may not be epic fantasy (though to address this issue it is almost impossible for it to be epic fantasy), but it is the central theme throughout it. Gritty fantasy often includes many authors using these themes and concepts you talk about (and wish there were more of) - but they are not the most well known authors, so they are less talked about. You're more likely to find them addressed in a Vandermeer novel than in a Martin novel, and given the number of readers of each, it's clear why they appear to be less addressed within the genre.

As for the longbows issue - there were obviously other important factors, but longbows were still particularly important in the victory at Agincourt - it was the best way to attack the French at long range, rendering them a much weaker force.

A quote from Poul Anderson on the subject:

In medieval England, every yeoman of military age was required by law to have a longbow and spend a set number of hours per week practicing with it. As a result, the English archers during the Hundred Years' War were the terror of the French, who tried to raise a similar corps but failed because they hadn't institutionalized the training

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Interesting, because I have never heard of Mervyn Peake being described as gritty, or Harrison, either, though he certainly meets my criteria. Also interesting that everyone is suddenly disavowing Martin as particularly gritty, when he used to be the poster-child for gritty, realistic fiction around here. I'm suspecting that "gritty" has become sort of a buzz word that people often use without thinking about it very much.

And not to turn this into the Henry V thread, but you don't have to tell me about the importance of the English longbow during the Hundred Years War; I'm married to an archery and medieval history buff. We get Poitiers and Crecy over the dinner table here. (And Agincourt with dessert.) Nevertheless, what I said about Henry V and dumb luck still stands.

 

[Brys]

I've often heard M John Harrison (more than Peake) described as gritty - as well as a number of the New Weird authors. I think people often think of gritty as being a purely military term, and so ignore the rest of it. As for Martin being the poster-boy of gritty, it's only because those people usually have read little outside of traditional epic fantasy, and clearly Martin is a lot more gritty and realistic than Eddings, or Tolkien, or Feist or Jordan - but compared to a lot of others, he isn't.
It seems to suddenly have come into fashion to use the word gritty to describe fantasy (particularly epic fantasy) novels now, but it doesn't always seem appropriate. It used to be limited to the more military type novels, where as I said it has a slightly different meaning (soldier's point of view rather than the sweeping view of battle).

 

[Christopher Lee]

I think you listed various features that could come under such an umbrella term, Kelpie - personally I would interpret "gritty" as meaning a movement away from general romanticism, and instead involving aspects of unforgiving realism - the ugly, dirty, and more complex side of humanity and life.

This is a rather old thread, but I came across it and decided it could use another comment. I have to go with Brian's idea behind the word.

The ugly, dirty, and more detailed and complex side of humanity that we don't normally see at first glance.

 

[TheTomG]

Interesting that the thread died out - was there a final consensus on 'gritty'? Or have we now come to an acceptance with the word some 6 years later?