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

[Moggle]

Gritty = nihilistic

 

[GlasgowSpacer]

One issue I have with the whole ‘Grimdark’ trend is that sometimes it doesn’t actually reflect reality very well. Just look at Batman over the last few decades. Not only have the comics been getting consistently darker and bleaker, but it’s gotten to the point where virtually all has enemies are murderers and serial killers of some sort. The defence we keep getting for this is that the writers are just trying to reflect reality. Fair enough. I certainly don’t mind a good gritty Batman story (I love The Dark Knight and Year One) but on closer examination the writer’s claims are kind of rubbish.

A quick glance at statistics shows that murderers, paedophiles and rapists are vastly outnumbered by people committing other crimes. In a truly realistic Gotham City Bats would spend most of his time chasing down shop lifters, car jackers, burglars and making Jim Gordon take a Bat-Breathalyser test. But instead we just get serial killers, serial killers, serial killers and maybe if we’re lucky a megalomaniac with an army of ninjas trying to take over the world. You know, all the ordinary hurdles of life we just have to deal with.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

One issue I have with the whole ‘Grimdark’ trend is that sometimes it doesn’t actually reflect reality very well. Just look at Batman over the last few decades. Not only have the comics been getting consistently darker and bleaker, but it’s gotten to the point where virtually all has enemies are murderers and serial killers of some sort. The defence we keep getting for this is that the writers are just trying to reflect reality. Fair enough. I certainly don’t mind a good gritty Batman story (I love The Dark Knight and Year One) but on closer examination the writer’s claims are kind of rubbish.

A quick glance at statistics shows that murderers, paedophiles and rapists are vastly outnumbered by people committing other crimes. In a truly realistic Gotham City Bats would spend most of his time chasing down shop lifters, car jackers, burglars and making Jim Gordon take a Bat-Breathalyser test. But instead we just get serial killers, serial killers, serial killers and maybe if we’re lucky a megalomaniac with an army of ninjas trying to take over the world. You know, all the ordinary hurdles of life we just have to deal with.

I don't read the comics but ... would a billionaire who took the trouble to train up, design/buy awesome techno kit etc, and then select who he pits himself against, really seek out shoplifters over mass-murderers? As an independent vigilante aren't the people he comes up against largely his choice (& theirs - and again, the shoplifter is probably not going to set out to steal from the Batshop).

 

[GlasgowSpacer]

Good points, I should have stated my issues more clearly. One of my main problems is how supposed grittiness always focuses on violence, rapes and killing etc. With all the technology in the DC universe surely they’d be capable of doing non-lethal crimes that would get Bats’s attention (ie hacking into banks to steal people’s money, threating their livelihood). Also, drunk drivers kill way more people that serial killers per year, yet I’ve yet to see a dark, gritty Batman story where Bruce has one too many vodkas and backs the Batmoblile over Alfred, even though technically it would be a lot more believable than Bamtan getting killed and brought back by a big grey alien warlord.

Westerns are another good example. People often take the piss out of Rio Bravo for the singing scene, even when they praise gritty movies like Unforgiven and The Good, The Bad and the Ugly for their realism (again, nothing against any of those movies, they’re personal favourites of mine). However, in real life cowboys often sang to pass the time. Yet nobody seems to object when Bill Munny and the Man with No Name make it through countless gunfights with multiple opponents without getting a scratch. Realistically they’d have been blown to very small, red puddles a long time ago.

 

[Erin99]

I know this thread is old, but...

"Relentlessly grim". That's my take on it. Work that is often unrelenting in its outlook and storylines and use of violence. It may seem "realistic" to some, but to me it can feel too grim, because how often do people REALLY want to stab each other in the back without making true friendships? People just want the best for themselves and their family, but that doesn't mean they're prepared to murder.

The old-fashioned "romantic" fantasy I enjoy much more because it focuses on other things. Stories like the Wheel of Time seem, I dunno, more readable because everything's not so depressing - and yet there are people you can believe in and love and, eventually, lots of conflict is heaped up on top without some terrible incident harming or killing everyone every other page. And while the society doesn't feel oppressed and dangerous and harsh, you know it's there off the page. Women hold all the power, and some men live in fear of them! The story just doesn't want to focus on depressing elements to a huge degree. Even the one rape was "off the page" - and yet its impact wasn't underplayed or ignored.

 

[Nerds_feather]

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.

Stuff categorized as "gritty" often isn't all that complex, though, eschewing black/white for black/black. That's the kind of thing the "grimdark" term fits quite nicely, as some fellow noted a few months ago. From that post:

Gritty literature can be reframed as “dark realism.” A gritty book, then, is one that lingers on the rough and difficult side of life, and often more narrowly on the violent and sinister in human psychology, social interaction and so forth. Some people use the term “grimdark” as a synonym for grit, while others use it as an exclusively pejorative stand-in. The term, however, has a more specific meaning.

Imported into fantasy from Warhammer 40k game culture, grimdark narrowly refers to a totalizing manifestation of grit. Gritty worlds are rough and tumble places where bad things can easily happen, but there’s always the understanding that, somewhere at least, things aren’t that bad. Grimdark worlds, by contrast, are irreparably violent and unavoidably sinister—so much that they can easily slide into absurdity.

Now I’m as guilty as anyone else of playing fast and loose with these terms, but this is, I think, an important distinction to make: grit is inherently limited and situational; grimdark is totalizing and manifest everywhere.

 

[Bick]

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. But I suspect that many authors are lumped into the 'gritty' category, while others are not, based on current trends and reputation rather than logical analysis. I think gritty also suggests some attention to the minutiae of lifes' struggles rather than simply an overarching cynicism.

 

[Mirannan]

Life and death struggles in novels (fantasy or otherwise) are rarely of the sort that most people encounter. I have a story about that which is grimly amusing, in its own way. In 2000, I was diagnosed with cancer and it was fairly advanced at time of detection. I'm still here, so obviously I won that life-and-death struggle, but I don't think I've seen any fiction on a subject like that.

The "grimly amusing" bit? Well, some of the procedures and tests I went through were rather alarming, unpleasant and in at least one case painful. The amusing bit is that one way I've developed of getting bores to go away (at social events, for example) is to start telling "war stories". Green is an interesting skin colour to see.

To give just a little of the flavour of such stories, it's probable that I've had every scan known to man. One was particularly interesting, the PET scan. The procedure is to inject a solution of a technetium isotope that happens to decay by positron emission, wait an hour or two and then put the patient under what is described as a "gamma camera". (The isotope is taken up by tumours, for some reason.) The funny story is that, for about 48 hours after such a test, the patient's (ahem) output is treated as radioactive waste - because that's what it is.

 

[biodroid]

To me gritty is when the story is not always about happy endings but where the bad guys can win as well as the good guys. There is no good or bad only power, pretty much sums it up. We were always made to believe that the good guys believe this and the bad guys believe that. But who is really good and bad in that scenario? From the baddies POV the good guys are the real baddies and vice versa.

 

[Ronald T.]

Theresa,

From what you've written here, It's obvious this subject has pushed a personal button for you. And that's perfectly fine. We've all had buttons pushed by certain subjects on these posts. I know I have.

But I sense an underlying anger from you around this issue. It appears you resent the fact that writers tend to avoid certain aspects of life, and hold that same resentment toward readers for not insisting the authors include such "gritty" topics as those you mentioned. I agree, the life and death struggles of birth, and the horrors of death-bed misery are a real and gritty part of life. But you said it yourself, it doesn't appear the readers wish to find these topics in their fantasy books. This tells me that if one wishes, as an author, to address such issues, or, as a reader, to read about such topics, then perhaps a different genre or venue would be more appropriate and better served overall.

I have personal things I would like to include in my writing, as well. But I know these things are more personal to me as an individual, and might -- in fact, most likely, would -- put off many of those I want as my readers.

There are genres for everything, and each genre has a set of likes and dislikes. It's standard for the industry.

Like most other people, I have a line I won't let an author cross. If they do, I stop reading them (as I have with GRRM, for his obvious delight in killing off main characters). I read for personal enjoyment, not to suffer the pains of real life. That's why I won't read about the holocaust, or the treatment of American Indians, or the strife and unfairness to women in the Middle East, or the tragedy in South Africa. These issues are simply too painful to my heart and soul.

Yes...they are real parts of life, that's true. But, as I said, I read for enjoyment. That means I have to be selective in what I choose. I have stopped watching movies and have put aside books I was reading because they were simply too painful. I think we all do that. It's called emotional survival.

As I read your posts, I sensed you were truly upset by the avoidance of certain issues in certain genres. If I was mistaken, then please accept my deepest apologies. It is so easy to be wrong when we discuss topics that address emotion pain or frustration. I've been married to the love of my life for 46 years, so I realize how difficult it can be, and how wrong I can sometimes be at identifying the central issue.

IF I have done so here, I can only ask your forgiveness.

 

[Ronald T.]

As far as the meaning behind the term "Gritty" goes, I think it's mostly intended as a way to suggest the attitude of the author. Certain authors find it a much more honest style of writing if they describe in detail what a medieval battlefield looks, smells, and sounds like, rather than glossing over the horrific aspects. Others find the descriptions of what a sword, axe, or spear can do the human flesh as a step-too-far.

But a desire to witness such graphic images in movies and read horrendous descriptions of mutilation and death in books seems to be on the rise. If not, then how do we justify such movies as TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, or FRIDAY THE 13TH, or KILL BILL? It seems we are becoming desensitized to such horrors as a society.

Is that a good thing, or bad? Time will tell.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

You don't always need to be graphic to be gritty.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

As I read your posts, I sensed you were truly upset by the avoidance of certain issues in certain genres.

No, I don't mind that these subjects are being avoided. I mind that there are books where violence (and particularly violence against women) is being used to titillate and then praised as gritty and realistic, when the true, gritty, heartbreaking experiences of real life are so conspicuously missing. It's the dishonesty, I suppose that bothers me.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh -- how'd you do?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.

Both gritty and romanticised.

 

[Randy M.]

Ronald,

I take your point about pain and emotional survival. There are things I don't read or view, too, though in some cases it's because the handling appears awkward or ill thought out rather than because of the subject.

Still, how does the scope of a genre ever expand without its authors showing the courage to tackle subjects formerly considered outside the domain of that genre? Additionally, how does a genre shed its worst practices if no one points them out and says, that's shallow or disingenuous or ... (fill in an appropriate adjective) and supplies a reason for believing so?

Certainly you may choose not to read such material and just as certainly writers may choose to tackle such material. (Or not.) But it's also just for the reader as well as for the critic to cite those works in which such material is poorly presented, to call writers on what might be lazy habits of plotting if not thought. I think Theresa was mainly pointing to what she views as a recurring mishandling of certain material in the genre, and as such, I'd call that fair game.


Randy M.

 

[The Bluestocking]

I know this thread is old, but...

"Relentlessly grim". That's my take on it. Work that is often unrelenting in its outlook and storylines and use of violence. It may seem "realistic" to some, but to me it can feel too grim, because how often do people REALLY want to stab each other in the back without making true friendships? People just want the best for themselves and their family, but that doesn't mean they're prepared to murder.

The old-fashioned "romantic" fantasy I enjoy much more because it focuses on other things. Stories like the Wheel of Time seem, I dunno, more readable because everything's not so depressing - and yet there are people you can believe in and love and, eventually, lots of conflict is heaped up on top without some terrible incident harming or killing everyone every other page. And while the society doesn't feel oppressed and dangerous and harsh, you know it's there off the page. Women hold all the power, and some men live in fear of them! The story just doesn't want to focus on depressing elements to a huge degree. Even the one rape was "off the page" - and yet its impact wasn't underplayed or ignored.

Took the words right out of my mind re my thoughts on the whole "gritty", "grimdark" thing.

 

[Ronald T.]

Teresa and Randy,

I agree with pretty much everything both of you said here. My point was that I don' think we see particular issues dealt with in certain genres for two main reasons: either the authors have problems dealing with the issue, or they're afraid their readers will. And if it's the latter, then concerns about selling books becomes a stumbling block.

And Teresa, I couldn't agree with you more on the issue of defending violence against women as nothing more than a desire by the author to be "Gritty". It's a free country, so I don't believe in censoring a writer. But I don't have to read their books if what they promote is offensive. So much of what people consider "entertainment" is beyond my capacity to participate.

In fact, at times, I fear I will suffer a heart attack from the rage that consumes me when women, children, the elderly, or men who aren't able to defend themselves, are violently abused or humiliated by a--holes who think they have the right to use their superior strength -- whether it be through size or greater numbers -- against others. To my mind, anyone willing to do such a thing to someone unable to protect themselves is a person without honor, a scumbag of the lowest order.

For fifteen years I studied the physical and philosophical aspects of Kung Fu in my younger days, and although I'm older now, and suffer from the usual ailments of age, I can promise you this. If I ever see someone inflicting violence on someone unable to protect themselves, I will unload my rage on that person or group, even if it means I might end up dead. So let me assure you, Teresa, I know how you feel.

Whether I read it in books or see it on the screen, my rage often leaves me so shaken by my emotional reaction that my chest muscles start to tremble and spasm from the heightened tension, and my anger usually ends with me drying the tears that stream down my cheeks. And yes, I know this seems crazy to those more in control of their emotions. But every word is true, although I wish I could say they weren't. My beloved wife, Jane, can testify to that sad truth.

So, to you, Teresa, and Randy, and anyone else who might've found my earlier post less than concise, or even outright contrary to your own beliefs, I spoke from the heart and with no desire to offend.

My point was a basic reference to human nature: we all have lines we choose not to cross, because to do so is simply too painful. And I agree with you, Randy, there's nothing wrong with expanding the scope of a particular genre. It's a goal we should all strive for if it's within our ability. Where one of us drops the ball, it's up to the other members of our team to pick it up and carry on.

My best to all of you.

 

[MWagner]

"Gritty" is a term that has evolved over the years. It used to mean more earthy and realistic. A gritty historical fiction (the genre where I first heard the term used) didn't shy away from disease, the poverty of peasants, or the less admirable qualities of knights, such as greed and brutality. Today, especially in the Fantasy genre, it has come to mean explicit sex and violence, and an over-the-top sensibility that exaggerates horror and the grotesque.

Realism is a canard. In reality, a major concern of any army in the field is sanitation - how to deal with the massive amount of human waste tens of thousands of people produce. Disease killed more than combat. And yet, I don't recall coming across depictions in fantasy fiction of extensive latrine systems, and the widespread dysentery suffered by large numbers of people in unhygienic environments. These omissions make the chorus of 'we include graphic rape because it really happened' ring false. Lots of stuff that really happens is omitted from fiction because readers won't find it entertaining.

As Toby Frost mentioned up thread, there's an age at which many people feel they've outgrown the sensibilities and values they were raised with as children, so they invert all those sensibilities and call it the truth. Government isn't honest and responsible, it's absolutely corrupt and self-serving; warriors aren't heroic upholders of justice who defend the weak, they're utterly brutal maniacs who live only to slaughter and rape; romantic love is a fairy-tale that covers up the reality of hedonism and perversity. Of course, the opposite of a simplistic myth is usually just another simplistic myth, not the truth. And eventually most people come to understand that. But this is still a genre that skews young in its audience. The novelty of being a naughty, newly-cynical adult hasn't worn off yet.

I also think movie and TV have become a major influence on books, and those mediums are increasingly explicit in their depictions of sex and violence. The producers of A Game of Thrones have deliberately ramped up the already ultra-violent and adult content of the books. Does anyone really think they're acting in the interests of fidelity to the reality of the middle ages? No, of course not. The producers know that explicit sex and over-the-top violence and gore puts eyeballs on TV shows, and that's why it's there. No other reason.

And really, why do people who enjoy graphic brutality need to try to justify their preferences with the fig leaf of realism? Gore, T&A, and splatter-porn are mainstream today. It's part of entertainment landscape because a lot of people really enjoy it. It's there for titillation, and yes, it's gratuitous. It rarely serves the story - it's simply a sensory input that heightens attention, shocks, and stimulates the appetite for violent catharsis. Neither realism nor story needs explain why the zombies in the Walking Dead have skulls that tear open like paper mache, or why Westeros brothels are home to orgies choreographed like something out of a softcore porn movie. Joe Abercrombie's novels owe more to Quentin Tarontino films than they do to anything in the fantasy or historical fiction genres. Many of his readers spend more time in the world of modern movies than the world of books, so catering to those tastes is perfectly understandable. I don't understand why some can't just admit they like that stuff, rather than try to justify it as realistic.

 

[svalbard]

To take one of your points further, MWagner. A love of visceral entertainment is not new. Gladiatoral games in Rome, chariot races in Byzantium, jousting in Medieval Europe, and closer to our time Pro Boxing, WWF wrestling and lately UFC. All these seem to lend to an innate desire by humankind to enjoy violent entertainment.

Something I wonder about is who coined the phrase 'gritty' Fantasy? Was it one of its detractors or supporters?

 

[Randy M.]

"Gritty" has been in use for decades, usually as a compliment: "On paper Norville Schmaltz was thoroughly out-classed but his gritty performance, especially in the late rounds, eked out a narrow decision against Buster Bluster and won the world no-weight title."

That sort of thing. Someone just finally applied it to literature and then to fantasy.


Randy M.