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

svalbard said:
Something I wonder about is who coined the phrase 'gritty' Fantasy? Was it one of its detractors or supporters?
Click to expand...

I am sure that it was meant as a compliment. It sounds tough, unflinching, realistic.

The thing is, so many readers will use the argument that a book is "realistic" when they have little or no idea of what would really be realistic, and wouldn't like something that was. They either use the argument because they've heard it before and it saves them from thinking about what really appeals. Or, perhaps, because they are ashamed, or think they will be made to feel ashamed, to admit that they just like to read about rape and violence because they find it exciting.

What I particularly dislike, though, is when they defend the books they like by intimating, or even saying, that books without that level of violence are childish, that they're "pablum" (a word I've used more than once) as though there is something terribly mature about books that rely on the occasional rape or on whacking sympathetic characters to make an impact. They can't just say they like what they like, they have to denigrate what other people prefer to read.

The argument that such books provide catharsis is much more convincing, except that when readers are exposed to more and more violence in the books they read it loses the capacity to shock. They become desensitized (and of course it isn't one book, or even just books, because movies and games contribute, too). In order to provide that same sort of experience, that emotional release, the violence has to escalate. I suppose there will come a time when readers become so immune that they become bored by it, and go looking for something else in the books they read.

So many readers when talking about what they like about "A Song of Ice and Fire" will say it's because so many sympathetic characters die and you never know who might die next. But these are characteristics of soap opera. I've heard very few say, "because the setting is so rich and textured" (although it is) or "because there is a large cast of complex characters" (although this is also true). Even readers who spend huge amounts of time discussing the complexities of the plot and the characters, readers for whom so much of the pleasure is in the shared experience of such discussions, frequently come out with the "gritty" argument. Which even I, who am not a fan, don't think does the series justice.
 
When I think of gritty, it brings to mind pulp and noir stories. People doing low-down, dirty things. Exposing the seedy underbelly of human (or alien) behavior. A "gritty" author doesn't shy away from ugliness, doesn't tailor the work towards the PG crowd.
 
Stephen Palmer said:
Soap opera techniques include manipulation of audience (reader) by emotion/character/plot twists, etc. All great stuff for authors...
Click to expand...

Manipulating your readers' emotions is a great way to keep them engaged. It's true. I personally wish I were better at employing this, in my writing.
 
Exactly, Stephen. It's nothing new. But the people who write the soap operas know that it isn't. It's the very stuff that's been appealing to people forever. It's all there in fairy tales, and folk tales, and sagas. With a great many of the same themes.
 
The problem with OTT grit - grimdark - is that it isn't accurate as a view on the world. Even the most wretched mediveal peasant probably got quite a lot of solace out of drinking, saints' days and prayer* - even out of just looking at the landscape, probably. That brings us to Teresa's point that a truly "realistic" portrayal of medieval people (ie the usual fantasy sorts) would make them totally alien to us. A writer of fantasy or remote SF has to accept that what they're portraying is (and perhaps has to be) seen through a filter of modern life.

Dean Kootz once said about writing horror that you couldn't just write horrible things and expect it to work. It would be like trying to play Mozart on one quarter of the keyboard. If, for instance, Satan invaded the world of 1984**, would you really care who won? At the end of the day there has to be someone or thing to root for, even if it's just one tired private eye trying to bring one person the justice they deserve.

I think the flip side of this is the belief some (younger?) writers have that the "good guys" have to be boring because they are good. SFF has certainly had some very bland, speech-making goodies, but there's no reason why this should be the case. When you look at some of the oddballs and near-lunatics who have done great things, you really don't need a bunch of Disney princes and princesses.

It's also worth pointing out that some extremely morally complex and sinister books contain almost no violence at all. Take Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which is about as grown up a novel as you might want about spying. It has one or two vague references to violence and that's it - but you come away feeling that it's about very dangerous people in an extremely murky world.


*As in actually praying regularly, rather than being a fanatical madman.
**Which sums up a certain wargame rather well, appropriately enough.
 
Toby Frost said:
Take Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which is about as grown up a novel as you might want about spying.
Click to expand...
It should be mandatory reading for anyone indulging in gratuitous description of sadism, sex (rape or not), bloodshed, violence and general mayhem.

Also First Circle, A day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Rebecca, Ipcress File. Very little explicit violence yet chilling books.
 
The whole gritty/grimdark trend is the fault of lazy writing. A good author can create fear and tension with a few choice words. Poor writing relies on graphic description to get the point across. It become 'and then' writing, which is rubbish. Authors used to rely on the readers' intelligence and imagination to fill in any gaps. Now they treat us like we're ten year-olds.

Readers have to take some blame too, though. If you aren't willing to look at a dictionary once in a while then you will certainly need to have things spoon fed to you.
 
Toby Frost said:
It's also worth pointing out that some extremely morally complex and sinister books contain almost no violence at all. Take Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which is about as grown up a novel as you might want about spying. It has one or two vague references to violence and that's it - but you come away feeling that it's about very dangerous people in an extremely murky world.
Click to expand...
It's a great book. I re-read it just a couple of years ago and was as impressed as when I first read it**. But I don't think we can ignore the fact it's also now 40 years old. Would it sell now as a new book by a relative unknown?

The gulf between now and then was brought home to me when I saw the 2011 film and then contrasted it with the original TV series. I actually wrote a blog about it at the time:

I wasn't over-impressed with the film. Slow to get going, woefully miscast (Benedict Cumberbatch as Peter Guillam? Puh-lease...), some needless and unlikely changes (Guillam gay, for no apparent reason, and no one but Smiley knows. Very likely.) and some even bigger plot holes (Control taking all the files home to his flat and months later not only has no one retrieved them, the flat hasn't been touched. As if.).

For me, though, the big difference was the physicality of the film. Some of that physicality was odd but despite reservations I could cope, such as Lacon and the Minister playing squash. Lacon is a member of the Cabinet Office which I thought meant he was a civil servant – and I can't see he'd be pally enough with his Minister to socialise with him (imagine Sir Humphrey Appleby playing squash with Jim Hacker!).

Some of it was odd and I couldn't cope, such as George Smiley swimming. In the open air. George Smiley. What. On. Earth?

Mostly, though, it wasn't odd, it was violent and/or sexual. Ilrina catches her husband having sex, which we are watching; he smashes her face badly when she objects, and later she and Ricki Tarr are all over each other. Innocent bystanders are killed when Jim Prideaux is caught, we see the eviscerated, tortured bodies of Boris and Tufty Thesinger, and Ilrina is executed on screen with blood everywhere.

Sex and violence. It sells. But it also demeans the original which is thought-provoking and cerebral. Like George Smiley. Pot-bellied, double-chinned George Smiley. Who doesn't swim.
Click to expand...
I know films and novels are very different creatures but nonetheless it's still the case that sex and violence is where the money is much of the time nowadays. (Probably always was, but both were kept in check to a greater extent.)


** for anyone debating whether it's worth a read, my thoughts in 2013: Intelligent, lucid, good characterisation, clever plotting, acute psychological insights, and beneath it all important questions as to trust, love and betrayal, and the need for good men to do evil things.
 
The Judge said:
Would it sell now as a new book by a relative unknown?
Click to expand...
But it was by no means his first. The Spy that came in from the cold was first.

The issue though is the Cold War hasn't the same selling power for titles, not the way he wrote them. 1991 saw a big drop in Cold War / Spy story market, it's probably starting to recover a bit.

I think a majority of readers are perfectly happy to read good books without the gratuitous stuff in G. R. R. Martin or Terry GoodKind, or explicit sexual intercourse descriptions in many Romance Novels in last 25 years. There is an element of perceived demand, some people do want it, but there is also the delusional belief you have to do it to be commercial because the others are. Certainly it address some fresh market, but most people reading regularly (apart from the book for the holiday) would still buy as many books. Or maybe more? Are book sales better or worse than 40 years ago? Is putting gratuitous trash into books selling them to serious readers or only occasional voyeuristic readers on the back of a mass market film / TV series?

Is explicit sex and violence simply a lazy way to market to a certain demographic? Are there really more people that will only enjoy it or pay for it included than without it?
 
I guess partly it's about finding a niche in the market, and partly it's about writing what you yourself like, as well as more cynical considerations. Lots of people love grimdark/ dark, and I guess the people who like it are probably going to write it. Like I like tortured YA romance with longing glances and thwarted, confused desire (with almost all violence happening off-page).

I think what I might be trying to say is: people like a lot of different things. As long as they don't pretend that the things they like are the only thing anyone can like, then why not? I'd hate to be judged by some of the books I read...
 
Ray McCarthy said:
It should be mandatory reading for anyone indulging in gratuitous description of sadism, sex (rape or not), bloodshed, violence and general mayhem.

Also First Circle, A day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Rebecca, Ipcress File. Very little explicit violence yet chilling books.
Click to expand...
In the TV series Spooks although the death of the agent pushed into a chip shop deep fat fryer was shocking, I felt the most chilling death was of poor Zafar Younis, the young agent captured by a gang of mercenaries and sold on to other groups to be tortured for information. The idea that this poor man was past from group to group tortured and abused until he had nothing more to give and then murdered was one of the most disturbing deaths of the series, and it all happened off screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D What's everyone's favourite grammar checker failures? Grammar & Spelling 4
Plucky Novice Bilibili Comics check Publishing 9
D Need to check some internal logic. Writing Discussion 18
W Submission check in Publishing 2
Mon0Zer0 Blurb check Critiques 10

Similar threads


Back
Top