Grimdark Fantasy discussion

I like dark stories. When I say that, people assume I want rape, cannibalism, and other intense subjects. I'm not judging, I'm just curious where people draw the line between these terms, if they even do?

Phillip wrote: "I like dark stories. When I say that, people assume I want rape, cannibalism, and other intense subjects. I'm not judging, I'm just curious where people draw the line between these terms, if they e..."

IMHO,

Darkness in fiction is something that comes from applying a harsh and/or depressing sensibility towards a formerly lighthearted work or creating something original that openly expresses itself as such.

Grimdark, in its broader definition, takes this past the point of seriousness and into the realm of self-parody.

I don't agree that grimdark is dark fantasy plus so much seriousness that it becomes self-parody. Self-parody implies a loss of realism, and I don't see how realism (or a lack of) fits into the equation of what equals grimdark.

I probably would be more inclined to agree if you'd said that grimdark is dark fantasy plus a whole lot more cynicism. Because the way I see it, dark fantasy is where hope still exists despite the general nastiness of the universe. In grimdark, however, the universe is straight-up evil and hope is more or less pointless.

I almost forgot to mention violence. In grimdark, it's generally expected that violence is described in explicit terms. Ultra-violence or GTFO! =)

H.R. wrote: "I don't agree that grimdark is dark fantasy plus so much seriousness that it becomes self-parody. Self-parody implies a loss of realism, and I don't see how realism (or a lack of) fits into the equ..."

Nailed it. So to speak.

We are now super friends.

H.R. wrote: "We are now super friends."

And the peasants rejoiced

∆ How to spot grimdark fans.

Well, this is a bit of a sensitive issue, but I back this view that Grimdark actually treats violence as violence, not a watered down safe violence.

When people start killing each other the illusion of civilization fades, most fantasy use heroics or stuff like evil races to create a safe violence. Evil guys die, good guys do little to no wrong.

See, I live in south america. Brazil. Dangerous, dangerous contry. I actually live in bubble of protection and privilege, but some stuff, for instance people being burned alive in guetto wars is common knowlege and I probably could mention it over dinner with most people doing little more than wincing. I never ever read anything in grimdark that tops what happens in the poorer parts of my city (probably the safest big city in the country).

IMO grimdark respects violence, it refuses to lie about that. That is actually what I love about it.

Answering the question: I draw the line on gratuitous violence. People doing bad things to shock the reader, not because it makes sense in the story.

And about hope, in the fiction I like the most (personal taste, totally), people struggle for a sliver of hope and goodness. I love Abercrombie and Michael R. Fletcher for instance. Beyond redemption is one of the vilest books I ever read, but there is some good in it, even if it´s futile and fleeting. On the other hand I didn´t like Anna Smith Spark, as I felt people are being bad for being bad, only few lame excuses for child-murdering.

Good points.

I like the line where you say that grimdark respects violence and refuses to lie about it. I think that's what draws me to the sub-genre as well.

I'm also not a fan of violence for the sake of it - it really does have to serve a purpose (beyond shocking the reader).