Why is Grimdark? Philip Chase and I discuss the history of Grimdark and why I am wrong 

Keeping up with the Kardashians is the greatest example of grimdark that I can think of. Cynically exploiting your own family for wealth and power, body horror, and no morale protagonist. They would be right at home in Westeros, and probably swimming like fishes.

You're both wrong. The answer is simpler : Grimdark is watching Scotland trying to compete at football. Seriously, enjoyed the discussion. I fondly remember 2000AD, and that time period in general, which undoubtedly was the petri-dish from which modern day Grimdark spawned.

Wait, I thought I was the one who was wrong?! Well, once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.

What a great discussion! Grimdark as fantasy trying to catch up to modernism is an interesting idea! I also find it interesting how so many authors distance themselves from the grimdark label. I won't lie: I feel a little more lost on what grimdark means after listening to this discussion, but that's not a bad thing!

Awesome discussion! I wanted to share my 2cents on the genre as well, because ive been wrecking my brain with it for years now. "Grimdark is often called hopeless, but in doing so people miss that it isn't apathetic - it is (for me) characterised by defiance in the absence of hope. Grimdark is often called nihilistic, but this misses the idea that you can accept a nihilistic truth and still choose to die for a principle you know is an emotional construct. A grimdark 'hero' has a tendency to go all in - to burn their bridges even when they don't need the warmth. They are in their way an allegory for hope in so much as having been shown there's no meaning in the world, they still cling to some elements of it. And in those choices they are revealed. The way it's painted by the disapproving you would think that grimdark fiction was the literature of surrender to the inevitable. When in truth it is the story of the battle against it - sharpened by the knowledge that there's no ultimate victory to be had." - Mark Lawrence This basically describes his Broken Empire trilogy perfectly, which literally NEVER gets labeled anything other than "grimdark". I think this definition sums up why I, and many others enjoy the genre so much. Im not a nihilist, i think using the word nihilistic has become so common that people dont realise how extreme of a word that is, rather I much more relate to existentialism. I do accept the 'nihilistic truth', but that does not mean i will mope around and do nothing until i eventually die. On the contrary it gives me motivation to do something, it releases me of the stress of unnecessary things and in turn makes my life goals easier to achieve. It's a coping mechanism for me, maybe If i was a "stronger" person I wouldn't need it, but I think all of our worldviews are somewhat coping mechanisms, and when they are challenged we get uncomfortable because all of the choices we've made that were based on our worldview might have been based on a lie that we tell ourselves. This concept is what my favorite grimdark explores, when you accept such a harsh truth about the world, any fabricated lie that you manifest from that truth can become YOUR truth and reason, and you can use it to steady yourself and lead yourself forward. We all live in self deception, but being aware of that deception and still be willing to "die for it" is what makes it so human, because that self deception is still, just an emotional construct.

I read quite a lot of Gemmell as a teen, especially the early Drenai stuff and the Jon Shannow books. I literally CANNOT WAIT for AP and Philip to go through them on their channels.

Ahaa! Hearing this "origin story" of the two of you meeting, now I feel a little less bad about leaving cheeky comments on your videos. XD

I was JUST talking to Christine Vallestad about Moorcock and Swords and Sorcery as the precursor to grimdark, which I didn't talk about at all in my 27 minute long "what is Grimdark" (but that was more about what themes grimdark explores today than the history of the subgenre)

This might be my favorite video of yours. Incredibly enlightening. Made me rethink a lot of things. Coming from someone who is not a grimdark fan

Philip and AP, great stuff as always. Is there any way or would you be interested in creating a video examining the literary merit of the Fantasy genre? Fellow book tuber Daniel Green did a video like this a couple of weeks back and I would love to hear your specific opinions on the subject. I’m sure you have run into those individuals that scoff at Fantasy as not being real literature and I believe people like me need something to reference from when people scoff at what we are reading because it’s Fantasy. One of the reasons why I purchased all of the Malazan Book of the Fallen is because I believe it was one of the driving forces behind Erickson’s creation of his works. That Fantasy is literature and often times better literature than a lot of the literature that is considered “real” literature out there.

Another fantastic discussion! Grimdark has been an aspect of fiction that Iim constantly thinking about in terms of what actually falls under that particular subgenre. What I've come to discover is that for something to be Grimdark it must align with Intent from the author as it relates to specific themes, messages, or even subversions. If we reduce the definition of "Grimdark" strictly to the existence of explicit content, then that line gets a bit more blurry and subjective based on the audiences tolerance and or interpretation of those scenes. This dynamic continues to be the best section on booktube and I can't wait for the next one!

Love this!! 🖤🖤🖤

Great discussion as always lads.

This was such an insightful conversation on a subgenre I feel very connected to

By the way, my first comment on Philip's channel was on that same video!

A.P, Philip, really loved this conversation! Had to pause multiple times to think about (and read up on) the points made! Got so many questions/thoughts on the discussion, will try to ask them separately. Apart from graphic language and violence, one aspect which I associate with grimdark is making hard, morally ambiguous choices to complete the objective or to make the best of realistic choices. Video games such as Dragon Age or Mass effect are a good example of this. Depending on how you play and what choices you've made, you can achieve the objective but with devastating impact on people. There is no graphic language or violence (Other than what's already present in the game) but the impact feels very brutal and grim. (I don't know if you've played them so not sharing specific examples)

This is not quite about grimdark but I just thought it would be really amazing and helpful if you could do some sort of "guide to understanding fantasy" in form of a list of influental series that shaped the fantasy genre. I'm not sure if that would be possible and it's just a suggestion of course. I personally often feel overwhelmed at how many fantasy series there are and I've been trying to get a better understanding of the genre but I feel like I don't have it yet. In terms of "older" fantasy I have only read Tolkien (of course), Glen Cook, some Michael Moorcock, and I'm planning to read Book of the New Sun and Thomas Covenant once I'm done with my Malazan reread. When I started to read grimdark I misunderstood it and I categorized it way too much based on how violent a book is. As a result, I was surprised about the First Law books because I was expecting them to be way more violent and then thought 'but this is not brutal enough to be grimdark'. I still need to give Anna Smith Spark another try though.

Thank you guys, this was a great discussion. Really enjoyed it :) Keep up the great work.

In addition to "2000AD" and "Warhammer", I would also mention influences on Grimdark such as New Wave SciFi Writers (Harlan Ellison: "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream"), the Cyberpunk (again influenced by Noir/Neo-Noir) of Phillip K.Dick and William Gibson (among others) and the darker end of the stories from "Heavy Metal" Magazine (and in general Adult European Comics post-60s-Counterculture). Also Cinema: From the Revisionist/Anti/Post-Westerns Films of the 60-70s (The "Dollars"-Trilogy, "The Wild Bunch", "Once Upon a Time in the West" und so weiter ) & the Books by Cormac McCarthy to the Vietnam (Anti-)War movies and Grindhouse/Exploitation films of various sub-genres. I agree with AP that Gemmell is an very interesting synthesis of S&S, Epic Fantasy & New Wave: Proto-Grimdark not in values/ideology, but in World Building. In his own words: "I read Tolkien, Howard's Conan books; Lin Carter, all of Moorcock". (From his wikipedia): "The consistent presence of redemption in Gemmell's work reflects his Christian beliefs. He claimed that all of his novels have a religious basis, calling them "essentially Christian books" and saying that Christianity stopped him from "promoting the cause of evil" by writing "mindless savagery" in the vein of George G. Gilman's "Edge"-westerns." I consider Grimdark to be both nihilistic and existentialist (a legacy from Lovecraft and S&S), which is why I more and more disagree with the argument that Malazan is not Grimdark (To paraphrase from my memory Mike from Mike's Book Reviews on "Memories of Ice": "If this is not Grimdark, I don't know what is! This is way darker than anything I have ever read by Abercrombie!"). I fully agree that Malazan is not on the Nihilistic end of Grimdark (say "Warhammer" & Mark Lawrence), but I would argue that it is Existentialist Grimdark/Dark Epic Fantasy: Compassion/empathy is hard & is an active choice. Another thing: In my opinion, dark humor is a major aspect of Grimdark, whether it be nihilistic or existentialist, on a specter from potty jokes & libertine humor, via dark gallows humor, to downright iconoclastic humor about humanity, society, politics, economics & religion and sadism/Revenge Exploitation.

I use grimdark mainly to talk about Fantasy but I have found a lot of the same themes in Akira Kurosawa's tragedies and in shows like The Expanse so I've come to also use it to describe sci fi.

I used to say I love grim dark, and I still do but I don't love the idea of classifying works as grimdark. To me as I read more and more it all just becomes fantasy for me haha Great discussion gents

I feel like there is something a little bit static in a lot of grimdark worlds, in that it doesn't matter what any character does; the bad guys are going to win anyway. If a character we root for ends up winning, they usually have to become a bad guy first. I still like some grimdark, and I hadn't thought of how much of it is a reaction to more classic heroic fantasy. When you talk about how advanced the culture of the orchs would seem to be and how easily Tolkien characters brush off killing them, grimdark worlds actually seems to have the moral high ground. I hadn't thought of it like that before. :)

If AP ever tires of his Professor Fireballs moniker he could always call himself Canavan Orclover.

Great discussion as always, thanks for the upload

Glad to hear a call out for Gemmell And even as a big fan of his, I completely get what you mean when you say Abercrombie is a better writer

A.P currently has those Thom Yorke vibes. Great discussion, gentlemen. Keep content like this coming. Grim Dark appears to be a depiction of nihilism to a degree (40k is the apotheosis of this). However, if nihilism was all a genre could offer, then it would be a pointless - indeed, a nihilistic - endeavour. It would be wallowing and enjoying misery for misery's sake. It seems that literature has to provide some sort of alternative, and authors may differ in the answers that they proffer to combat nihilism. David Foster Wallace has spoken about this when he has castigated other authors (such as Bret Easton Ellis) who offer no potential solution to the darkness of being. Steven Erikson, for example, may have elements of Grim Dark present in his work, but he is always working hard to demonstrate a possible response to nothingness through his exploration and condoning of empathy and compassion.

I watched the discussion and found it very illuminating. Many thanks, gents! I have read George R.R. Martin, and I too have noticed the voyeuristic tinge to some of his depictions of violence, something I rather dislike. I never get that feeling with Steven Erikson's ten big books, because he gets inside everyone, in the victim as much as the perpetrator. I feel I am in safe moral hands, when I read him. I also get what you mean, A.P., when you say about a grimdark narrator that you don't want to hear his story. I hate being inside the head of a revolting character for too long, too. And this extends to writers. You sometimes simply don't want to be mentally intimate with some persons... Keep up the good work!

Take a shot every time they say visceral! (seriously don't do that, it could be dangerous) I think Philip is right about grimdark being honest about violence, but it's not only grimdark but also this tragic fantasy that Erikson writes in Malazan which does that. Great point about Orcs, AP.

Very interesting discussion. I have not given this topic much tought, but just assumed the Grimdark genre started in the mid 00's. Fascinating to hear about it roots, especially the connection to Warhammer40k. I used to collect and paint the figurines when I was younger (never had anyone to play with...), and loved the bleakness of it, but I have never connected it to the Grimdark fantasy genre :) Somehow I have missed Gemmel, might have to put that on my reading list. Keep up the good work!

Two discussion videos from you fine gentlemen in one day! Blessed we are 😁 And a fascinating topic, too. I'm always intrigued by the human need to put things in 'boxes' and label them - despite the lack of true definitions. When it comes to genre, it's more of a 'general idea' than a narrow list of characteristics. It also depends on who's asking, and who's telling. And why. If someone says they like grimdark I still wouldn't know which authors they like, or why. But in general it would be safe to assume they're okay with some graphic violence, some dark humor and some moral ambiguity.

Completely agree getting hung up on the violence. Just compare The Longest Day to Saving Private Ryan for scenes of the D-Day landings. People knew of the carnage but from a societal perspective it just wasn't shown. And as was pointed out, authors are products of their times. There is a radical shift in writing, and art in general, after WWI and WWII for example. People faced things the prior generation simply could not imagine. For from a grey hair perspective, 51, the grimdark term gets thrown out a lot simply because many, cough, have not read what I would call classics like Gemmell or Moorcock so have no foundation to base their opinion on. That being said, Dan Abnett is an amazing author especially considering what he is given to work with.

As I'm about to venture into running grimdark 5e D&D, i wanted to incorporate conanesque brutality. This discussion was so good and made me look at the whole genre of fantasy now with more depth.

I could listen to your discussion for hours. :) Thank you!

Jorg gets an AI? I’ve only finished the first volume so I was counting on the wife coming along as Jorg seems so be quite good at getting his own way with things and people . But I’m with Phillip in that one, Lawrence is incredibly good at making his readers sympathise with his protagonist. Just like AP with his opinions. I’m still reeling from AP’s interpretation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Ten years on and I haven’t found a better interpretation!

I like "realistic" fantasy that doesn't view everything through rose colored glasses and doesn't feature purely good and evil characters. Basiclly what Philip (weird to say that as that is also my name^^) said about the more honest approach to violence and conflict at about 27:00 and next couple of minutes of the discussion ;) My very low tolerance for these one sided approaches is probably due to mainstream cinema as well, which was one of the reasons I "switched" to reading, I was just fed up with these types of conflicts (or the presentation). Maybe this "conditioning" is the reason why I actually like the extrem side of grimdark (like broken empire), but can't stand the pure good vs evil feel good fantasy on the other side of the spectrum. Edit: About the part of understanding, empathy etc: While I agree about the characters! normally not showing much empathy and understanding, a huge part of the appeal to me is that the authors give YOU as the reader the tools and information for empathy towards "evil" characters by showing the morally grey parts on both sides of the conflicts. This ofc also comes down to the readers ability to forgive atrocious behavior... If you can't, both sides seem mostly evil and you have no empathy part ^^ I just hate how wonky the definition of it is, because in the end we might just agree on everything, but categorize the genre just slightly different. It has come to a point where grimdark has become nearly meaningless when I search for new books to read... Edit: I have no idea why it is formatted this way ^^

There's a pinned comment from Erickson himself on the grimdark topic on Mike's discussion of DG, which suggests it's more of a range: " Definitions for 'grimdark' vary. Some are broad in scope (anything gritty) while others are more specific (nihilist and gratuitous violence)." ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ef_VS8uA6Oo.html Also: " Personally, I don't see gestures of humanity in the nihilistic form of Grimdark, unless that gesture is a middle finger." I've consumed lots of Malazan content during past couple months, so it's a bit blurry, but I got the sense that Erickson rejects the grimdark label for his Malazan work. He seems to equate it with hopelessness and so falls on the nihilistic view of it. I'm looking forward to meeting characters like Karsa (Conan-analogue?; also Crom analogue = the God Whos' Doesn't Care/Is Not Willing?), who may be commentaries on the history of grimdark.

I agree that writing is an open discussion. We definitely get reactionary works of fiction. On the other side of grim dark Brandon Sanderson has said he wanted to write stories that bring hope and magic back. So we are swing the conversation continue on both sides to this day.

Whaaat a pleasure to watch you two discuss and laugh :) We need more videos like this one in the world! Thank you very much for the interesting discussion, it was very enlightening to me...I've always been confused about grimdark :) Hopefully not so confused anymore :)

I'm late to the party here, but it occurred to me that maybe one way to frame the distinction between the literary tradition of Grimdark and the literary tradition that Malazan is a part of would be: Grimdark treats violence primarily as an object of aesthetic attention, while Malazan treats it primarily as an object of moral attention. As I was watching this, I kept thinking about the debate between John Gardner and William Gass on the subject of morality in fiction (which Erikson has referenced before). To oversimplify: Gass is interested in the aesthetic unity of a work of fiction as a self-contained system, while Gardner is more concerned with what a work of fiction is saying about things other than itself. In Gass' approach I see a LOT of the roots of what Grimdark is about -- including some of the nastier, more voyeuristic elements that you touched on, AP, but also just a general sensibility oriented towards the physical, the 'gritty', the 'real'... In short, the effect that Grimdark works are trying to achieve seems to be a mostly aesthetic one, to the point where trying to analyze a Grimdark work through a moral lens is a bit like bringing a toothpick to a gunfight -- wrong tool, wrong place. Seen in this way, any moral conclusion that a Grimdark work might seem to be drawing is almost tangential, since **that was never the point in the first place**. Grimdark often looks like a call to nihilism or existentialism, but I suspect that what's actually going on is that nihilism and existentialism are being generated incidentally, as a byproduct of an aesthetic (i.e. non-moral) pursuit. That's not to say that this kind of fiction is better or worse than moral fiction at all -- just to say that it is trying to do something completely different, and can't really be analyzed under the same rubric. Anyway, those are just some beginning thoughts on the whole 'what do we talk about when we talk about Grimdark?' question... Here's a transcript of the Gardner/Gass debate, for anyone interested: medium.com/the-william-h-gass-interviews/william-h-gass-interviewed-by-thomas-leclair-with-john-gardner-1979-e6de4d424107

Great video, enjoyed watching this. Especially good to see Gemmell discussed. I've just finished the Drenai series for the first time and find there is a great void in booktube around Gemmell content.

Fascinating conversation on a topic I still feel I do not fully understand. The idea that Grimdark is not defined by the level of violence resonates with me; but maybe it is because I want to rationalize my reading choices with my pacifist tendencies. What I do see is a sub-genre that probes the complexities of motivations and resulting behaviours. Great authors writing in this space force you to question your initial perceptions of a character and see the shades of grey. I went from hating Jamie to respecting him. This is a stark departure from the good versus evil narrative (did I use this term in its correct context?) where the “moral middle ground” does not exist. I think that Erickson does something different. There are complexities of motivations in his characters, but there is also a subtext (again, not sure I am using the term correctly) that permeates the books. The reader is encouraged to reflect on the meaning of being compassionate and a “good” person. Is it grimdark? Still not sure 🤔

This was such an enlightening discussion, thank you so much!

I agree 100% with Philip about Jorg. 59:26 I was warned about the series, many people telling me he (Jorg) is a psychopath or sociopath, and though the first book is rough and I really thought Jorg was a despicable person, at the end of book 3 he was wonderfully complex and CLEARLY for anyone paying close attention, not a psychopath nor a sociopath. [edit: What I have read about psychopathy stated that they do not feel any guild, nor do they have any true empathy. It is therefore in that light I have to say Jorg is neither of those.] Jorg shows moments of empathy, of guilt at his actions, he has internal struggles about those things. I thought he was a compelling character, not someone I want as a friend, but still very interesting.

Hello gents! What a rousing and enthralling discussion. I've mentioned to Philip before that I'm a relative newcomer to fantasy, and therefore I approach it with wanting good stories and compelling characters. The categories and sub-categories don't interest me much as a way to silo fiction into boxes. I'm just as happy with a good drama as I am sci-fi, horror, detective, fantasy, etc. With regard to grimdark, I approached it with some trepidation. I'm not one to revel in the mire, and tend to prefer the more heroic in my fiction. That said, I decided to dive into the First Law trilogy out of sheer curiosity. Was it as morally grey is it was claimed to be? Was it nihilistic? Amoral? My conclusion was: no. While it's true many if not all the characters can come across as grey, it's clear as you read that many of the main characters seek to be better. In other words, I don't think there's a moral grey zone in the sense of "nobody is good or bad." Maybe I'm more philosophically inclined, anyway, and therefore my understanding of ideas stems from digging deeper throughout my life. I see First Law as a set of people striving, with varying degrees of success.

Enjoyed the video. A lot of what you spoke about in regards to Grimdark made me think of a series a read a long time agon and have been meaning to revisit. The Axis Trilogy and the followup The Wayfarer Redemption Trilogy by Sara Douglas's has many elements of what you spoke of. Memories are hazy but I remember the world was not a simple place with many shades of grey and false histories. There were also elements of Sci Fi that had turned into legends.

Rereading those comments on Dr Chase's video now that I realise that was the first interaction between the two of you

Great discussion. But now I am more confused than ever before about what grimdark is. All I know is that certain series are said to be grimdark, but they are quite different from each other and only seem to fill the definitions of grimdark up to a point. I hope to hear one day your (both of your) impression of the books by R. Scott Bakker. His series is like a film negative of Tolkien, not subversive like Abercrombie but an inversion.

Great discussion. I would go as back as RE Howard's Solomon Kane for starting grimdark and also mention "The Black Company" as an influence to the US side of Fantasy

This is a fascinating discussion...I have not read Malazan in its entirety but can't lie, not sure how I feel about tossing my neatly pre-conceived notions of Malazan being VERY MUCH grimdark out the window. lol. Just goes to show somehow how as humans we can potentially get so attached to categories and labels without realizing it (as I pride myself not normally like that, but obviously I am, at least when it comes to that particular thing).

Really enjoyed listening to you both discuss the genre, I really liked Philip's take on it being the fantasy genre's anwser to modernism that is something I will think about a lot. I enjoyed seeing you discuss 2000ad and its influence as I think a lot of people miss that when going back to look and they sort of gloss over it and 40k. Made me wonder if you do or used to be a tabletop gamer AP? As in 40k not roleplaying games. I would love to see you and Philip cover more series so excited to see you cover Gemmell after Malazan, would really love to see you both discuss Gormenghast as Mervyn Peake as Moorcock has himself sort of mentioned gets completelty looked over due to the popularity of Tolkien (Moorcock even said Peake's series was the superior fantasy series i think to Tolkien) but as a big big fan of Gormenghast who has looked in vain for anyone discussing the series i would happily send you guys a copy of the trilogy each just to see you discuss it :)

"Fascist Aragorn" changed my mind, haha. Awesome and profoundly interesting conversation!

On Other Authors, I didn't quite get the argument about Malazan not being grimdark because it has compassion and empathy. Does grimdark have to be devoid of it in it's entirety? First law has great humour which kind of makes it not grimdark and asoiaf has plenty of elements of honour, sacrifice, kindness which would also then not qualify for grimdark. About First Law and LOTR, which elements of LOTR do you see in his work? His version of the fellowship? On a lighter note now I'm picturing Bayaz leading the fellowship! How'd that go I wonder 😂 About The ending of Broken Empire (keeping in mind spoilers) wouldn't you say that can be a realistic ending? It's not uncommon of for immoral people to achieve success in real life (in fact it's alarmingly common) For him to get the quest objective despite his actions would be in line with the theme of the book wouldn't it? I slightly disliked the ending because I felt he got a happy ending. Would have been much more interesting if he didn't achieve what he wanted. But I guess that would be too controversial an ending even for Lawrence!

I am not very well read in grimdark fantasy (going more into it because I do massively enjoy it), but the way I personally define it is more based on themes and atmosphere. In a way grimdark fantasy is just a close look at the worst in humanity and society and the main theme in all the grimdark I've read is the consequences of violence and a lack of what would be deemed as "moral values" (the close look at the worst of us is at the expense and exclusion of everything else, I guess that's the aspect that specifically makes it grim). In this instance, the violence almost becomes part of the worldbuilding itself and is integral to understanding the dilemmas of the characters. The best example is The First Law Trilogy by Joe Abercrombie who in a way wrote an entire series based on the exploration of 3 types of violent personalities living within a world that almost "encourages" personality disorders, which is made far more interesting when you know that Abercrombie is a psychology major and if you are lucky to work in the field (I'm a therapist so I am biased here) or at least have some knowledge of psychology the novels gain a million extra layers of depth. But I think this is mostly true for grimdark as a hole, it seems to feel like a very intimate exploration of violence, disfunction and trauma (take The Poppy War trilogy, which is a massive exploration of both individual and collective trauma). This is very much my personal and biased opinion, but it's sure as hell fun talking about this stuff lol. I love your talks, keep at it.

I'm not even gonna lie, I really loved this video. This is the type of discussion that I'll continue to return to as I consume more lit to track my own growth, and 'growth' as I see it within the genre. Thank y'all so much. EDIT: Are Gemmell's books sorta like Vance's 'Dying Earth' series? I ask because 'Dying Earth' definitely does NOT feel like anything contemporary to me, but I can kinda suss out it's greater influence. It felt extremely 'transitional' to me for lack of a better word and I've been searching for something that gives me that same WTF factor as far as themes, narrative style, and all that goes.

In a purely colloquial sense, I call it GrimDerp. Because it’s become a buzzword

Around 54:50 Hmm, but Logen throughout the original First Law trilogy tries hard to put himself in other's shoes, he wants to be done with the killing, but the killing doesn't want to be done with him... Also West and even Dogman share occasion where they try and understand where others come from. There are multiple people showing empathy, would that then negate the grimdark tag on the First Law world?

Yes, i think you are wrong about Marc Lawrence, i agree with Philip 😊 For me, if it's grim and dark, it could be called grim-dark, simple as that. Also, i always thought of Song of Ice and Fire as a modernised and violence-ised (?) version of Tad Williams' series.

Your fellow Malazan-scholar Raf Blutaxt in a dedicated video about Grimdark raised the point that the Grimdark has its roots in Warhammer AND was originally meant to be a satirical label until it morphed into a signifier for gore, despair and gratuitous mutilations. I personally don't care. I know it when I see it ;)

Leave it to academics to discuss some simple stuff for hours 😁 Though in all honesty i think i can explain Grimdark. We had the Tolkienesque (along with the golden era of comics) good vs evil characters or translated to colors, white and black characters. After that we transitioned to gray characters where every villain has a purpose and every protagonist has a baggage (or sins if you are religious). That means that every character now is a dot in a spectrum coloured in some shade of gray. Some towards the black some towards the white. You get those dots and you keep a good distance between them and you get Wheel of Time. You keep them as they are and you move them towards the light and you get Sanderson. You move them towards the black where the best is still in the darker half of the spectrum and you get Abercrombie. Thats grimdark And its specifically for fantasy since only fantasy has had such a strong contrast on good vs evil.

On Tolkien, I didn't quite understand why writers wrote as a response to Tolkien or as a retaliation against Tolkien. Either way his work becomes a yardstick. Why not just write what you want to write! Your argument about the Orcs kind of opens up the debate on how to treat your enemies. The orcs gave no quarter and slaughtered when they had power but when the men retaliated, mercy is suddenly expected. Accept surrender, see to the wounded and give them a free lawyer to argue their case 😅 Typical response we get is something along the lines of "We're better than them". The good guys seem to get the short end of the stick! 😂

Great talk guys. My feeling is that Grimdark is, from a technical standpoint... non existent? You could say that if fantasy is a ball of play dough then Grimdark is (dark) fantasy that has been stretched, in varying degrees out of its core state. And it's only the authors dipping in and out of that 'state' which then is determined wholly as Grimdark. Which in most cases appears to be elements in part of a bigger classification, perhaps just 'dark fantasy' or something like. I could be wrong and it's not an absolute opinion. Just a thought which occurred during your discussion. You guys need a discussion on Annihilation - Jeff Van Demeer. Book or film?? No real reason but it throws around ideas which you touched upon here. Thanks you wizards

These video titles keep getting better 😂

Didn't know what Grimdark was prior to this stream had heard it mentioned and thought maybe it was stories that were Grim & Dark! and now I still don't know and am content with that!! as it seems it's all a matter of perspective or taste/values and everyone's perspective/taste is different so it doesn't really exist nor matter. On another note isn't the Bible Grimdark? doesn't it tick all the boxeS? just a thought.

At it's most reductionist, perhaps grimdark is just a marketing term.

Another thought, what would be the grimmest darkest grimdark? The Bible?

Chat was great, left disappointed at the lack of fireballs and spells from both speakers. 2/10 dragon shells

1:02:30 Have you seen The Prestige?

Perhaps grimdark has always been a part of the collective unconscious and only relatively recently has it become acknowledged. The Spanish painter Francisco Goya (1746- 1828?) has a series of paintings that are quintessentially grimdark that precede Mordor by a lot. The one with Saturn devouring his children comes to mind. Also, the most common symbol of Christianity is the crucifix, which one could perhaps argue as grim dark. All during my childhood I sat sitting in church, staring up at this poor bearded figure in obvious agony, gushing blood from His wounds. Ummmm....shouldn't the Resurrection be a vastly more important symbol instead, as the most powerful meaning of Christianity? Isn't the triumph over the death of the body and evil vastly more inspiring than the manner of execution of its messenger? But no, instead of a lovely dove, the Church founding Fathers decided to go for the grisly look instead. If Christ had been beheaded, we would be seeing guillotines in altar triptychs instead. So yeah..... okay I will shut up now. :)

I would want to know where violence in SoIaF is valorized....

I would call it grimdark if the world has no hope, no way for the world to improve for the benefit of all, not necessarily just for the principal characters. Sometimes the soufflé rises and sometimes it collapses, but the ingredients are the same, it just depends on the what the chef is doing. Oh, and Geoffrey was a little shit and I cheered when he was poisoned to death. 😁 However, making a bunch of despicable characters do bad things just in order to make us cheer when they meet their end is a missed opportunity for something greater.

i think i'm viewer 666 :O

From my point of view Grimdark is the more real, in-your-face side of historical-ish fantasy, be it military, quest, political or destroy the bad guy. By that I mean it completely discards the happy-go-lucky fantastical sollutions to every problem and just slams it down to the average human level. It also tends to get existentialist and brutal quite a lot, just as real life does. Tbh for me the most typical quality of Grimdark is cynicism. Also, the "is Malazan grimdark" debate is useless and is already extremely tiresome, you have books like Deadhouse Gates and Dust of Dreams which are some of the grimdarkiest books in existence, but nope, Itkovian gives hugs. Seriously. The definition of the subgenre (if you can call it that) is so mirky, I've seen people call Farseer grimdark. So, who gives a shit. Enjoy the story.