'GRIMDARK' - Do we really need this term? It's the established condition of Sword & Sorcery

Outlaw Bookseller, author of '100 MUST READ FANTASY NOVELS' revisits his recent critique of the commercial and artificial nature of contemporary Fantasy writing and questions the use of the tautological term 'Grimdark' by younger readers who may be unfamiliar with the origins and history of the Sword & Sorcery genre....

[@Joshmosis2.0]

I'm really glad to hear you praise Joe Abercrombie. He is far and away my favorite fantasy author and I recommend him to fantasy readers as much as I recommend Banks to sci-fi readers.

[@ravingloon7973]

An interesting talk for sure. One thing that is important to note about the term grimdark itself though- it isn't actually that new, as it is simply the shortened tagline of Warhammer 40k- "In the grim darkness of the far future there is only war." This was especially applicable as a separate genre sort of thing during Warhammer's Second Edition, which was released in 1993, when the situation of humanity went from First Edition's Imperium that was struggling against many enemies yet still with a reasonable hope of triumph if only they could hold out long enough, to an Imperium that is hopelessly overstretched and certain to fall to its enemies with absolutely no chance of victory or even peaceful resolution, doomed to collapse and die with the only point of the Imperium's endless wars being stalling a foregone conclusion. Interestingly, while Second Edition WH40k was certainly oppressively dismal enough to be rather distinct in tone from even early fantasy, the term "grimdark" was initially mostly used as a pejorative by the detractors of the almost absurdly edgy tone Second Edition took, not as a term anyone would want to describe their own book as.

[@outlawbookselleroriginal]

Thanks very much for this, I'll admit I wasn't familiar with the etymology of the term -and it's great to hear it was a pejorative. Being an old f*rt, 1993 is recent history for me and lucky falls outside my usage of the term Modern, myself being a firm believer in the beginning of Postmodern culture writ large as circa 1987. An enlightening post- we need more Raving Loons!

[@TheDMFW62]

As a long term reader of older SF and Fantasy (going well back into the last century), who has been away wandering into other genres and styles for a long time and cut back on what used to be my core diet, I too have found myself puzzled as to why we suddenly need the term "grimdark". I think I'm out of touch with modern fantasy writing (I know I'm out of touch!). Starting to read a bit more SF and Fantasy again and I have a lot to catch up on.... Appreciate the orientation primer.

[@outlawbookselleroriginal]

In terms of contemporary Sword & Sorcery, I would say don't bother with what's appeared in the last few decades. SF has been in the doldrums too since the early 90s (compared to the 1950-1980s period) with very little important material appearing by comparison, but there are still flashes of brilliance - keep tuned here as they'll all pop up!

[@captainnolan5062]

See my response above.

[@Liopot68]

@@outlawbookselleroriginal Fully agree! when you see Robert Jordan with a gazillion tomes on wheel of time or Brian Sanderson... it isn´t writing, it is verbal diarrhea.

[@leakybootpress9699]

Forsooth, I findeth myself in agreement with thy judgment! I hate most modern fantasy, it's repetitive drivel.

[@faville]

The term "grimdark" just sounds silly to me. I ran into it for the first time last year after picking up Chronicles of The Black Company and started reading reviews of it. Then I started seeing the term pop up all over the place. I don't see the need for the label, but people love to categorize and it fits in well with the KZbin reviewer generation. I have had uneven results from what I've tried so far, but Abercrombie seems promising.

[@outlawbookselleroriginal]

Abercrombie's First Law Trilogy was the last S&S series I was able to sit through before -of course-the endless pointless sequels came along. He is witty, good with characters, a bit iconoclastic and a cut above most, but at the end of the long day it's nothing we haven't seen before in my view. At least the first three books have good titles, one of them a Heine quotation- which impressed me- but who needs the new stuff when you've done Howard, Leiber, Vance, Moorcock, De Camp & Pratt, Michael Shea and so on. As a subgenre S&S is played out and has been for a long time, I feel.

[@nightmarishcompositions4536]

I usually prefer classic fantasy over modern fantasy by quite a bit, but some of the best modern fantasy books I've read have all fallen into the grimdark category. Manifest Delusions by Michael Fletcher and The Second Apocalypse by R. Scott Bakker are two of the best ones I've read.

[@outlawbookselleroriginal]

Well, as I say in the video 'Grimdark' was the existing condition of Sword & Sorcery, so a return to its cardinal virtues was a great bladeswipe back against the twee formula of the Tolkienesque High Fantasy cuteness that arose like a stagnant wave from 1977 onward (see my video 'The Commercially Artificial Fantasy Trilogy since 1977' for the history of what happened then). I see Martin's 'A Game of Thrones' as instrumental in (re)introducing people to the idea that 'No, Tolkien is NOT typical Genre Fantasy, he's the outsider...instead the real thing has always been more morally ambiguous and doomy in the European manner,'. But we don't need this 'category' - it's simply S&S: the other stuff is 'High Fantasy' and even then, the differences are so minor...ultimately, it's about tone, prose style and a willingness to move beyond archetypes into actual character. Once you've read Moorcock, Leiber, Vance, Howard and other taproot text S&S writers, there is simply no need to go beyond them, as even then repetition, formula and comfort reading fatigue sets in. If you like more of the same, well, that's fine, but it's a blind alley, ultimately.

[@NBDYSPCL]

Gotta love that new bestseller "A Noun of Adjectives and Adverbs" Book X in the algebra series. Where the heroes journey is strictly adhered to, but the writers go to great lengths to try to reinvent the wheel before they even know where the cart is going.

[@colin2utube]

Wary as I am of suggesting this given controversies over AI authorship, but you might expect younger authors to be using AI systems to suggest more appropriate terminology, which might not be usable 'as is' but would at least offer some greater authenticity. eg. I just asked the ChatGPT AI system the following: Rewrite the following paragraph using language that evokes a medieval fantasy world: The king considered the parameters of the actions available to him . ...and got the following suggestion: The king pondered the limits of his power, encumbered as he was by the traditions of his kingdom, and the advice of his courtiers.

[@outlawbookselleroriginal]

I think this says everything - the fact that Maas, a human being (I know, I manned a bookstall at a Litfest where she was signing) used a counter-anachronistic word like 'parameters' and that an AI came up with a more authentic alternative...well, it's case-resting time. I would hope, though, that a human writer would think enough about what they're writing and hit the nail on the head rather than rely on AI. Not that she'd care, her sales are ridiculous, outlining the problem with a young readerships who may never move on to more sophisticated literature. 'Twas it ever thus? I don't think so...thanks for an excellent post!

[@Liopot68]

Very good video, but 3 points: 1) nobody is able anymore to tell a good book from a bad book - you even have some idiots who challenge the mere existence of good book on the ground that "good" is subjective. It is unfortunately a reflection on the failure of schools and universities to teach standards of quality; 2) book publishing is a very hard environment, where stakes are high nowadays. So, the strategy is to flood the market with tons of crap books to satisfy teenage angst and hoping that a couple will make it to success. 3) "grimdark", as a previous comment mentioned, this term originates from Games Workshop Warhammer 40K - which, btw, is an amazing universe, with some very good books (and some very bad). It was also associated to the artworks of John Blanche. Nowadays, people use "grimdark" as a fourre-tout term that covers everything and nothing. Only 1% of what is labelled grimdark is actually grimdark. But it sells shit and attracts viewers on YT, so...

[@outlawbookselleroriginal]

I've worked in the book trade for 40 years as a bookshop manager, editor and writer, so I know all about the business environment both as a writer and bookseller- I hoped this would be implicitly obvious in my videos. There has always been overpublishing in the UK, so the mass of mud against the wall is nothing new. I know about the origin of 'grimdark', just as you say, I bemoan its over-use. What you are correct on is the overly subjective idea of what a good book is in educational terms- and this blame can be laid at the feet of schools, but also on our pervading culture.

[@Dylan13Collins]

I just started watching your channel and I'm fascinated! I haven't read much classic fantasy or SF, but I'm really interested in it. I do like some of the darker themes and antihero stories. Do you have any suggestions on where to start to further explore those themes I'm Fantasy and SF?

[@outlawbookselleroriginal]

I specialise in antiheroes - I'd suggest watching as many of my videos as you can, especially the Fantasy ones, as I prefer Antiheroic Fantasy to Tolkienesque High Fantasy. Also, my Crime Fiction videos. I'll see if I can come up with a Antiheroes of SF video for the not too distant future!

[@Dylan13Collins]

@@outlawbookselleroriginal I've been binge watching your videos lol. I love your content! I find a lack of depth in a lot of modern fantasy. I did love the folding knife by KJ Parker and gardens of the moon, but I think classic fantasy will be much more of what I'm looking for! Thank you for your help!

[@outlawbookselleroriginal]

@@Dylan13Collins - If you've watched my video 'The Artifical Fantasy Trilogy Since 1977' it will explain why contemporary fantasy is formulaic. I'd suggest Poul Anderson's 'The Broken Sword' and Michael Moorcock's 'Elric of Melnibone' as key antiheroic fantasy novels to get stuck into. Keep watching and I'll see what I can do with SF antiheroes.

[@Dylan13Collins]

@@outlawbookselleroriginal I have seen you mention those frequently. They sound exactly what I'm looking for. Thank you! If you haven't read The Folding Knife, I think you may enjoy it. The world is full of bad things happening, but the information is presented almost nonchalantly by the main character. It's a fascinating approach to build the world and develop the character at the same time. Very interesting.

[@outlawbookselleroriginal]

@@Dylan13Collins -tell you what, Dylan - I would recommend my books to you: both '100 Must Read Science Fiction Novels' and '100 Must Read Fantasy Novels' would help you fill in the gaps the channel is only just starting to reach.

[@unstopitable]

I think if you're going to write fantasy, the genre as we know and love it, you have to go back to the roots, and those roots are in the soil of Europe, nowhere else, despite all the cultural revisionism taking place in the name of whatever -ism. (And I say this as a "brown" person, of the Global South.) Those roots are both pagan and Christian; they're not just entwined, they're grafted, fused. However, there's also a lot of tension between the two (sorry for the rhyme). The truly great fantasy novels (in my humble opinion) depict this clash. GrimShit, though, doesn't seem to possess this tension. Instead, it goes straight for what's base. I'm not asking to be moralized by the fiction I read (I don't want to read a religious tract), but if you're going to portray true evil, you have provide some contrast with the good and the beautiful. GrimShit lacks the lyricism, the chiaroscuro, I need. Sorry for the late-night rant. Thanks, Outlaw, for this video.

[@outlawbookselleroriginal]

I think you make an excellent point. S&S based Fantasy is by its very definition Eurocentric, coming from - as you say- Pagan routes. It's also somehow definitively Nordic: although a number of writers tried it before the current wave of 'diverse' Fantasy, experiments with Arabian and Hellenistic set S&S published by Unwin (for example) in the 1980s failed commercially. The Western mindset doesn't even relate to Hellenistic Fantasy in the same way as it does Nordic- as you say, it's about the clash of Pagan and Christian cosmologies, their similarities and difference. Despite many retellings of Greek myths (including some dreadful recent ones) there are yet to be (m)any that have struck the S&S reader in the way the Nordics do- Poul Anderson's 'The Mermaid's Children' comes closest, I feel.

[@Liopot68]

@@outlawbookselleroriginal I´m not too sure about the Nordic roots. It seems to me that many early S&S stories were loosely inspired by King Arthur and the knights of the round table. Those stories are definitely Christian and latin (well, french/britton = latino-celtic). Other influences came from the Mabinogion or Irish mythology, so definitively celtic. The nordic sagas, beowulf, etc were for a very long time only known by academics, not by the general public or even S&S writers.

[@outlawbookselleroriginal]

@@Liopot68 You're completely wrong about the first generation of S&S writers not knowing of the Nordic thing- when I wrote my book '100 Must Read Fantasy Novels' (2009, A & C Black), I looked back at my early research from the 1980s to recheck all this. The Iceland sagas and 'Beowulf' were written down long enough ago outside of academia to have influenced the writers who came before the pulp S&S writers, such as William Morris, who wrote fantasy novels based on the Nordic thing in the 19th century. There were hundreds of translations of 'Beowulf' made in the 19th century alone, including one by Morris.And by the time S&S became a thing, the pulp writers had read them- look at The Enchanter series by De Camp and Pratt for example adnd 'The Broken Sword' by Poul Anderson (who was a Danish American)- these guys knew their Nordic stuff. Yes, Arthurian played its part, but these tales lacked the picaresque element, which is common in the likes of Leiber and descends from Spanish literature. On the Celtic thing, the Mabinogion was constructed in English very late- but yes, that's part of it. The real point is that the doomy, blood and thunder, hard and fast, low character mode of S&S draws on all these things as well as German Romanticism in literature and music- such as that of Wagner. The Chivalric, Arthurian thing is more influential over High Fantasy- Tolkien and his flood of copyists who appeared after 1976 ( see my video on 'the artifical fantasy trilogy since 1977'). It's also worth bearing in mind that the term Celtic is increasingly downgraded by historians, since it really refers to a pan-European period/culture rather than being specifically Welsh/Irish/Breton etc.

[@Elricsedric]

I hate the word grim dark. It's so cringe, just use dark fantasy.

[@outlawbookselleroriginal]

Yes, totally unnecessary. Thing is though, Dark Fantasy was for a few years what we called Horror writing- this was back in the late 80s early 90s.

[@franciscomelendeze]

@@outlawbookselleroriginal As far as I can tell, dark fantasy is a far better term, with the exception of sci fi works, for example Warhammer 40k which is dark fantasy in space, and is also the source of the trope.

[@outlawbookselleroriginal]

@@franciscomelendeze Well, the term Dark Fantasy was already in use by the late 1980s and for around a decade or more after that as a synonym for Horror. The problem with using too many unnecessary terms for genres and subgenres is that it tends to make communcation around them less clear than than imoriving communication- unless everyone is on the same page. Part of what I do on this channel is try and get people on the same page by being insistent about sticking with terminology that was long established in the genres by historians and critics as long ago as the 1960s- the pioneers deserve our respect and as they were ahead of everyone else, have primacy in these arguments I'd say. Plus, most of the newer coinings out there- such as 'dieselpunk' have no real meaning or are too specific- most of the supposed subgenres with 'punk' as their suffix have no 'punk' in them at all, unlike 'Cyberpunk', whose style relates to some of its roots in Beat Generation street fiction.