Grimdark Checklist: 6 Gritty Points With Something Extra
There’s nothing grimdark community hates more than being called grimdark. Before everyone gets triggered, hear me out. Grimdark subgenre has been out for a long time and it’s been called many names. I don’t care about the labels — if there’s a need for naming this kind of fantasy, grimdark suits it just as well as any other label.
Just like that morally confused character you’ve read about in the last book, the term grimdark has its flaws and strengths. Whether you’ve liked or hated the character, he’s interesting. He’s drawn you in and you just can’t stop turning those pages. Below, I’ll explain what draws me in so much that I can’t stop reading.
I’d like to point out that I’m using the term “grimdark” because it’s easy to understand. To be honest, I’m indifferent about how people call it or not, I just enjoy the subgenre.
A Brief Introduction
Now, when we’ve settled our differences, let’s start with a tenacious definition by Mark Lawrence in his article about grimdark:
What is Grimdark? It’s a phrase that gets thrown around a lot — often as an accusation.
Variously it seems to mean:
- this thing I don’t approve of
- how close you live to Joe Abercrombie
- how similar a book’s atmosphere is to that of Game of Thrones
Pretty straightforward. And you got to like the humour and the GoT parallel. Later, Mark discussed grimdark again and it looked something like Joe Abercrombie wrote in 2013. His point of view is exact and I couldn’t agree more with the ending:
So, yeah, shitty gritty books are no better than shitty shiny books. But I proudly and unapologetically assert that there’s a great deal more to grit than a capacity to shock and titillate.
Keep in mind this list could easily have more than 50 points, but I wanted to talk about those I look for when facing grimdark fiction. To conclude, I’m giving my checklist:
1 . Realism Done Right
The first and the most important point. When someone says fantasy, others say: fictional, unrealistic. I couldn’t disagree more. Just because it’s an imaginary world, it doesn’t mean it can’t have its own rules.
The problem is that people, while reading, forget about realism. If there’s rape and killing in a “grimdark” book, it shouldn’t be considered dark because of it. These things do exist in the real world. People often get confused with that while reading fantasy. Sure, it’s not a real world and it can’t exist, but the fact that it’s imaginary means that you can add all the elements you want. Including realism, right?
And it’s not just about the taboo. People are essentially not good — they enjoy empowering themselves over other human beings. This general statement works on every level of power as a social relation as well as our awareness of the world and ourselves. Is the fact that people are bad considered dark or realistic? I’d say realistic.
To be honest, I hate to classify this to the grimdark subgenre, but he does it so well.
2 . (Im)Morality
This is the second thing I look for in grimdark. Every piece of literature has characters that can be ambivalent or morally confused, but once they are put in a grimdark setting, it’s rather sweet to watch them struggle.
For some time now, notably in fantasy literature, we’re blessed with morally confused characters. It’s refreshing to see a great deal of authors building their worlds around characters who are not saving princesses and walking around in shining armor.
One could argue that’s determined by a point of view.
Why did the knight in shining armor cross the road? Did he do it to save the princess just for the sake of it? Did he do it to please her father and gain profit? Or did he just want to bang her?
Choices, choices — they leave room for characters to act upon their interests. And that’s why they’re individually intriguing. It’s hard to imagine fantasy going back to the roots and to see writers reach for the washed up topics.
My inspiration for this kind of character is someone like Joe Abercrombie’s Sand dan Glokta — a morally fucked up character who acts upon his interests, depending on the situation. It’s a kind of a paradox that it’s beautiful to feel shocked and betrayed by one of the main characters. But that’s what’s keeping you flying through the pages of the book, right?
The variety of choices from which the characters can choose makes them evolve in and out, which leads us to the next point.
3 . Fucked Up Characters
To conclude the previous point, (im)morality brings out the worst and the best in both fictional and real figures. Although it’s a thin line between these two, I want to separate them because one can be morally confused, but not fucked up and vice-versa.
Literature evolves around characters who are unsure and confused by themselves. That’s nothing new. But if you add all the other elements which make them who they are, they become more interesting.
4 . Pure Naturalism
The action initiators in grimdark fantasy are usually based on natural instincts and desires alone. It’s not necessary for them to be physical as naturalism usually defines itself. It can be goal-oriented, trivial to the aspect of it being good or evil.
Why does one hate or love? What are his or hers emotional drivers?
In a lot of grimdark fiction, the heroes (better said anti-heroes) are driven by their selfishness. And people do all kinds of deeds (better said anti-deeds) to achieve their goals. In pure naturalism, there’s no good and evil — only success and failure. The characters are aware of that, and they don’t see a distinction between helping someone and killing them as long as they get what they want. I’m not saying that is an universal rule of writing this kind of fiction, but it’s common today.
5 . Violence
Grimdark is somewhat oriented on primal instincts. People are programmed to get what they want. And sometimes it’s easy to get what you want — you use violence to get it.
Although violence can be considered moral and/or immoral, it brings up the inner drive in people. Since one of the points in the checklist is naturalism, violence fits well. And grimdark fiction handles a variety of violent elements.
In the end, I’d argue it’s a matter of perspective, but I’m sure we could all agree that reading and writing consists of a sum of subjective details embodied into a text.
6 . The Dystopian Setting
It’s no coincidence that a lot of fantasy and SF fiction set place in a dark and hopeless, sometimes apocalyptic setting. A cruel world demands cruel characters, and cruel characters demand perplexed relations. Often resulting in dark endings.
The gloominess of the worlds which rule grimdark fiction crawls under your skin. It’s easy to lose yourself in a fictional setting, especially because of its darkness. It may sound cheesy, but it depends on the world-building author chose to cross.
But what is a dystopian setting exactly?
There are worlds like Orwell’s and Collins’ which are “completely dystopian”, and then there are worlds with dystopian elements. I don’t consider Abercrombie’s and Martin’s worlds entirely dystopian, but they sure have some elements of it. And you can’t say all of fiction has dystopian elements, do you?
*Extra Point
An author accused of writing grimdark has to deny he’s writing grimdark.
The Dark Ending
To conclude — nobody wins.
Like all literary periods, genres and subgenres, the term grimdark is something readers and writers have constructed to classify a new phenomenon in fiction. There’s not a single book that we can completely put into a specific genre, and grimdark is no exception.
My point of view:
I’d like to see people agree in killing and brutalizing their characters and worlds.
Grimdark challenges the standards — the aesthetics of ugliness, the conceptualizations of the Other and the butchery of poetry. Because, you know, tough literature requires tough readers.
What do you think about this list and grimdark in general? Go on, discuss and make me look bad— I’m looking forward to it!
Also, read my fiction for free on https://dominikcdurst.com/
