How do you avoid the "edgelord" trope, when entering the "grimdark" subgenre?

I scanned up the thread to find out—Martin turns out to be George RR Martin??!! Really?? He writes like that??!

 

@Teladan —what's the significance of those quotes? I can't quite figure out why you posted them. Are you saying that, outside of LOTR and The Hobbit, Tolkein doesn't write about good heroes vs evil bad guys? He certainly isn't nihilistic.

 

From my understanding Tolkien is not gritty. Which I would define (in this situation) as gory, sexually explicit, crass language, and morally bereft.

 

Sure, I suppose his works don't have sex or crass language, but it is gory in parts. Have you read Tolkien other than the Trilogy or the Hobbit?

But Fingon could not release the hell-wrought bond upon his wrist, nor sever it, nor draw it from the stone. Again therefore in his pain Maedhros begged that he would slay him; but Fingon cut off his hand above the wrist, and Thorondor bore them back to Mithrim.

Last of all Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed; and it is sung that the axe smoked in the black blood of the troll-guard of Gothmog until it withered, and each time that he slew Húrin cried: 'Aurë entuluva! Day shall come again!' Seventy times he uttered that cry; but they took him at last alive, by the command of Morgoth, for the Orcs grappled him with their hands, which clung to him still though he hewed off their arms; and ever their numbers were renewed, until at last he fell buried beneath them. Then Gothmog bound him and dragged him to Angband with mockery.

Then the Captain of Morgoth sent out riders with tokens of parley, and they rode up before the outworks of the Barad Eithel. With them they brought Gelmir son of Guilin, that lord of Nargothrond whom they had captured in the Bragollach; and they had blinded him. Then the heralds of Angband showed him forth, crying: 'We have many more such at home, but you must make haste if you would find them; for we shall deal with them all when we return even so.' And they hewed off Gelmir's hands and feet, and his head last, within sight of the Elves, and left him.

 

My point, clearly, is that he writes more than just bad and good guys. Literally nothing in the stories that are the major component of Tolkien's output has anything to do with a single "good versus bad" framework, certainly nothing to do with the One Ring. Feanor is a layered and devious character whose pride causes his downfall. He's ensnared by the beauty of his own creations and even kills his own people to save them. Turin is a classic anti-hero who is driven to Greek level acts of tragedy. Many of the characters from the First and Second Ages are motivated by their own greed or some folly related to kinship.

 

From what I've seen that's primarily how it's used. Grimdark stories generally make it clear that the world your reading is especially cruel, ugly, unjust, and nearly (if not totally) beyond saving.

Edit: I may be wrong about this, but I think the genre got its namesake from a Warhammer 40,000 tagline. "In the grim darkness of the far future there is only war."

 

I believe you're correct. Nothing more grimdark than Chaos Space Marines. I was more a Warhammer Fantasy person myself, but I think even the God Empower of Mankind was highly corrupt.

 

Having flawed characters doesn't mean the world is moral-less and having mentions of taboo or dark things doesn't not make the story itself dark. As an example: Tolkien could mention "oh Orcs have the disgusting habit of defiling the dead women in villages after the raid" but that's not grimdark unless instead of stating that, it's explicitly detailed for the reader to experience as it happens.

 

In Tolkien's universe good fights against evil. That's the dynamic of high fantasy, which he created. Yes, good characters get infected by evil, that's what I was saying about the Ring. That's what it does—it infects morally pure characters and corrupts them, like it did to Gollum. It might not be white hats vs black hats, that's childishly simplistic (hence why it existed on early television Westerns). But it is Good vs Evil, though both can exist in a character's heart. But inside the heart it's a struggle of good vs evil. and it's clear which is which. If evil wins, it would be presented in Tolkien as a repugnant thing to be despised. In grimdark, that's the way things already are, and it's not seen as repugnant, just as the way life is. The Good is seen as foolishness.

Grimdark is pure nihilism. No good exists, and anybody claiming to be good is lying or foolishly naive.

You should read the wiki page about grimdark.

 

I've never stated in this thread that Tolkien was grimdark. I've responded to individual posts about gore and whatnot. My goal is simply to illustrate that Tolkien can be dark in tone. Just not grimdark as that term is often used.

This post is also aimed at @Xoic as well. Not sure why you think I'm trying to say Tolkien is grimdark...

 

I agree with your Tolkien take, but I would push slightly back against "no good exists in grimdark." In the majority of grimdark stories I've read good does in fact exist, but it's scarce and never in a position to overthrow the setting's rampant callousness and wickedness.

 

Anyway, can someone explain the appeal of grimdark stories to me? I'd imagine no one would be relatable and there must surely be a disconnect and a kind of distance. I suppose I might enjoy books in this genre if the characters were cynical and philosophical.

 

Thanks @Bone2pick , I've only read the wiki page.

 

It might just be me, but I love rouge cutthroats who are essentially just feral dogs and sewer rats on two legs. Their worldview is a primeval stance of self preservation tops everything, and will resort to any lows to etch out a living. Men whose entire existence is on a razor's edge, and will probably never grow old. They have been tossed aside by society as a whole, and thus have no safety nets in their lives. As they have nothing left in their lives, they obviously have nothing left to loose. In twisted sort of way, they are "underdogs" standing alone against a world hellbent on seeing them in a grave.

Those are characters I want to see explored more in a work of fiction, though that might again be just my own personal tastes.

Is my overly grandiose descriptions making sense to anyone here?

 

I understand you're just pointing out he isn't lily white. The comment that Tolkien is the opposite of grimdark (from the wiki), I think is because Tolkien used/maybe defined(?) standard fantasy tropes while grimdark subverts them heavily. It's not about Tolkien being lily white or gray/dark--wherever you want to place him on the scale of dark.

However, I get the feeling that saying Tolkien has dark themes in a grimdark discussion is like comparing the Hunger Games to Battle Royale (the manga). Yeah the Hunger Games has kids fighting each other to the death but they don't show them cutting faces in half and getting brain matter on their hands. Same themes, completely different tone.

 

I think it's about coping with bad things but also just plain excitement in a world filled with sensationalism. It's thrilling and, for some, really gritty stuff feels more like realism than anything else. I also think people like exploring their own morals and pushing their limits in a way that's not risky or hurting anyone. Or about living a fantasy that doesn't really make any sense in the real world (for instance, pining after a villain or seeking extreme revenge for bad things that happened to you). Then, sometimes people just like feeling scared and disgusted. Plus I think it's sort of natural to want to pick apart horrible people to try and understand them (the same way serial killers are such an interesting topic to a lot of people or trying to understand the mind frame of mass shooters).

 

Some great monstrous personas of literature- the Satan of Paradise Lost, the narrator of Les Chants de Maldoror, and Melmoth the Wanderer. They have well-articulated point of view, to some degree even sympathetic.

 

But isn't that why they're not "edgelords"? These characters are all written with pathos, gravitas and poetry. These are characters written in a high style or with deeply cynical or brooding personalities. Hardly drowned sewer rats swearing, fucking, killing and stealing at every opportunity.

 

My understanding is that the OP is trying to avoid "edge lords" whatever that means. They certainly cause an outsized amount of horror for selfish or capricious reasons, however rationalized.

Or perhaps merry Sade's mass murdering philosopher heroes would be better exemplars?

 

I know it's a bit self indulgent to responded to your own post, but I feel like I should add my own two cents in.

To me, extreme violence in a work requires blowback to the perpetrators. You can't have Kevin the Blood Drinker behead a thousand babies on Tuesday, and have the general populace worship the ground he walks on afterwards. There has to be repercussions for their actions. For example, the Glanton Gang in the Blood Meridian was wiped off the face for their indiscriminate raping, murdering, and mutilating rampages by their innumerable enemies.

Too often, you see many amateur writers (especially if they are on the younger and less worldly experience end of the spectrum) treat extreme violence as a quirky character trait. Often used to paint the characters in a "sexy" light, a rebel against established codes of conduct/shock value, or as a mouth piece for their pseudo nihilistic philosophies. These writers don't seem to realize the ugly consequences of violence and how it actually effects others.

What I'm trying to describe here is desolated and impoverished criminal types who resort to violent crime, as they have little else to turn to. In other words, think a low level cartel thug, an outback Bushranger, or a Caribbean Buccaneer.

 

Ah, I apologise. For some reason I read your post incorrectly. Yes, you were giving examples of how to do this properly without being an edgy caricature or whatever.

 

I'm not sure if it's what your after but have you read The Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester? The protagonist starts out as a rather petty thug driven by revenge; his designs gradually become more grandiose and destructive, and his character deepens in the process. It's a wonderful book all around.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with that. Fiction isn't real life and the people I see enjoying the darkest things are anything but naive.

 

Good point, but I was trying to refer to the niche of Wattpad and Tumblr writers that write rather ... tone deaf fanfics about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, and others that fetishize abusive behaviors. Sorry for not making that very clear in my post.

 

I always wondered where all those "stiff, throbbing manhood" lines went when they mostly fell out of favor in the Romance genre. I figured they had to land somewhere.