Depressing or just a bit of realism?

Remove all ads!

I just read in the inklings post how someone was going to get the last two books of the farseer trilogy by Robin Hobb. I did a search and found a few other places people were talking about how they loved Hobb but found her a bit on the depressing side. I read her farseer trilogy and would certainly agree it is darker than most books in the genre.

Also, consider George RR Martin's most recent works (by the way, according to his site the pub dates given by amazon are bunk, he has no idea when he'll finish "A Feast of Crows.") His newest series is one of the best I've ever read and it is certainly very dark in places and also what I think people may consider depressing (Tyrion, the Red Viper, the Stark patriarch etc.)

George RR Martin's series is in my opinion the best fantasy I've ever read. Robin Hobb's Assassin series is up there, and I loved her new book "Fool's Errand" (think that's right, the Liveship traders was okay but not as good imo.)

So, my question is this:

Is a large part of what makes these series great, and others like them great, that we want to read darker books? It's all well and good for a knight in shining armor or uber-wizard to save a helpless babe and live happily ever after I suppose but that type of work is rarely seen as excellent. I think in real life you don't know who to expect and the reality is that good guys don't always finish first. These are fantasy books, escapist literature, but what makes them entralling and draw the readers in is that despite the fantastical setting the writing is infused with enough realism to help us believe. Reading fantasy is about being able to suspend your disbelief and enjoy. These authors make that easier to do by making their works more realistic and to be realistic they must necessarily be darker.

That's part of it, the darker nature is more realistic and thus easier to make us suspend our disbelief so we like their works. Is there a darker aspect though? Do we just actually deep down like to read something where noone is safe and where the hero can fall? Consider the Sopranos. Perhaps the most popular drama in America (it's ratings beat the networks earlier this year despite it being repeated many times during the week, first time in history cable has done that) and one of the reasons people always love it is that you never know who is going to be whacked. It could be the lovable big 'ol teddybear or it could be the disgusting s.o.b. I think we actually like it when there is a real danger that our favorite character is going to buy the farm and we like to feel the pain associated with such a fictional loss from time to time.

So, am I full of bunk? We like darker works because they're more realistic, and maybe more controversially, we like to feel pain.

 

I've always maintained that the reason most SF/Fantasy movies fail is that Hollywood seems to think that these genres are defined by the sets and special effects. If there is a plot to the thing - beyond a skeleton upon which to hang the trappings - it's ridiculously contrived. There's no way that plot would ever be turned into a movie without SF/F.

And that, IMHO, is the big problem, and similar to what you're getting at. Does the mere presence of a dragon or a spaceship obivate the need for a compelling story with interesting characters? Not for me. Is the ability to cast spells a license for a character to be one-dimensional? Again, not to me. I LIKE to be surprised by how events in a story unfold, and I'm generally most surprised by the darker characters. "Angels" can be so darned predictable!

Maybe the appeal of darker characters is based on this element of surprise. I'll bet that (deep deep down!) most of us believe that people are generally OK (rude drivers and product liability attorneys excepted). Someone who reacts to situations in a way that would never occur to us is much more interesting because we want to know what they'll get themselves into next, and how they'll make out.

 

I think that a book that makes us feel empathy for the characters (not necessarily a dark book) is a good one, so long as it is interesting and has a decent plot as well. I like books that make your characters, regardless if they're 15 year-old acne-scarred teens or space aliens from the planet Zorborg, be tangible and understandable.

(And that's why I'm so opposed to most SF/F books. Can we have a character made out of something more than cardboard for once?)

 

I think you may be on to something here Laches, or atleast partly. I think the major reason that we like Martin and Hobbs better than Greenwood and Dragonlance is that the writers are that much better, more fantasy, better able to make depht in their characters and make us readers feel along with them. The darkness is a part of that, as is the fact that no person is as onedimensional as Raistlin, Caramon, Elminster or Drizzt. It feels good and different to read books that surprise you, where you dont know what is going to happen. After reading many many fantasy books and being lulled into a sense of safety where I thought that the hero was untouchable and everything will work out for the best. Reading Hobb and later Martin was like a kick in a groin that woke you up from the Sleeping Beauty sleep. Hobb with her sadistic approach to the main character and Martin first with the fact that you dont know who the protagonist is, if there even is one and then his ability to keep you on your toes *all* the time as you never know what is goin to happen. You label someone as a bad guy and then you get into his head and see that he isnt any worse than most others while. The sheer size of the greyscale in Martin's books is amazing and one of its best aspect.

 

I believe if you were to write a book where the main character is essentially the antagonist, but you get to follow in his steps, see through his eyes, and share his thoughts, then you realize that human nature is far, far too complicated to simply be classified in the following departments: "good", and "evil". Bah, long sentence... Nor can you simply abhor or uplift a character--which is too easy. Anyway, maybe I'm just speaking rhetoric, but I think there should be no polarizations when it comes to conflicts in fantasy/science fiction--like where one side is obviously good and the other sadistically evil. Each side has to be dynamic and human.

Oh, and darkness in books is probably the main ingredient. Ever notice how many great, classic novels deal with pretty depressing stuff occurring to the characters--like "The Scarlet Letter"? Well, true mettle...true character...is tested during tragic times, I say.

[ November 23, 2002, 18:41: Message edited by: William Smit IV ]

 

Well it's the same in any story. Darkness or no, having no sense of loss usually makes the story quite boring. Make a few characters, make all of them important. Make the reader understand them, care for them, love them. Then take one (or some) of them away. Do this too rarely and it hardly makes a difference. Too often and people cease to care. But just the right amount...

Now that I think of it, there isn't one truly good story where there is no sense of loss. Books of Elminster, Shandril's Saga, Drizzt (from Icewind Dale Tril. forward), all are well written books. But they have no sense of loss. You know that the hero is going to make it to the end of the day. And even if he died, the setting and "character" set to the person in the book is so minimal that it would probably not make a difference even if someone did die. Dragonlance, then, is the opposite. It has so many characters that basically die away all the time that death simply hasn't got any meaning, other than "oh well, I might as well stop reading now since all the interesting people are dead".

In Dark Elf Trilogy, Drizzt's loss in what happened to what remained even somewhat "good" and "safe" of his family. The escape from his hometown, the death of his father, his friend Clacker... all the deep sorrow and hopelesness that he feels. It all makes you value all the more the day when he finally gets to the surface, and finds a home there.

In Tolkien's Lord of The Rings it's the same thing. Still, in this work of art the story is more about what the world is like, than the personal purpose of each and every character (well there is that personal purpose as well, but Tolkien is clearly more concerned about the world in general). Boromir's death was simplified by far in the film (in extened DVD it was as it should be). The courageous warrior who wanted but to help his people carried a great meaning to me, and a loss with it as he died.

Point is, I don't know if theres any realism that is required or not. Of course, a complete incomprehensible book can never be good. But keeping the reader completely safe can be mirrored by a spoiled brat (or adult) in the real world; someone who simply cannot value whatever it is that s/he has. A world with deep and important characters that die away all the time quickly do what it would to a person in the real world: s/he simply doesn't care anymore, as the defenses against deep personal loss are activated. And a world with a suitable amount of loss but boring and shallow characters and plot has the same effect as the previous one: why care when it all has little meaning?

Without risk there is no gain. Without going through all end of trouble to get to what you want, you won't like it what you get.

 

You've hit the nail right on the head. That is exactly why I hate Drizzt so much, the first few books were realistically dark but the later ones aren't

 

Read The Golden Key by Kate Elliott (and a couple of others - I can't remember the main author). "good" and "evil" get very confused. The whole book is very well written and has some excellent twists. It is much better than Robin Hobbs Farseer trilogy (i do like them still but as has been mentioned they are depressing) and on a par with the George RR Martin books.

Also read Kate Elliotts Crown of Stars quintet (the fifth one isnt out yet but it should come out at a similar time to Feast Of Crows). They are quite dark and they are definitely not your average fantasy novel

 

Yes - fantasy is essentially "escapist" literature (whether the reader is trying to escape or not does not matter).

As "escapist" literature, a certain amount of realism is necessary - to escape yourself, you must be fully into the story and out of your own "reality" - putting yourself into the reality of the story as a third-person observer. (or first or second, as the case may be) If the story is too unrealistic, than the reader cannot put himself into the reality that the story sets up - then there is no escape, and we read it as "bad fantasy."

Whether a darker work or more painful work is more "realistic" or more "escapist" is really (in my belief) up to the actual reality of the reader. Whereas you and I may believe that darkness and pain is more realistic, and therefore better fantasty, another person may like to read more lighthearted and happy fantasy for the same reason - it is (in their mind) more realistic.

Essentially, realism is in the life of the reader. Some people are pragmatists, others are romantics - this basic quality sets up what a reader will more readily believe as "realistic". Those with a more pessemistic and pragmatic view of the world tend to like darker and more painful fantasy (for the larger part). Others do not.

 

*Spoiler*

I really like a bit of realism. Lately I finished a Game of Thrones (Since which, George RR Martin has become one of most favourite authors) which is much more realistic to Drizzt, which I also read earlier this year. I'll try to compare some.

In the Icewinddale trilogy (can't remember the the book) (Heres the first spoiler) Wulfgar gets struck by lightening. Next day he's away lopping some creatures head off. Come on! he'd be dead, or mutilated, even missing a toe or something. But no, not even a scratch. Sorry to have to bash those books (theres enough of that going on around here )

In A Game Of Thrones (Heres another spoiler) Eddard gives in to the torture and admits that he was a traitor (hes not though), and dies. Thats the sort of thing that really happens. If Salvatore was writing the same book, he wouldn't do that. The Hero would escape, kill a dozen guards with a toothpick, and run off to slay dragons or something. Or, if he did come up to confess, he would have made him spit in Joffrey's face, and then the hero's sidekick would fly in on a magical horse and save the day. Not really very good or even slightly believable.

A bit more to the point, even if your writing fantasy, make it believable on our worlds terms as well. Most fantasy worlds (FR for instance) is base roughly on our world, and then creatures and magic are added in.

Also I think time is important. I find it difficult to write a story in the FR world, because of the different lifespan of the creatures. If an elf has lived for 700 years, I think there would be a little development in the years its lived, but no, none. That world must have been the same for a millenia. sorry I've been blabbing on, and the stuff I've written was very difficult to explain

 

Sorry about my ignorance there. I learnt that from my physics teacher, who, in everyones opinion, is a fool (I'm not trying to pass on the blame here, he seriously has no knowledge of physics)

 

I like the Song of Ice and Fire, but I cannot read it for long stretches at once. When I do, I feel like I would after watching Saving Private Ryan, then Blackhawk Down, and then We Were Soldiers all in the same sitting. Good stuff, but disturbing. Actually, I'm the same way with David Drake's Hammer's Slammers stuff.

 

Yes, it's why Raistlin is such a good character. True moral ambiguity is so hard to find in this day and age. I think an opportunistic character is a better, more realistic one than the goody-goody Drizzt types. You know as well as I that most people in those situations wouldn't be goodly. They would be self-serving adventurers, the "pay up front or I git" types that are never portrayed. I guess it's a sympathy factor.

There is a lot of death in DL (trying not to spoil), but it's not without importance. The deaths in Chronicles at least came with some far-reaching import, and they were sad, but I agree the death in "Summer Flame" were kinda unnecessary. They just happened, not even shock value, and hopefully they will treat them with some dignity later (I haven't read the "War of Souls" books yet).

I don't believe people are basically good, and believe the only way to get ahead is to look out for #1. Maybe I'm applying a modernist attitude to fantasy; I just wish some others would too.

 

I find it disturbing that most of you seem to equate "dark" with "realism". It seems to me that what you are really talking about is that most of the characters in fantasy have no clear motivations. They simply do things because "it's the right thing to do." It is realistic for people to feel this way, but they have some reason to do so. Most fantasy authors do not take the time, or even feel it's necessary, to explore the motivations of their characters.

The other issue some of you touched on was the "heroic" elements that just aren't believable. When characters come through so many battles without a scratch, yet seem to be in eminent danger of death, it is hard to believe that the character is actually in danger. Thus with Drizzt, the characters in Chronicles, and so on.

The appeal of Hobb, Martin, and the other "dark realists" is not that it's dark and gloomy and hopeless. It's that they take the time to explore their characters, and they take great care in portraying their characters when they are in danger. For instance, it is rare in these books that a character will get through a fight unscathed, and any wounds they receive will actually matter. All you have to do is look at Fitz to see the price he pays for the things he has done.

It's not that the authors are dark. It's that things actually matter in their books. There will be no mysterious intervention to save the hero at the last moment. Some other character might intervene, but that will be a result of their own particular motivations, not "fate" or "destiny". Characters and their actions, and the consequences, are all important in some way.

[ February 05, 2003, 15:58: Message edited by: Rathanel ]

 

I think that darkness is real, and often depressing. On the other hand, nobility and positivity are real as well. Striking a balance between the positive and negative can make a big difference in telling the story.
On the subject of Martin and darkness. This was discussed a long time ago (probably in Whatnots). Martin is a GREAT storyteller. Truly amazing. His world, characters, creatures are vivid and captivating. However, I felt that he wallowed too much in cruelty. His repeated use of rape to vilify his evil characters is a good example. When he described a woman being raped on a pile of dead bodies, I nearly stopped reading the book.
For me, it's over the top. And unnecessary.
There are more subtle ways to portray evil. In LOTR, Tolkien succeeds without ever going to the lengths that Martin did. Frank Herbert is guilty of the same thing. The Dune series spent too much time depicting acts of great cruelty that went beyond need of demonstrating that the character is evil.

 

Hmm.
You know, now that I think about it, I can't understand HOW Tolkien did it?

We surely didn't have those eye-stinging scenes of villagers being slaughtered like we had in the Two Towers movie, but for some reason the villains were much more... vile. even without those graphical shows of their crimes.

HOW?

And about Herbert... well, out of all Dune books only the first one had a plot of sorts... the rest were pure sci-fi politics. *cackle*
that's how I seen it, at least.

 

This is a fascinating discussion, one I have to weigh in on. Believability is key to a story, and that believability is based on internal consistency dovetailed with understandably human behaviour. This is where many TSR books fall down. These people do not act the way ANYONE I know. They may be internally consistent, but no one takes them seriously, as one takes, say, Pip from Great Expectations or Gatsby from the book that bears his name. Martin's characters are well thought out, and like the rest of us, they have their bad moments. Some are more evil than others, of course, but the vast majority of them are understandable, and not "cardboard" as someone so elegantly put it.

Look at Tolkien. The reasons his characters do things are reasons everyone can get behind and say "yeah, I know people who would be jealous (Boromir) or greedy (Grima) or willing to take a risk for the greater good (most of the fellowship, but in particular Frodo)." With characters so understandable, we buy into the talking trees and weird demons (the Nazgul).

I've said my piece.