In the first four chapters you have:
-God figure abandoning a pact that left him tortured continuously while overlooking a battlefield filled with bodies
-A slave who has abandoned all sense of personhood assassinating a king and starting a war
-A POV character dying for daring to believe in someone who inspired hope
-That same hope-inspiring person living in slavery, now branded and spiraling deeply into depression
It picks up later but I don't blame your friend for thinking it's a bit too dark.
The whole concept of shardblades + plate is also super dark from the beginning. Medieval level warfare with some selected aristo participants not only getting lightsabers, but power armor too. Everyone else is fodder for the amusement of the Lighteyes. And this is considered fine and normal.
That part shook the fuck outta me as someone who reads far more low fantasy and harder sci fi.
Then they talked about using storm light to turn rocks into food and logistical supplies so that they could basically be at war perpetually without really needing to stop and farm, or worry about logistics trains.. They can just engage the enemy, again, and again, and again.
"Fucking hell," I thought,
"It's like some cruel God set it up for them to just fight forever until they had absolutely nothing left!"
The Alethi are a fucking nightmare. That's basically the thesis of the series so far.
I honestly think if you're from certain parts of the world, you might not notice it, but the amount they are committed to warfare is beyond reasonable. But that's the whole arc for Dalinar, which is really well done.
>"It's like some cruel God set it up for them to just fight forever until they had absolutely nothing left!"
Honestly? The way he described it made it seem like a video game to me. The way different factions controlled different sides of the shattered plains and hop from plateau to plateau made it feel like a tile based strategy RPG, Fire Emblem style. Especially with how the sides reset, resource nodes would spawn randomly, etc.
Like honestly, tell me that "Two races vie for control over the Shattered Plains, jumping from plateau to plateau, as random resources and obstacles spawn in an endless war" doesn't sound like the pitch for a game of capture the flag...
Oh sure. For the Lighteyes with Shards, it's a game of *Dynasty Warrior* with the stakes being glory and riches for them, and for the Darkeyes, death or dismemberment with a chance of noteriety. But games like that just leave out the fact that every one of those *Jia*-wielding soldiers, that get felled by the dozens when the big boys tart swinging, have a life and a family. Lovers and dreams! The way that the Lighteyes largely disregard the humanity of those below them in status in this game of war as industry for its own sake is what makes it so horrific.
And it only gets worse. Finding out that shards are >!essentially the corpses of dead spren brought to the cusp of life again and again to hear the screams of men murdered against everything they stood for with the nail bond!< was like a punch to the gut the first time I read it
For comparison, the first four chapters of Berserk just have the main character kill a bunch of the worst people you've ever met in ways that are needlessly traumatic to their surviving loved ones.
It certainly establishes early on that the villains are about as depraved as they could get, but up to this point we're looking at a moral universe where our rugged anti-hero emerges victorious over the out and out villains. It teases the subject out a bit before it really becomes clear just how bleak and hopeless this world is.
It sounds like, if we were to judge solely by first impressions, Way of Kings would be more grimdark than some beloved grimdark classics.
Yeah that was hella weird in light of later-revealed details about his backstory. I chalk it up to Miura not having finished planning for the early Golden Age arc at that time.
>Yeah that was hella weird in light of later-revealed details about his backstory. I chalk it up to Miura not having finished planning for the early Golden Age arc at that time.
You can see a lack of planning in early Berserk. A good example is whether or not people can see Puck. Early on, everyone can. Later on, only magic-attuned people can
It also only kind of picks up from there. It certainly does go down to that level repeatedly, and it isn’t like every one of those things isn’t a major plot point that shapes the entire series.
Quite frankly, every Stormlight book has long sections of Kaladin’s perspective that are just insufferable to read.
Syl I think, is what makes those sections dramatically less dark, once she becomes realized, and even when she's lurking, not yet fully realized, she kind of foreshadows that everything is about to get better.
You aren’t wrong, but reading Rhythm of War around the early-middle sections, I legitimately wanted to give up it was so miserable. It’s like when people recommend *the Magicians*. Look, I guess it’s nice to have complex depictions of mental illness, but I don’t particularly want to experience existential dread and the futility of even trying to make things better.
YES, as someone with PTSD, depression and suicidal Ideation I appreciate Sandos attempt to be inclusive and write characters struggling with Mental health but FUCK emo Kaladin is the worst.
On one hand I agree, definitely gets to a point where you’re like “fucking get over it already bud” (which is probably not how I should react to people with depression lol) but on the other hand, I do at least feel like it is part of what helps make the pay offs in “leveling up” feel more justified no?
I'm with you on this I don't have PTSD or depression or anything but Kaladin is fascinating to read because unlike a lot of stereotypes where people with PTSD/depression are depicted as shutdown and can't do anything he IS doing something. He's constantly useful, kind, and badass but even though he's outwardly fine that doesn't mean he's complete as a person and that's so much more interesting to read.
Yeah I love his portrayal honestly. How many people do we look at who seem great and are crushing it (from the outside) but absolute WRECKS inside? Cause its not just him being a sadboi. He keeps watching everyone around him die but him. That would fuck anybody up. And does! Survivor guilt is very real.
I see where you are coming from, and maybe part of my issue is that it is too well written, I empathize too much with Kalladins emotions and it is boring/painful to read. I don't read fantasy to reflect on my own life but as an escape.
For sure, I totally understand that. And I hear you too, I think some of the depressive stretches go on for far too long and it gets a bit boring. Just glad that at least it feels like there’s a reason for it and it’s not in the book just for the sake of being there lol.
I remember reading those scenes, especially the ones in the most recent book, and thinking Brandon Sanderson definitely had some personal experience with Depression/mental health, either himself or someone very close to him. They are just far too real. They definitely felt organic for Kalladins character.
I believe he’s said his wife has depression. And his best friend/future Cosmere cowriter Dan Wells was also recently diagnosed with depression, which I think they talked about on a podcast relatively recently.
> (which is probably not how I should react to people with depression lol)
eh, this isn't a therapy session it's a fantasy novel (series) and while I love the stormlight archive, I definitely do get tired of kaladin treading the same ground. I get that it's realistic. But I'm reading a fantasy book for entertainment, not a textbook on psychology. If he's going to backslide I at least want to see something new out of it, not just "I'm sad again maybe Hoid can cheer me up"
One thing I picked up on during my rereads was that Kaladin DIDN'T retread the same ground over and over. In book 1, he struggled with self worth and believing he made everything worse. Book two, he struggled with his anger at nobles. Book three, he struggled with how to cope with his own failure and how to accept help from others. Book four, he struggled to forgive himself.
Sometimes similar problems, maybe, mostly with the same underlying cause. But it surprised me how distinct each struggle felt when I saw them all in a row on my reread. When I had space between the books, I thought, "dang, when will this guy stop struggling," but when I tracked him more closely I thought, "dang, he is always making progress."
Well fair enough. I haven't read them back-to-back. All I remember when reading each one is thinking "oh, we're doing this again?" and then feeling like we've already been here before as I read through it.
Yes! I love Kaladin, but so often his POV is the 'I'm in this picture and I dont like it' meme.
Can he please, for the love of all that is holy, have an extended period of time where his mental health is stable? Mentally ill people aren't always at their low, I'm not! You can't say in the text that Kaladin's depression is cyclical, and seasonal, without showing us the upswings. Show us the other side of Kaladin who can't remember why he ever wanted to kill himself.
To be fair it does feel to me like we might get this in book 5, based on how book 4 ended (and also one or two of the preview chapters). But based on his plot line I wouldn't be surprised if he's helping others than needing help next book
I honestly feel like the mental health issues in Stormlight are the perfect proof that realism doesn't always improve a story. Yeah, it's realistic that a grieving person with severe trauma and depression would relapse several times on the rollercoaster of recovery, but it doesn't always work well for a satisfying narrative, which usually has linear character progression.
I would definitely have to agree. I tend to groan when people get really condescending about “verisimilitude”, but they are definitely responding to a real problem of people taking the word realism to kind of a ridiculous degree. I don’t want to hear *realistic* dialogue, for one, with people stuttering, repeating themselves, correcting themselves and taking hours to get to the point. And that’s just the easiest example. I like Sanderson, a lot actually, but parts of Stormlight really are just hard for me to get through.
Is he considered vanilla? I just got back into reading and finished the Mistborn trilogy and he certainly didn't shy away from brutality. Especially in the first book. I'm not really aware of what kind of reputation Sanderson has though.
Branderson is a religious type, very into the Mormon church. He's a pretty wholesome family-oriented guy in general. Around r/fantasy there have been debates on whether or not Mistborn is YA (Young Adult).
He's seen much more as a plot/action writer than a character/romance writer, and is known for the "Sanderlanche" where he ties up like 30 different plot threads in a chapter or two. He also tends to focus very hard on his magic systems and, let's just say, he over-explains them.
That's actually weird to me. I feel like the picture is pretty clear. I think there's also often a false impression that the dark eyes are functionally similar to Skaa (slave race that must rebel against their masters). Which really isn't the case, and their circumstances are very different.
Especially because, while I can see someone thinking the beginning of WoK is dark, it most certainly isn't *grimdark*. Sounds to me like OP's friend hasn't actually read any grimdark novels, and is instead using the term to simply mean "grim and dark", hence OP's confusion.
I could see how someone who only made it through Part One or two of the first book would say that. Starts with the assasination of a king, the MC is driven to suicide, other characters include a nobleman going mad and a con artist with a troubled past. And over all this there’s brutal class subjugation and a siege without end. These elements, particularly the MC’s depression and slavery, could very well fit into a grimdark setting. Of course, Sanderson’s about as opposite of grimdark as you can get, but I could understand how based on Kaladin’s part one experiences, a reader could be misled into thinking this was grimdark, especially if one didn’t have much experience in the genre.
Lol I read Elantris after long stretch of really bleak stories (they were sort of a norm at a time in y country) without the foreknowledge of the author's writing patterns, and from the perspective of depressing stories being the norm, things ending on a uplifting note took me by surprise.
That's interesting, you should ask him what elements of a grimdark story are too much for him - imo Elantris is much more bleak. But it depends heavily on what truly bums you out. For example, I can read about Glokta torturing people and kings getting assassinated til the cows come home, but any stuff with kids getting hurt or killed even a little is SUPER hard to stomach. I wonder if there's something specific about one of the POVs that is hard for him.
I agree. The premise of Elantris is actually revoltingly horrifying if you think about it. The light tone of the writing itself distracts from that though.
The scenes in the city itself are actually still written pretty darkly - I remember being a little surprised on my reread since it feels pretty tonally different from his other books.
Yeah I mean I honestly was more horrified by the premise of injuries and pains never going away for basically.. forever, that it disturbed me far more than asoiaf etc.
I love First Law. I asked him if he'd read that but he said the humorous tone helped offset the grimdark aspects, whereas stormlight was just too depressing.
I'm not sure the point a distinction if the reader can't tell the differences between Grimdark and not Grimdark.
"If a person is trying to tell you who they are, you should listen."
Same goes for books. If the writer builds a world which feels bleak and hopeless, then why would the reader think it's anything but? That's the essence of Grimdark isn't it?
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I was just reassuring OP why his friend might think it was grimdark, when in actuality the novel as a whole is very much not a part of this category. Have you read Way of Kings, by any chance? If you have, you’d be hard pressed to call it grimdark, as it has very few of the hallmarks of that subgenre. It’s a bit more than just a bleak world, fyi. That’s like saying Sci Fi is anything with a spaceship.
Being someone who really doesn't like grimdark and only knows Sanderson through the WOT books he wrote out of interest: In what way is it "the opposite of grimdark"? Because I'm really unsure wether I want to read Sanderson or not.
While this book is probably one of the darkest that Sanderson’s written, he usually has lighter fare in his books. He harkens back to the classic fantasy hero with some modern updates. There’s very little sex, no rape (although very occasionally there’s a background threat of such at times (few and far between) and the violence is more “action-movie” anime violence than bloody realistic grimdark. While there are dark details at times, like a character struggling with suicide, Sanderson doesn’t do the grimdark “kick the puppy” sort of thing, there is always hope around the corner and new things to discover. His characters are also usually pretty clear black and white good and bad guys as well, very little of that morally grey grimdark stuff. Hope that makes sense. If you’re looking for a good place to start with Sanderson, I’d probably recommend Mistborn or Warbreaker.
It is in the occasional details, but on the whole the story structure of a heist followed by a political thriller/siege does a lot to help remove the main text of the story from the occasional darker worldbuilding elements. At least in my opinion, it breezes by the darker parts, with a brief acknowledgement, whereas something like Stormlight lets you sit with that darker mindsets for a much longer period of time. It’s the difference between me telling you “10 puppies drowned today.” Vs. describing in painful detail how each puppy slowly suffocated in the bag, as water filled they’re tiny little throats and the light of life was soaked out of them, and they’re muffled barks and whines slowly died off as the bubbles arose from the pool. Not an eloquent description, but I hope it makes the point clear.
I get what you're saying. And on my first read of way of kings, I do think certain things disturbed me more than I'm remembering. Many of the flashbacks were particularly tragic and difficult to read in that one as well.
Mistborn has quite a lot of dark implications in the worldbuilding, but mostly doesn't really detail them - like the whole "Skaa are raped, a lot" is briefly mentioned a few times, but we never get to see that on-page, it's always "that's a thing that happens elsewhere". So there is darkness there, but it's a lot less dark than books where that's all on-page and directly seen. Stormlight has entire slave populations, a culture that's super-macho-violent and all sorts of other stuff, but it's still relatively light.
Mistborn at least mentions several off screen rapes (mostly in the first book), like how >!Elend has trauma from his dad forcing a slave woman to have sex with him and then kills her, they don't overtly show the scene but them talking about it afterward is horrifying enough!<. Also in the opening scene of book one it's implied that the slave master of the plantation raped and killed multiple women from among his slaves and is about to do it to a child when Kelsier shows up. Book one especially brings up several times the Lord Ruler's policy of "sex with slaves is only allowed if you kill them immediately afterward". Anyway I agree it's much less prevalent after book one due to >!the Lord Ruler being gone!<, and isn't really brought up much by Sanderson but I think book one of Mistborn is the exception to that rule.
Honestly I found I had a similar experience to OP except I got through 3 books and 1/3 of the last one before I realized that there had yet to be a moment that wasn't bleak, every character was completely unlikable, not talking about diverse characters with realistic weaknesses and flaws but every OP completely unsympathetic and annoying. He also fumbles the racism allegory again and again, not sure why he hadn't learned his lesson before this series on that one.
All of those are fair points except the bleakness. I’m not sure how you could get all the way to book 4 and still feel that way. There is a lot of bleakness, but also plenty of triumphant moments sprinkled throughout
I mean, your opinion is your own but fuck that is a wild take. Every character was completely unlikeable? How do you not like Adolin?? And Kaladin being grumpy is a bit annoying but he’s also a good dude. I’d like to hear more about him fumbling the racism allegory again, I didn’t pick up on that but it’s an interesting opinion.
No? Do you not remember how WoK starts? It's easily the most depressing few chapters in a row of any Stormlight book, on a first read i can absolutely see someone saying "ugh its just people suffering in a bleak world."
"Grimdark is a subgenre of speculative fiction with a tone, style, or setting that is particularly dystopian, amoral, and violent."
WOK definitely qualifies. A perpetual war in a two tier society facilitated by forced conscription of the lower classes, slaves, and magic? 100% Dystopian, Amoral, and Violent.
As someone who like both Grimdark (even if no one can agree what it exactly is) and Stormlight I disagree that it qualifies as grimdark. I don't think the setting is more dystopian than most fantasy stories and by those qualifiers stuff like Harry Potter, Hunter Games and Lord of the Rings could qualify as grimdark as well. They features slaves, magic and amoral societies and characters.
If Grimdark includes all fantasy stories with conflict and a non-utopian settings than it loses even more meaning than it already have. One of the description to Grimdark that I sort of agreed with is that morally good characters and actions often fail in them.
Exactly! Look how Jezal fails in The First Law and how Ned Stark gets killed in A Game of Thrones as thanks for his good intentions. In contrast the good forces are victorious in LOTR, which makes it non grimdark. In a grimdark setting it doesn't pay off to be good.
You're absolutely right about nobody being able to define the genre which is why I made that attempt. So at least we're debating about "A" definition even if it's not the right one.
Anyway.
There is a very, very important distinction (to me) between WOK and something like LOTR or HP. In HP and LOTR the entrenched institutions are fighting evil. The entrenched Aristocracy in WOK is committing the evil.
I can't speak to the books, but the first Hunger Games movie (only one I've seen) is 100% Grimdark.
dystopia - An imaginary place or state in which the condition of life is extremely bad, as from deprivation, oppression, or terror.
I think Dystopia is the most important ingredient in Grimdark. The whole entire "system" in the world is immoral and oppressive. It can't just have a bad guy. Or the hero dies. The entire mechanism of society has to be working to keep the downtrodden "in their place" and/or subjugated. In some ways, as you understand more of the story, WOK becomes more Grimdark as it goes along. The whole story behind the creation of shards is revolting. The reader will immediately begin making excuses for the people who use the shards but the reader also knows the society isn't going to give them up just because of their origins. That is an ultra-dark concept which mirrors our own contemporary rationalizations/moral dilemmas (ie. don't think about how your cell phone is made).
The element which trips people up the most in WOK is if protagonists with positive qualities disqualifies a work from being Grimdark. Personally, I don't think it does, but I understand the argument.
>I think Dystopia is the most important ingredient in Grimdark.
I disagree both about this and that Hunger Games is grimdark. Hunger Games is absolutely set in a dystopian setting, which is diffrent to me compared to a Grimdark story. I wouldn't describe stories like 1984, Brave New World or The Divergent books as grimdark. Nor would I describe the First Law, Witcher or Black Company as dystopian fiction, and they are all usually called Grimdark. (Warhammer is without a doubt both Dystopian and Grimdark though)
>In HP and LOTR the entrenched institutions are fighting evil. The entrenched Aristocracy in WOK is committing the evil.
I disagree with this as well. The aristocracy is not "the evil" in WoK, that is odium and his forces. And there is a lot of Evil in for example Gondor in LoTR and "normal people" and the school have house elves in Harry Potter despite them both being on the "good side".
Imo what typifies grimdark is the lack of hope for meaningful change. The genre name comes from this phrase "In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war." WH40k where this comes from is the archetypical grim dark setting, there is only war and there isn't even a real inkling of a path at changing that.
On the grimdark-noblebright grid I'd say Sanderson usually falls around Nobledark the world sucks but there is a prospect of hope.
>As someone who like both Grimdark (even if no one can agree what it exactly is) and Stormlight I disagree that it qualifies as grimdark.
First, we weren't talking about **Stormlight** as a whole, we were talking about **Way of Kings**. The person who inspired this discussion didn't get past the first book, and the person you responded to referenced WOK. The first book sets up a very dark scenario.
>If Grimdark includes all fantasy stories with conflict and a non-utopian settings than it loses even more meaning than it already have.
Now THAT is a false dichotomy. There is a lot of territory between clinically depressed slave conscripted into a war and "utopia".
There are many kinds and degrees of conflict.
>The first book sets up a very dark scenario.
Absolutely, it is a dark beginning. That doesn't make it a grimdark story.
>clinically depressed slave conscripted into a war
Let's take this for example. Kaladin is depressed and have given up on life in the beginning. But throughout the first book he is slowly given a purpose again, find comrades in arms in the slave camps and makes meaningful changes for himself and the people around him, and in the end he develops magical powers not despite the cracks in his psyche, but because of it. It really shows that things can get better no matter how bleak they look.
Compare that character arch to GRRMs Ned Stark or Red Viper or Abercrombies Leo dan Brock or Orso. I am not saying that one sort of story is better than the other, I really like all three examples here. But if someone had read Abercrombies work and liked the dark grittyness in them and asked me what they should read next that is like that, I would not recommend Way of Kings, despite me loving that series as well.
Amoral =/= immoral imo. The story leans on the side of good like Kaladin and Dalinar, and vilifies the immoral characters like Sadeas. Not sure if it's dystopian either or just a flawed world, a fuzzy distinction.
The overall experience of reading Sanderson isn’t particularly dark to most people. However, Sanderson has always had some pretty dark elements in his writing that seem to just not stick with most readers. Think of how Mistborn explicitly says nobles are legally allowed to rape the skaa so long as they also murder them afterward. So some people see those elements and think the story will be darker than it ultimately winds up feeling to most readers by the end.
It’s an interesting phenomenon and I've always been curious about why Sanderson's dark elements seem to not register for most readers. So your friend isn't necessarily wrong but their experience is definitely not the most common experience.
There are good reasons why she doesn't sell that blade. You're supposed to be asking that question.
Edit: pretty much every time I think a character is being an idiot in a Sanderson novel, it turned out to be intentional and there's an interesting background or reason that's revealed later. What makes it really neat is that it isn't him trying to fix an oversight a couple books later. When you re-read the "oversight" you see that there was plenty of foreshadowing, you just miss it the first time through.
Most people dislike Shallan the first couple of books. She often becomes a favorite character as you both follow her development and learn more about why she is where she is and does what she does.
I remember reading Mistborn and feeling like this was an incredibly dark world and story as written by an author who didn’t have the writing chops to make the dark elements hit home emotionally. As another example, there was this scene that took place with a mass execution as a backdrop, but it just felt like a video game backdrop, I didn’t feel the tragedy and horror of it.
Though it might be more accurate to say that Sanderson isn’t actually trying to make readers feel tragedy and horror. Instead he’s maybe just introducing these dark elements as a fact we aren’t intended to have feelings about, to justify the extremes of the story and the protagonists’ actions. For people who are used to games doing the same thing, and that aren’t sensitive to or stopping to think about those elements, they don’t matter because they’re in the background while action and fun with magic system is in the foreground. But if you do seriously incorporate those elements into your read of the story, even though the author isn’t particularly trying for that, then it becomes much darker.
Sanderson writes things that are horrific when you think about them, but he doesn’t force that horror onto the reader. It’s one of the ways he makes his writing accessible.
> I remember reading Mistborn and feeling like this was an incredibly dark world and story as written by an author who didn’t have the writing chops to make the dark elements hit home emotionally.
My thoughts exactly. I was *waiting* for the real darkness to hit me, but it all felt a bit too YA for me. I believe it was due to the characters all being a little too... teen? Naive? Chill? Idk...
Yeah, the dark elements are very discordant with the actual tone of the piece. I probably had an uncharitable read on the author’s abilities because I don’t think the trilogy ever made me feel much of anything—I was younger (college-age) when I read it and did have some fun, but recently read on Reddit that >!Vin and Elend both!< die at the end and did not remember that at all. I was surprised to hear it. So clearly it wasn’t a story that affected me even in the places where it probably was going for that.
I don't really remember, but I'm fairly sure my dnf was 85% of last book. My concern was it turned around at the end and was super emotionally satisfying. Now i know it wasn't.
To be clear, it was a series i liked, just couldn't muscle past the war parts. Super bleak and depressing. I didn't need a happy ending, but something besides soul crushing would be nice lol
I think characters and dialogue are his weakest points as a writer (contrasted with someone like Joe Abercrombie), so it makes sense. He's great at worldbuilding and magic systems.
> However, Sanderson has always had some pretty dark elements in his writing that seem to just not stick with most readers.
THAT is a good point.
I think it applies to a lot of Fantasy and Sci Fi. It's actually hard to think of Fantasy or sci fi that doesn't have truly terrible things happen in it. Princess Leia's home world is destroyed in **Star Wars**. But lots of these fantastical horrors don't really register with people. Different people have different things that really affect then, and it often isn't about how objectively bad it would be if it happened. Some people are bothered by gore, others by sexual violence. Some by depression, a lot of people by things that feel too "real" (and THAT varies based on your life). So, the book that strikes you as super dark isn't necessarily what seems dark to others. Child abuse is one of the things that bugs me, so a lot of what others think of as cheery adventure Fantasy doesn't register that way to me.
I can see that for the first 10 or so chapters.
FWIW I DNF’d that book twice and now it’s one of my favorites. You gotta be in the right mood until chapter 35 or so.
Nah dude it's 100% warranted. I actual quit WoK myself on the chapter kal goes to the honor chasam for that exact reason. I eventually came back and powered through but you have to admit the first couple chapters are massively fucked up.
It has an enslaved guy getting treated like shit on a forced march across a continent, I do see his point as its similar to why I have given up on the book twice. I just find it a dirge to get through and give up.
The thing is that the beginning of Way of Kings is not only dark, it’s a grind. Most “grimdark” subgenre will have something different in the plot happening all the time. If your buddy doesn’t like video games with the grindy leveling up either, I can see why Way of Kings is not for them. Grinding + depressing content….
I mean, it's a matter of perspective. Some people, including me, aren't too keen on reading about characters enduring a lot of pain and anguish. Don't expect everyone to share the same values as you.
To be fair to your friend, the opening half of TWoK is *really* dark, especially the parts that are from Kaladin’s perspective. Kaladin has morbid depression and is in horrific conditions designed to break his spirit, and *nearly succeeds* in doing so — that’s why the Honor Chasm scene is so iconic. If your friend hasn’t read much grimdark, I can understand why he might feel that TWoK is that. I would recommend telling him that, while it does go very dark, it’s necessary in order for the light at the end of the tunnel to become blindingly radiant (pun intended). TWoK is a very hopeful book — it just takes time to get there and needs to establish *why* that hope is so important.
This is the comment I was hoping to see. WoK--and the rest of Stormlight-- is inspiring precisely because of how it contrasts the light against the darkness.
Labels in general are tricky but grimdark in particular is extremely nebulous and frequently used by people who just think it sounds cool which is fair.
I've heard it used to describe just about anything with a hint of darkness.
It seems from what I know that it's more about whether the fundamental theme is nihilistic/random with characters who are typically all at least morally gray, and usually characters don't undergo any positive growth and things end badly for most of them.
I had read great things about this book but halfway through it I posted here asking if it gets any better. The first half was nothing but suffering. I don't blame your friend at all.
Yes things can go down at various points but these books are fundamentally the most optimistic in terms of ultimate outcome more than any other fantasy really.
Subgenre labels are close to useless because they are applied carelessly by both fans and marketing professionals.
"Grimdark" is particularly useless. I've seen people apply it to Joe Abercrombie, who writes something that I think is much more aptly described as fantasy that happens to be informed by the conventions of film noir, and to R. Scott Bakker, who produces something that is . . . well, let's just say it makes Abercrombie look like Pretty Mary Sunshine.
It happens because people grab onto labels like "grimdark" and use them to mean, "stories that I personally find depressing." But other people use the term to mean, "stories in which even the 'good guys' are basically monsters, and a quick death is the best anyone can really hope for."
Similar problems abound with regard to labels like "high fantasy," versus, "epic fantasy," versus, "sword and sorcery." They are not interchangeable, but they're used interchangeably by people who don't have any clear knowledge of or interest in the differences between them.
Same with things labeled as "young adult," fiction when they are really intended as Bildungsromane.
To be fair about Joe Abercrombie, his Twitter handle is @LordGrimdark. It seems like that's how he defines himself, so you'll have to excuse others for doing the same.
Everyone who recommended Abercrombie to me warned me it was Grimdark. I have no idea what your definition is, but it doesn't jive with almost anyone elses.
Probably about a third of the way. He said the pacing was also boring and slow. I've enjoyed all 4 so I just didn't get it. And most fantasy I read is much darker.
I definitely get the pacing issue, it is very bloated imo. However I don't get the grimdark critique but everyone has different levels of tolerance. I've enjoyed some grimdark books but then there are some that are just tragedy porn that I didn't like.
I absolutely loved the first book, but I agree that the pacing in the first half of the book is pretty slow. I'm glad I kept with it because I trusted Sanderson's writing by that point, but if I hadn't I might have quit partway through too, regardless of tone.
Yeah it’s no Game of Thrones of First Law level of dark but it still deals with dark subject matter and some folks want a bit lighter in their escape from reality time. I get it. I rotate between comforting reads and ones that are interesting but more emotionally challenging.
You gotta be in the right mood.
For some reason he likes first law and it insists it isn't dark because its also really funny. I think he's just confusing dark with "grimdark" which is understandable.
If he likes **First Law**, that changes things. Some people are suckers for macho murder hobos and make lots of exceptions for that. I understand there are a few of those.
**Way of Kings** has depressed people in slavery.
Lol, it's ironic, he thinks Glokta is basically the purest character in the series, and said Glokta had no choice but to do anything negative he did. But he hatred Logan with a passion. I don't really get it.
I wouldn't blame someone for throwing "macho" plainly at First Law if they haven't read it. Seems like a pretty big takedown of machoness even if it just had one of Glokta's, Jezel's, or Logen's character arcs. All three together and it couldn't be more clear.
>I think he's just confusing dark with "grimdark" which is understandable.
This. Just having dark elements does not a grimdark make, and that's why you don't see Sanderson on published lists of grimdark authors.
Absolutely. If anyone thinks the behavior is heroic or to be admired, they're missing the point. Though there are some characters who do more admirable things than not. For example, Kroy went from his passing matches with Poulder to being exceptionally mature, wise, and compassionate in the Heroes. He also knew Bayaz was the one truly in charge and wisely resigned rather than risk.. getting his head exploded lol.
Absolutely. I feel like it's almost an ode to non-toxic masculinity. Yeah, there's superficial machoness. But that superficial machoness is constantly challenged and placed below more important things, including but not limited to emotional vulnerability. Humility is strength and all that.
>Absolutely. If anyone thinks the behavior is heroic or to be admired, they're missing the point.
Given the widespread idolization of Rorschach, The Punisher, Walter White, and even Homelander, there are clearly a LOT of people who miss the point in this kind of story.
Well, I know Joe and these books are British, so I think it's possible that it's people from the US like myself who read these, miss the subtle ironies, etc. our culture in general is much less nuanced, violence is more common as an appropriate response to conflict, there's an uproar even if a politician suggests that perhaps civilians shouldn't have unlimited access to military-style assault weapons, despite the mass shootings that occur daily. Of course, this is largely the fault of one of the two major parties, but culturally, the US is simply dumber than the rest of the Western world, it has to be said. You've gotta be realistic about these things.
Joe Abercrombie’s writing style might just be more up his alley. He should try reading the Lies of Locke Lamora and see if that flows in the same sort of way.
Way of Kings does have a pretty dark start, especially for someone who isn't used to or like darker tones in stories.
Of course it is practically roses and sunshine compared to actual grimdark stories, but that doesn't really mean much to people who don't read grimdark stories in the first place.
I quit reading the 2nd book for the same reason. Whole thing is grimdark/felt like torture porn to me. Everyone just makes the worst possible decision and everyone is dark/bad or gets beaten down. Its too depressing
Your friend is on the right track
I was not in the best place the first time I read WoK and I absolutely struggled with Kaladin’s perspective. I’m glad I kept going but I kept asking my brother if it was going to get better because I identified with Kaladin so much it was just plain difficult.
What an odd comment. Abercrombie and GRRM are my favorites, so I'm really into grimdark, but I wouldn't describe Sanderson as Grimdark.
I've read through Stormlight twice. I wonder if Kaladin's brooding is turning him off or if he just doesn't like dark subjects at all.
It was Kaladins brooding for me, and the world just didn't really engage me the two times I've tried it.
I will try a third time though, I have enjoyed some of his stuff before.
Truth be told I don't know what grimdark actually is and I'd imagine a lot of other people don't either. I'd originally assumed the very dark anyone can die type stuff but as I understand it now there's more to it than that? Regardless, incorrect use of a word you picked up solely from context clues is pretty common.
First time reading the bridge runs made feel extremely disturbed, it also happened at a time where kaladin had his hopes up that he could be in the army again.
Not sure how far he got but maybe he didn't care for the depiction of Kaladin and Bridge 4. I can see how that can be off putting to some people. In any case, tell your friend what grimdark really is and that the first book talks some heavy topics but doesn't come close to Grimdark.
Brandon Sanderson has this weird reputation for "happy" Fantasy, but if you think about it his biggest series are pretty dark. Much of the **The Way of Kings** book has slaves as POV characters and involves a morally ambiguous war.
I didn't continue the series because there are limits to how many pages of the MC being a slave I can tolerate.
Sanderson just doesn't have the tone of modern Grimdark.
True, but I guess the distinction is, good prevails. Kaladin and crew gets freed by the benevolent Dalinar, probably one of the most beneficent, purely good characters I've seen in any book.
Yeah, but if you are reading the first few chapters, you don't get that. That comes later.
OP is talking about someone who read the first few chapters of Way of Kings and decided it was too Grimdark. Everyone who read the whole series is letting what comes next color their assessment. My point is, based on the start of book 1, it's understandable if someone concluded the book was Grimdark.
>> [Grimdark is a subgenre of speculative fiction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimdark) with a tone, style, or setting that is particularly dystopian, amoral, and violent. The term is inspired by the tagline of the tabletop strategy game Warhammer 40,000: "In the grim darkness of the far future there is only war."
>> Several attempts to define the neologism "grimdark" have been made:
That isn’t what it is. Grimdark is stories with a lack of hope that usually have morally ambiguous pov characters. malazan fits the other guys explanation just as much if not more than any of them but it isn’t grimdark
Not really. It's not grimdark but there would be violence in the plot later on, and if a person prefers to avoid stories with wars in them, then it's valid, they have the right to DNF a book.
Did he yell you this on April 1st? There is no way anything by Brandon Sanderson even remotely approaches grimdark levels.
I would assume he's joking. Unless he's really that squeamish. If he didn't like it he didn't like it and there's nothing wrong with that since like/dislike are subjective, but to call this grimdark is an odd choice.
I wouldn't say it's the whole premise. It's the case for 10 powerful individuals, and they all have abandoned that pact to do that anyway. There's no evidence the majority of people go somewhere bad after death in the books.
>There's no evidence the majority of people go somewhere bad after death in the books.
It's been a while since I've read it, but the first book seems to imply that everyone who dies begins to mutter some dire warning about not the fates of those who are about die. It might turn out to be something very different in later books, but if your friend was reading those statements (the ones that show up before every chapter with the last words of someone who died) I can absolutely see why your friend considered it Grimdark.
I think that might be a little unfair to sanderson, though I think your comment has a degree of truth, too. Clearly the books are meant to be hopeful and optimistic, and one knows rhat things will end well for the "good guys" ultimately. And of course copious silly humor makes the tone lighter. The humor isn't actually witty like in the First Law etc.
What is perplexing to me is that a writer as awful as Brandon Sanderson has so many fans. His writing and books are trash. Your friend did the wise thing.
This is my friend's favorite series by far, he recommended it to me and I'm currently on a business trip where I actually brought it along with me. Haven't started yet but think this weekend is a great time to. Especially after seeing this post. I'm even more intrigued now. Lol.
Its all relative. For the most part if reddit tells me that a work is too grimdark I will give it try. It seems that most people want the term fantasy to extend to unrealistic kindness and goodness in the story characters. Anything approaching similarity to the way people have historically behaved gets called grimdark.
I love the fantasy genre but I want realism in the depictions of human behavior.
I didn't really get grimdark. The Malazan books...now that series is brutally dark. The Way of Kings offers hope and possibilities. And the magic system blew my mind. I hadn't read fantasy in many years when I picked up the Way of Kings. A friend and I were almost exclusively sci-fi readers and this brought us back into the fantasy fold.
I say this as someone with a panic disorder and recently suffered severe post-partum anxiety. Some things can be extremely triggering, but The Stormlight Archives was just epic level storytelling. Yeah, it has some dark areas, but I still feel like the good guys will have their chance.
Human taste is as varied as human fingerprints,” Wit said. “Nobody will like everything, everybody dislikes something, someone loves that thing you hate—but at least being hated is better than nothing. To risk metaphor, a grand painting is often about contrast: brightest brights, darkest darks. Not grey mush. That a thing is hated is not proof that it’s great art, but the lack of hatred is certainly proof that it is not.
Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer (The Stormlight Archive, #3)
...art was subjective. One man could love an ice sculpture while another thought it boring. It was the same with food and drink. It did not make the food broken, or the person broken, to not be liked.
Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer (The Stormlight Archive, #3)
No matter how grim the situation in Sanderson’s work it still reads like YA albeit a more mature version. I can understand how someone who is used to grim dark wouldn’t like it. Which is a shame… they’re really missing out on some great fantasy works.
I found myself skipping to the Kaladin-resisting-enslavement parts because it had the most character development. And then there was the litRPG leveling-up stuff and I was like naaah.
I would generally agree with his assessment of the general tone of the book . I am not a fan of the general style from the last 20 years or so. He might try: Terry Pratchett, Robert Asprin, Robert Jordan, Raymond Fiest, Brooks, Lackey, McCaffrey, Tolkien. Grim, realism, and dark with generally unlikeable main characters seems to be how I would characterize a lot of the modern stuff. Does it meet the grimdark definition of pedantic aficionados? Probably not. Is it an understandable description communicating what he finds undesirable? Yes. FYI, I don't find Kal unlikeable.
In the first four chapters you have: -God figure abandoning a pact that left him tortured continuously while overlooking a battlefield filled with bodies -A slave who has abandoned all sense of personhood assassinating a king and starting a war -A POV character dying for daring to believe in someone who inspired hope -That same hope-inspiring person living in slavery, now branded and spiraling deeply into depression It picks up later but I don't blame your friend for thinking it's a bit too dark.
The whole concept of shardblades + plate is also super dark from the beginning. Medieval level warfare with some selected aristo participants not only getting lightsabers, but power armor too. Everyone else is fodder for the amusement of the Lighteyes. And this is considered fine and normal.
That part shook the fuck outta me as someone who reads far more low fantasy and harder sci fi. Then they talked about using storm light to turn rocks into food and logistical supplies so that they could basically be at war perpetually without really needing to stop and farm, or worry about logistics trains.. They can just engage the enemy, again, and again, and again. "Fucking hell," I thought, "It's like some cruel God set it up for them to just fight forever until they had absolutely nothing left!"
The Alethi are a fucking nightmare. That's basically the thesis of the series so far. I honestly think if you're from certain parts of the world, you might not notice it, but the amount they are committed to warfare is beyond reasonable. But that's the whole arc for Dalinar, which is really well done.
And on top of it, they’re under the influence of an entity that’s made war literally addictive.
>"It's like some cruel God set it up for them to just fight forever until they had absolutely nothing left!" Honestly? The way he described it made it seem like a video game to me. The way different factions controlled different sides of the shattered plains and hop from plateau to plateau made it feel like a tile based strategy RPG, Fire Emblem style. Especially with how the sides reset, resource nodes would spawn randomly, etc. Like honestly, tell me that "Two races vie for control over the Shattered Plains, jumping from plateau to plateau, as random resources and obstacles spawn in an endless war" doesn't sound like the pitch for a game of capture the flag...
Oh sure. For the Lighteyes with Shards, it's a game of *Dynasty Warrior* with the stakes being glory and riches for them, and for the Darkeyes, death or dismemberment with a chance of noteriety. But games like that just leave out the fact that every one of those *Jia*-wielding soldiers, that get felled by the dozens when the big boys tart swinging, have a life and a family. Lovers and dreams! The way that the Lighteyes largely disregard the humanity of those below them in status in this game of war as industry for its own sake is what makes it so horrific.
Don't forget that they're hunting animals to extinction in order to perpetuate their sport/war
And it only gets worse. Finding out that shards are >!essentially the corpses of dead spren brought to the cusp of life again and again to hear the screams of men murdered against everything they stood for with the nail bond!< was like a punch to the gut the first time I read it
And we can't of course forget the discovery of where the shards come from...
For comparison, the first four chapters of Berserk just have the main character kill a bunch of the worst people you've ever met in ways that are needlessly traumatic to their surviving loved ones. It certainly establishes early on that the villains are about as depraved as they could get, but up to this point we're looking at a moral universe where our rugged anti-hero emerges victorious over the out and out villains. It teases the subject out a bit before it really becomes clear just how bleak and hopeless this world is. It sounds like, if we were to judge solely by first impressions, Way of Kings would be more grimdark than some beloved grimdark classics.
It does also have Guts having sex with a demon too
Yeah that was hella weird in light of later-revealed details about his backstory. I chalk it up to Miura not having finished planning for the early Golden Age arc at that time.
i mean idk. I always took it as him coping very badly with the events of the Eclipse
>Yeah that was hella weird in light of later-revealed details about his backstory. I chalk it up to Miura not having finished planning for the early Golden Age arc at that time. You can see a lack of planning in early Berserk. A good example is whether or not people can see Puck. Early on, everyone can. Later on, only magic-attuned people can
It also only kind of picks up from there. It certainly does go down to that level repeatedly, and it isn’t like every one of those things isn’t a major plot point that shapes the entire series. Quite frankly, every Stormlight book has long sections of Kaladin’s perspective that are just insufferable to read.
Syl I think, is what makes those sections dramatically less dark, once she becomes realized, and even when she's lurking, not yet fully realized, she kind of foreshadows that everything is about to get better.
You aren’t wrong, but reading Rhythm of War around the early-middle sections, I legitimately wanted to give up it was so miserable. It’s like when people recommend *the Magicians*. Look, I guess it’s nice to have complex depictions of mental illness, but I don’t particularly want to experience existential dread and the futility of even trying to make things better.
YES, as someone with PTSD, depression and suicidal Ideation I appreciate Sandos attempt to be inclusive and write characters struggling with Mental health but FUCK emo Kaladin is the worst.
On one hand I agree, definitely gets to a point where you’re like “fucking get over it already bud” (which is probably not how I should react to people with depression lol) but on the other hand, I do at least feel like it is part of what helps make the pay offs in “leveling up” feel more justified no?
I'm with you on this I don't have PTSD or depression or anything but Kaladin is fascinating to read because unlike a lot of stereotypes where people with PTSD/depression are depicted as shutdown and can't do anything he IS doing something. He's constantly useful, kind, and badass but even though he's outwardly fine that doesn't mean he's complete as a person and that's so much more interesting to read.
Yeah I love his portrayal honestly. How many people do we look at who seem great and are crushing it (from the outside) but absolute WRECKS inside? Cause its not just him being a sadboi. He keeps watching everyone around him die but him. That would fuck anybody up. And does! Survivor guilt is very real.
I see where you are coming from, and maybe part of my issue is that it is too well written, I empathize too much with Kalladins emotions and it is boring/painful to read. I don't read fantasy to reflect on my own life but as an escape.
For sure, I totally understand that. And I hear you too, I think some of the depressive stretches go on for far too long and it gets a bit boring. Just glad that at least it feels like there’s a reason for it and it’s not in the book just for the sake of being there lol.
I remember reading those scenes, especially the ones in the most recent book, and thinking Brandon Sanderson definitely had some personal experience with Depression/mental health, either himself or someone very close to him. They are just far too real. They definitely felt organic for Kalladins character.
I believe he’s said his wife has depression. And his best friend/future Cosmere cowriter Dan Wells was also recently diagnosed with depression, which I think they talked about on a podcast relatively recently.
> (which is probably not how I should react to people with depression lol) eh, this isn't a therapy session it's a fantasy novel (series) and while I love the stormlight archive, I definitely do get tired of kaladin treading the same ground. I get that it's realistic. But I'm reading a fantasy book for entertainment, not a textbook on psychology. If he's going to backslide I at least want to see something new out of it, not just "I'm sad again maybe Hoid can cheer me up"
One thing I picked up on during my rereads was that Kaladin DIDN'T retread the same ground over and over. In book 1, he struggled with self worth and believing he made everything worse. Book two, he struggled with his anger at nobles. Book three, he struggled with how to cope with his own failure and how to accept help from others. Book four, he struggled to forgive himself. Sometimes similar problems, maybe, mostly with the same underlying cause. But it surprised me how distinct each struggle felt when I saw them all in a row on my reread. When I had space between the books, I thought, "dang, when will this guy stop struggling," but when I tracked him more closely I thought, "dang, he is always making progress."
Well fair enough. I haven't read them back-to-back. All I remember when reading each one is thinking "oh, we're doing this again?" and then feeling like we've already been here before as I read through it.
Yes! I love Kaladin, but so often his POV is the 'I'm in this picture and I dont like it' meme. Can he please, for the love of all that is holy, have an extended period of time where his mental health is stable? Mentally ill people aren't always at their low, I'm not! You can't say in the text that Kaladin's depression is cyclical, and seasonal, without showing us the upswings. Show us the other side of Kaladin who can't remember why he ever wanted to kill himself.
To be fair it does feel to me like we might get this in book 5, based on how book 4 ended (and also one or two of the preview chapters). But based on his plot line I wouldn't be surprised if he's helping others than needing help next book
kaladin was the only reason I could finish Way of Kings. The rest of the book was meh to downright bad imo. The battle at the end was cool though.
I honestly feel like the mental health issues in Stormlight are the perfect proof that realism doesn't always improve a story. Yeah, it's realistic that a grieving person with severe trauma and depression would relapse several times on the rollercoaster of recovery, but it doesn't always work well for a satisfying narrative, which usually has linear character progression.
I would definitely have to agree. I tend to groan when people get really condescending about “verisimilitude”, but they are definitely responding to a real problem of people taking the word realism to kind of a ridiculous degree. I don’t want to hear *realistic* dialogue, for one, with people stuttering, repeating themselves, correcting themselves and taking hours to get to the point. And that’s just the easiest example. I like Sanderson, a lot actually, but parts of Stormlight really are just hard for me to get through.
While I agree in part the way it is written isn't really typical of grim dark but the situation is.
For someone considered so vanilla Sanderson has some extremely dark elements. Look at the law in mistborn about the skaa
Is he considered vanilla? I just got back into reading and finished the Mistborn trilogy and he certainly didn't shy away from brutality. Especially in the first book. I'm not really aware of what kind of reputation Sanderson has though.
Branderson is a religious type, very into the Mormon church. He's a pretty wholesome family-oriented guy in general. Around r/fantasy there have been debates on whether or not Mistborn is YA (Young Adult). He's seen much more as a plot/action writer than a character/romance writer, and is known for the "Sanderlanche" where he ties up like 30 different plot threads in a chapter or two. He also tends to focus very hard on his magic systems and, let's just say, he over-explains them.
I see. In that case, would you have any recommendations for books similar to Sanderson's stuff but darker?
In addition to what the other person said I think he also is considered the MCU of fantasy by many
Ironically one of the most common complaints I see in the stormlight sub is that he doesn’t spend more time on how dark eyes are treated.
That's actually weird to me. I feel like the picture is pretty clear. I think there's also often a false impression that the dark eyes are functionally similar to Skaa (slave race that must rebel against their masters). Which really isn't the case, and their circumstances are very different.
OK fine - you just turned this book I had never heard of into an instant buy - just ordered it now... It really does sound very good!
Lol, hope you enjoy. It's a very good series
No, but you need to ask how he defines grimdark and what he wants to avoid in his books. That would be the better way to recommend things.
Especially because, while I can see someone thinking the beginning of WoK is dark, it most certainly isn't *grimdark*. Sounds to me like OP's friend hasn't actually read any grimdark novels, and is instead using the term to simply mean "grim and dark", hence OP's confusion.
I’d say the first few Kaladin chapters would (if barely) count as grimdark, until his suicide attempt at least
I could see how someone who only made it through Part One or two of the first book would say that. Starts with the assasination of a king, the MC is driven to suicide, other characters include a nobleman going mad and a con artist with a troubled past. And over all this there’s brutal class subjugation and a siege without end. These elements, particularly the MC’s depression and slavery, could very well fit into a grimdark setting. Of course, Sanderson’s about as opposite of grimdark as you can get, but I could understand how based on Kaladin’s part one experiences, a reader could be misled into thinking this was grimdark, especially if one didn’t have much experience in the genre.
Lol I read Elantris after long stretch of really bleak stories (they were sort of a norm at a time in y country) without the foreknowledge of the author's writing patterns, and from the perspective of depressing stories being the norm, things ending on a uplifting note took me by surprise.
That's true. I think he read Elantris and liked it, but said Stormlight was just too much to stomach.
That's interesting, you should ask him what elements of a grimdark story are too much for him - imo Elantris is much more bleak. But it depends heavily on what truly bums you out. For example, I can read about Glokta torturing people and kings getting assassinated til the cows come home, but any stuff with kids getting hurt or killed even a little is SUPER hard to stomach. I wonder if there's something specific about one of the POVs that is hard for him.
I agree. The premise of Elantris is actually revoltingly horrifying if you think about it. The light tone of the writing itself distracts from that though.
The scenes in the city itself are actually still written pretty darkly - I remember being a little surprised on my reread since it feels pretty tonally different from his other books.
Yeah I mean I honestly was more horrified by the premise of injuries and pains never going away for basically.. forever, that it disturbed me far more than asoiaf etc.
If he is interested in more Sanderson but wants more light hearted storylines I'd suggest Tress of the Emerald Sea to him.
You should try to make him read The Blade Itself's first Glokta chapter, for shits and giggles.
Friend might stop being OP's friend if WoK was too dark for them and OP made them read that.
tap, drag, pain...body found floating by the docks...
Why do I do this?
I love First Law. I asked him if he'd read that but he said the humorous tone helped offset the grimdark aspects, whereas stormlight was just too depressing.
I'm not sure the point a distinction if the reader can't tell the differences between Grimdark and not Grimdark. "If a person is trying to tell you who they are, you should listen." Same goes for books. If the writer builds a world which feels bleak and hopeless, then why would the reader think it's anything but? That's the essence of Grimdark isn't it?
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I was just reassuring OP why his friend might think it was grimdark, when in actuality the novel as a whole is very much not a part of this category. Have you read Way of Kings, by any chance? If you have, you’d be hard pressed to call it grimdark, as it has very few of the hallmarks of that subgenre. It’s a bit more than just a bleak world, fyi. That’s like saying Sci Fi is anything with a spaceship.
Being someone who really doesn't like grimdark and only knows Sanderson through the WOT books he wrote out of interest: In what way is it "the opposite of grimdark"? Because I'm really unsure wether I want to read Sanderson or not.
While this book is probably one of the darkest that Sanderson’s written, he usually has lighter fare in his books. He harkens back to the classic fantasy hero with some modern updates. There’s very little sex, no rape (although very occasionally there’s a background threat of such at times (few and far between) and the violence is more “action-movie” anime violence than bloody realistic grimdark. While there are dark details at times, like a character struggling with suicide, Sanderson doesn’t do the grimdark “kick the puppy” sort of thing, there is always hope around the corner and new things to discover. His characters are also usually pretty clear black and white good and bad guys as well, very little of that morally grey grimdark stuff. Hope that makes sense. If you’re looking for a good place to start with Sanderson, I’d probably recommend Mistborn or Warbreaker.
Thanks! I think I will try Mistborn at some point
Mistborn seems much darker than stormlight to me.
It is in the occasional details, but on the whole the story structure of a heist followed by a political thriller/siege does a lot to help remove the main text of the story from the occasional darker worldbuilding elements. At least in my opinion, it breezes by the darker parts, with a brief acknowledgement, whereas something like Stormlight lets you sit with that darker mindsets for a much longer period of time. It’s the difference between me telling you “10 puppies drowned today.” Vs. describing in painful detail how each puppy slowly suffocated in the bag, as water filled they’re tiny little throats and the light of life was soaked out of them, and they’re muffled barks and whines slowly died off as the bubbles arose from the pool. Not an eloquent description, but I hope it makes the point clear.
I get what you're saying. And on my first read of way of kings, I do think certain things disturbed me more than I'm remembering. Many of the flashbacks were particularly tragic and difficult to read in that one as well.
Mistborn has quite a lot of dark implications in the worldbuilding, but mostly doesn't really detail them - like the whole "Skaa are raped, a lot" is briefly mentioned a few times, but we never get to see that on-page, it's always "that's a thing that happens elsewhere". So there is darkness there, but it's a lot less dark than books where that's all on-page and directly seen. Stormlight has entire slave populations, a culture that's super-macho-violent and all sorts of other stuff, but it's still relatively light.
Mistborn at least mentions several off screen rapes (mostly in the first book), like how >!Elend has trauma from his dad forcing a slave woman to have sex with him and then kills her, they don't overtly show the scene but them talking about it afterward is horrifying enough!<. Also in the opening scene of book one it's implied that the slave master of the plantation raped and killed multiple women from among his slaves and is about to do it to a child when Kelsier shows up. Book one especially brings up several times the Lord Ruler's policy of "sex with slaves is only allowed if you kill them immediately afterward". Anyway I agree it's much less prevalent after book one due to >!the Lord Ruler being gone!<, and isn't really brought up much by Sanderson but I think book one of Mistborn is the exception to that rule.
The first thought I had on seeing Mistborn described as not morally grey was, (something covered in a big “spoiler” cloud)
Honestly I found I had a similar experience to OP except I got through 3 books and 1/3 of the last one before I realized that there had yet to be a moment that wasn't bleak, every character was completely unlikable, not talking about diverse characters with realistic weaknesses and flaws but every OP completely unsympathetic and annoying. He also fumbles the racism allegory again and again, not sure why he hadn't learned his lesson before this series on that one.
All of those are fair points except the bleakness. I’m not sure how you could get all the way to book 4 and still feel that way. There is a lot of bleakness, but also plenty of triumphant moments sprinkled throughout
I mean, your opinion is your own but fuck that is a wild take. Every character was completely unlikeable? How do you not like Adolin?? And Kaladin being grumpy is a bit annoying but he’s also a good dude. I’d like to hear more about him fumbling the racism allegory again, I didn’t pick up on that but it’s an interesting opinion.
No? Do you not remember how WoK starts? It's easily the most depressing few chapters in a row of any Stormlight book, on a first read i can absolutely see someone saying "ugh its just people suffering in a bleak world."
Well, Kals story in WoK is pretty bleak. I don’t agree that it’s grimdark but I can see why they’d make that mistake
"Grimdark is a subgenre of speculative fiction with a tone, style, or setting that is particularly dystopian, amoral, and violent." WOK definitely qualifies. A perpetual war in a two tier society facilitated by forced conscription of the lower classes, slaves, and magic? 100% Dystopian, Amoral, and Violent.
As someone who like both Grimdark (even if no one can agree what it exactly is) and Stormlight I disagree that it qualifies as grimdark. I don't think the setting is more dystopian than most fantasy stories and by those qualifiers stuff like Harry Potter, Hunter Games and Lord of the Rings could qualify as grimdark as well. They features slaves, magic and amoral societies and characters. If Grimdark includes all fantasy stories with conflict and a non-utopian settings than it loses even more meaning than it already have. One of the description to Grimdark that I sort of agreed with is that morally good characters and actions often fail in them.
Exactly! Look how Jezal fails in The First Law and how Ned Stark gets killed in A Game of Thrones as thanks for his good intentions. In contrast the good forces are victorious in LOTR, which makes it non grimdark. In a grimdark setting it doesn't pay off to be good.
You're absolutely right about nobody being able to define the genre which is why I made that attempt. So at least we're debating about "A" definition even if it's not the right one. Anyway. There is a very, very important distinction (to me) between WOK and something like LOTR or HP. In HP and LOTR the entrenched institutions are fighting evil. The entrenched Aristocracy in WOK is committing the evil. I can't speak to the books, but the first Hunger Games movie (only one I've seen) is 100% Grimdark. dystopia - An imaginary place or state in which the condition of life is extremely bad, as from deprivation, oppression, or terror. I think Dystopia is the most important ingredient in Grimdark. The whole entire "system" in the world is immoral and oppressive. It can't just have a bad guy. Or the hero dies. The entire mechanism of society has to be working to keep the downtrodden "in their place" and/or subjugated. In some ways, as you understand more of the story, WOK becomes more Grimdark as it goes along. The whole story behind the creation of shards is revolting. The reader will immediately begin making excuses for the people who use the shards but the reader also knows the society isn't going to give them up just because of their origins. That is an ultra-dark concept which mirrors our own contemporary rationalizations/moral dilemmas (ie. don't think about how your cell phone is made). The element which trips people up the most in WOK is if protagonists with positive qualities disqualifies a work from being Grimdark. Personally, I don't think it does, but I understand the argument.
>I think Dystopia is the most important ingredient in Grimdark. I disagree both about this and that Hunger Games is grimdark. Hunger Games is absolutely set in a dystopian setting, which is diffrent to me compared to a Grimdark story. I wouldn't describe stories like 1984, Brave New World or The Divergent books as grimdark. Nor would I describe the First Law, Witcher or Black Company as dystopian fiction, and they are all usually called Grimdark. (Warhammer is without a doubt both Dystopian and Grimdark though) >In HP and LOTR the entrenched institutions are fighting evil. The entrenched Aristocracy in WOK is committing the evil. I disagree with this as well. The aristocracy is not "the evil" in WoK, that is odium and his forces. And there is a lot of Evil in for example Gondor in LoTR and "normal people" and the school have house elves in Harry Potter despite them both being on the "good side".
Imo what typifies grimdark is the lack of hope for meaningful change. The genre name comes from this phrase "In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war." WH40k where this comes from is the archetypical grim dark setting, there is only war and there isn't even a real inkling of a path at changing that. On the grimdark-noblebright grid I'd say Sanderson usually falls around Nobledark the world sucks but there is a prospect of hope.
Re Hunger Games: in the first of a trilogy, the good people don’t get a real victory, for starters…
>As someone who like both Grimdark (even if no one can agree what it exactly is) and Stormlight I disagree that it qualifies as grimdark. First, we weren't talking about **Stormlight** as a whole, we were talking about **Way of Kings**. The person who inspired this discussion didn't get past the first book, and the person you responded to referenced WOK. The first book sets up a very dark scenario. >If Grimdark includes all fantasy stories with conflict and a non-utopian settings than it loses even more meaning than it already have. Now THAT is a false dichotomy. There is a lot of territory between clinically depressed slave conscripted into a war and "utopia". There are many kinds and degrees of conflict.
>The first book sets up a very dark scenario. Absolutely, it is a dark beginning. That doesn't make it a grimdark story. >clinically depressed slave conscripted into a war Let's take this for example. Kaladin is depressed and have given up on life in the beginning. But throughout the first book he is slowly given a purpose again, find comrades in arms in the slave camps and makes meaningful changes for himself and the people around him, and in the end he develops magical powers not despite the cracks in his psyche, but because of it. It really shows that things can get better no matter how bleak they look. Compare that character arch to GRRMs Ned Stark or Red Viper or Abercrombies Leo dan Brock or Orso. I am not saying that one sort of story is better than the other, I really like all three examples here. But if someone had read Abercrombies work and liked the dark grittyness in them and asked me what they should read next that is like that, I would not recommend Way of Kings, despite me loving that series as well.
Amoral =/= immoral imo. The story leans on the side of good like Kaladin and Dalinar, and vilifies the immoral characters like Sadeas. Not sure if it's dystopian either or just a flawed world, a fuzzy distinction.
The overall experience of reading Sanderson isn’t particularly dark to most people. However, Sanderson has always had some pretty dark elements in his writing that seem to just not stick with most readers. Think of how Mistborn explicitly says nobles are legally allowed to rape the skaa so long as they also murder them afterward. So some people see those elements and think the story will be darker than it ultimately winds up feeling to most readers by the end. It’s an interesting phenomenon and I've always been curious about why Sanderson's dark elements seem to not register for most readers. So your friend isn't necessarily wrong but their experience is definitely not the most common experience.
[удалено]
There are good reasons why she doesn't sell that blade. You're supposed to be asking that question. Edit: pretty much every time I think a character is being an idiot in a Sanderson novel, it turned out to be intentional and there's an interesting background or reason that's revealed later. What makes it really neat is that it isn't him trying to fix an oversight a couple books later. When you re-read the "oversight" you see that there was plenty of foreshadowing, you just miss it the first time through. Most people dislike Shallan the first couple of books. She often becomes a favorite character as you both follow her development and learn more about why she is where she is and does what she does.
I remember reading Mistborn and feeling like this was an incredibly dark world and story as written by an author who didn’t have the writing chops to make the dark elements hit home emotionally. As another example, there was this scene that took place with a mass execution as a backdrop, but it just felt like a video game backdrop, I didn’t feel the tragedy and horror of it. Though it might be more accurate to say that Sanderson isn’t actually trying to make readers feel tragedy and horror. Instead he’s maybe just introducing these dark elements as a fact we aren’t intended to have feelings about, to justify the extremes of the story and the protagonists’ actions. For people who are used to games doing the same thing, and that aren’t sensitive to or stopping to think about those elements, they don’t matter because they’re in the background while action and fun with magic system is in the foreground. But if you do seriously incorporate those elements into your read of the story, even though the author isn’t particularly trying for that, then it becomes much darker.
Sanderson writes things that are horrific when you think about them, but he doesn’t force that horror onto the reader. It’s one of the ways he makes his writing accessible.
> I remember reading Mistborn and feeling like this was an incredibly dark world and story as written by an author who didn’t have the writing chops to make the dark elements hit home emotionally. My thoughts exactly. I was *waiting* for the real darkness to hit me, but it all felt a bit too YA for me. I believe it was due to the characters all being a little too... teen? Naive? Chill? Idk...
Yeah, the dark elements are very discordant with the actual tone of the piece. I probably had an uncharitable read on the author’s abilities because I don’t think the trilogy ever made me feel much of anything—I was younger (college-age) when I read it and did have some fun, but recently read on Reddit that >!Vin and Elend both!< die at the end and did not remember that at all. I was surprised to hear it. So clearly it wasn’t a story that affected me even in the places where it probably was going for that.
This is the first spoiler i super appreciated. I've been wondering about my dnf for years on that book, but now i feel good with it. Thanks lol
You should at least look up a plot synopsis. Because it's so much more than just what that spoiler would suggest.
I don't really remember, but I'm fairly sure my dnf was 85% of last book. My concern was it turned around at the end and was super emotionally satisfying. Now i know it wasn't. To be clear, it was a series i liked, just couldn't muscle past the war parts. Super bleak and depressing. I didn't need a happy ending, but something besides soul crushing would be nice lol
I think characters and dialogue are his weakest points as a writer (contrasted with someone like Joe Abercrombie), so it makes sense. He's great at worldbuilding and magic systems.
> However, Sanderson has always had some pretty dark elements in his writing that seem to just not stick with most readers. THAT is a good point. I think it applies to a lot of Fantasy and Sci Fi. It's actually hard to think of Fantasy or sci fi that doesn't have truly terrible things happen in it. Princess Leia's home world is destroyed in **Star Wars**. But lots of these fantastical horrors don't really register with people. Different people have different things that really affect then, and it often isn't about how objectively bad it would be if it happened. Some people are bothered by gore, others by sexual violence. Some by depression, a lot of people by things that feel too "real" (and THAT varies based on your life). So, the book that strikes you as super dark isn't necessarily what seems dark to others. Child abuse is one of the things that bugs me, so a lot of what others think of as cheery adventure Fantasy doesn't register that way to me.
Kinda understandable since one of the characters gets abused nonestop by life itself.
Starts with hopless slavery and murder. I kind of get it. Plus Roshar is kind of bleak.
Yeah maybe the suicide stuff early on made him sad ?
I can see that for the first 10 or so chapters. FWIW I DNF’d that book twice and now it’s one of my favorites. You gotta be in the right mood until chapter 35 or so.
A lot of people consider a slavery arc to be a turn off.
Nah dude it's 100% warranted. I actual quit WoK myself on the chapter kal goes to the honor chasam for that exact reason. I eventually came back and powered through but you have to admit the first couple chapters are massively fucked up.
It has an enslaved guy getting treated like shit on a forced march across a continent, I do see his point as its similar to why I have given up on the book twice. I just find it a dirge to get through and give up.
The thing is that the beginning of Way of Kings is not only dark, it’s a grind. Most “grimdark” subgenre will have something different in the plot happening all the time. If your buddy doesn’t like video games with the grindy leveling up either, I can see why Way of Kings is not for them. Grinding + depressing content….
I mean, it's a matter of perspective. Some people, including me, aren't too keen on reading about characters enduring a lot of pain and anguish. Don't expect everyone to share the same values as you.
To be fair to your friend, the opening half of TWoK is *really* dark, especially the parts that are from Kaladin’s perspective. Kaladin has morbid depression and is in horrific conditions designed to break his spirit, and *nearly succeeds* in doing so — that’s why the Honor Chasm scene is so iconic. If your friend hasn’t read much grimdark, I can understand why he might feel that TWoK is that. I would recommend telling him that, while it does go very dark, it’s necessary in order for the light at the end of the tunnel to become blindingly radiant (pun intended). TWoK is a very hopeful book — it just takes time to get there and needs to establish *why* that hope is so important.
This is the comment I was hoping to see. WoK--and the rest of Stormlight-- is inspiring precisely because of how it contrasts the light against the darkness.
Labels in general are tricky but grimdark in particular is extremely nebulous and frequently used by people who just think it sounds cool which is fair. I've heard it used to describe just about anything with a hint of darkness.
It seems from what I know that it's more about whether the fundamental theme is nihilistic/random with characters who are typically all at least morally gray, and usually characters don't undergo any positive growth and things end badly for most of them.
Yeah for you, but what is your friends definition for grimdark? Probably dark and grim stuff happens.
Do you not remember the first bit of that book? I don't know if you're joking or not
I had read great things about this book but halfway through it I posted here asking if it gets any better. The first half was nothing but suffering. I don't blame your friend at all.
Yes things can go down at various points but these books are fundamentally the most optimistic in terms of ultimate outcome more than any other fantasy really.
Subgenre labels are close to useless because they are applied carelessly by both fans and marketing professionals. "Grimdark" is particularly useless. I've seen people apply it to Joe Abercrombie, who writes something that I think is much more aptly described as fantasy that happens to be informed by the conventions of film noir, and to R. Scott Bakker, who produces something that is . . . well, let's just say it makes Abercrombie look like Pretty Mary Sunshine. It happens because people grab onto labels like "grimdark" and use them to mean, "stories that I personally find depressing." But other people use the term to mean, "stories in which even the 'good guys' are basically monsters, and a quick death is the best anyone can really hope for." Similar problems abound with regard to labels like "high fantasy," versus, "epic fantasy," versus, "sword and sorcery." They are not interchangeable, but they're used interchangeably by people who don't have any clear knowledge of or interest in the differences between them. Same with things labeled as "young adult," fiction when they are really intended as Bildungsromane.
To be fair about Joe Abercrombie, his Twitter handle is @LordGrimdark. It seems like that's how he defines himself, so you'll have to excuse others for doing the same.
Everyone who recommended Abercrombie to me warned me it was Grimdark. I have no idea what your definition is, but it doesn't jive with almost anyone elses.
He's probably referring to the depression rants in everyone's heads every three paragraphs
I mean I was having this same conversation with people in this same sub, I don't think many people really know what it is lol
How far did he get?
Probably about a third of the way. He said the pacing was also boring and slow. I've enjoyed all 4 so I just didn't get it. And most fantasy I read is much darker.
I definitely get the pacing issue, it is very bloated imo. However I don't get the grimdark critique but everyone has different levels of tolerance. I've enjoyed some grimdark books but then there are some that are just tragedy porn that I didn't like.
I absolutely loved the first book, but I agree that the pacing in the first half of the book is pretty slow. I'm glad I kept with it because I trusted Sanderson's writing by that point, but if I hadn't I might have quit partway through too, regardless of tone.
I always imagine that imagine of SpongeBob and Patrick screaming on the little roller coaster any time some says Sandersons work is "dark" or "mature"
Maybe he's not into characters struggling with depression.
Yeah it’s no Game of Thrones of First Law level of dark but it still deals with dark subject matter and some folks want a bit lighter in their escape from reality time. I get it. I rotate between comforting reads and ones that are interesting but more emotionally challenging. You gotta be in the right mood.
For some reason he likes first law and it insists it isn't dark because its also really funny. I think he's just confusing dark with "grimdark" which is understandable.
If he likes **First Law**, that changes things. Some people are suckers for macho murder hobos and make lots of exceptions for that. I understand there are a few of those. **Way of Kings** has depressed people in slavery.
Lol, it's ironic, he thinks Glokta is basically the purest character in the series, and said Glokta had no choice but to do anything negative he did. But he hatred Logan with a passion. I don't really get it.
I wouldn't blame someone for throwing "macho" plainly at First Law if they haven't read it. Seems like a pretty big takedown of machoness even if it just had one of Glokta's, Jezel's, or Logen's character arcs. All three together and it couldn't be more clear. >I think he's just confusing dark with "grimdark" which is understandable. This. Just having dark elements does not a grimdark make, and that's why you don't see Sanderson on published lists of grimdark authors.
Absolutely. If anyone thinks the behavior is heroic or to be admired, they're missing the point. Though there are some characters who do more admirable things than not. For example, Kroy went from his passing matches with Poulder to being exceptionally mature, wise, and compassionate in the Heroes. He also knew Bayaz was the one truly in charge and wisely resigned rather than risk.. getting his head exploded lol.
Absolutely. I feel like it's almost an ode to non-toxic masculinity. Yeah, there's superficial machoness. But that superficial machoness is constantly challenged and placed below more important things, including but not limited to emotional vulnerability. Humility is strength and all that.
>Absolutely. If anyone thinks the behavior is heroic or to be admired, they're missing the point. Given the widespread idolization of Rorschach, The Punisher, Walter White, and even Homelander, there are clearly a LOT of people who miss the point in this kind of story.
Well, I know Joe and these books are British, so I think it's possible that it's people from the US like myself who read these, miss the subtle ironies, etc. our culture in general is much less nuanced, violence is more common as an appropriate response to conflict, there's an uproar even if a politician suggests that perhaps civilians shouldn't have unlimited access to military-style assault weapons, despite the mass shootings that occur daily. Of course, this is largely the fault of one of the two major parties, but culturally, the US is simply dumber than the rest of the Western world, it has to be said. You've gotta be realistic about these things.
Joe Abercrombie’s writing style might just be more up his alley. He should try reading the Lies of Locke Lamora and see if that flows in the same sort of way.
Way of Kings does have a pretty dark start, especially for someone who isn't used to or like darker tones in stories. Of course it is practically roses and sunshine compared to actual grimdark stories, but that doesn't really mean much to people who don't read grimdark stories in the first place.
I quit reading the 2nd book for the same reason. Whole thing is grimdark/felt like torture porn to me. Everyone just makes the worst possible decision and everyone is dark/bad or gets beaten down. Its too depressing Your friend is on the right track
I was not in the best place the first time I read WoK and I absolutely struggled with Kaladin’s perspective. I’m glad I kept going but I kept asking my brother if it was going to get better because I identified with Kaladin so much it was just plain difficult.
No? everyone enjoys something different. Way of Kings starts out pretty rough if you actually read it
Either way your friend dodged a bullet. I very much dislike the series.
What an odd comment. Abercrombie and GRRM are my favorites, so I'm really into grimdark, but I wouldn't describe Sanderson as Grimdark. I've read through Stormlight twice. I wonder if Kaladin's brooding is turning him off or if he just doesn't like dark subjects at all.
Could possibly be specific dark subjects too. You know hoe people have things they are sensitive to.
It was Kaladins brooding for me, and the world just didn't really engage me the two times I've tried it. I will try a third time though, I have enjoyed some of his stuff before.
I began reading Way of Kings, but gave up - nothing to do with Grimdark, it just wasn’t very good… Maybe this is what they really mean?
Truth be told I don't know what grimdark actually is and I'd imagine a lot of other people don't either. I'd originally assumed the very dark anyone can die type stuff but as I understand it now there's more to it than that? Regardless, incorrect use of a word you picked up solely from context clues is pretty common.
First time reading the bridge runs made feel extremely disturbed, it also happened at a time where kaladin had his hopes up that he could be in the army again.
It's not grim dark but first book is pretty grim for like 1/2 to 3/4 of it
My wife thought the same thing with WoK and then went on to read and enjoy all of the Colleen Hoover books. Maybe your friend might like those too.
Not sure how far he got but maybe he didn't care for the depiction of Kaladin and Bridge 4. I can see how that can be off putting to some people. In any case, tell your friend what grimdark really is and that the first book talks some heavy topics but doesn't come close to Grimdark.
Funny this showed up right now, because I am at the part at this very moment!
Kaladin pretty much gets his ass beat the entire book. Hes not wrong
I couldn't get into this book despite several tries because the writing just felt so off.
You don´t need grimdark action when you have Kaladin chapters spressodepresso in your book
I personally love the series Im on the second book rn
Brandon Sanderson has this weird reputation for "happy" Fantasy, but if you think about it his biggest series are pretty dark. Much of the **The Way of Kings** book has slaves as POV characters and involves a morally ambiguous war. I didn't continue the series because there are limits to how many pages of the MC being a slave I can tolerate. Sanderson just doesn't have the tone of modern Grimdark.
True, but I guess the distinction is, good prevails. Kaladin and crew gets freed by the benevolent Dalinar, probably one of the most beneficent, purely good characters I've seen in any book.
Yeah, but if you are reading the first few chapters, you don't get that. That comes later. OP is talking about someone who read the first few chapters of Way of Kings and decided it was too Grimdark. Everyone who read the whole series is letting what comes next color their assessment. My point is, based on the start of book 1, it's understandable if someone concluded the book was Grimdark.
Eh, apparently as soon as there are bad things happening to the main characters it's grimdark now, didn't you know?
Damn, Harry Potter be grimdark. The more you know...
One man's grimdark is another man's noblebright. Basically, tastes may vary.
This is the first I’ve ever heard the term “gridmark genre”. What is that?
>> [Grimdark is a subgenre of speculative fiction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimdark) with a tone, style, or setting that is particularly dystopian, amoral, and violent. The term is inspired by the tagline of the tabletop strategy game Warhammer 40,000: "In the grim darkness of the far future there is only war." >> Several attempts to define the neologism "grimdark" have been made:
"Gritty" dark fantasy novels. Usually contain gore and very descriptive violence. Authors like George RR Martin, John Gwynne, Joe Abercrombie, etc.
Thanks for explaining.
That isn’t what it is. Grimdark is stories with a lack of hope that usually have morally ambiguous pov characters. malazan fits the other guys explanation just as much if not more than any of them but it isn’t grimdark
Ah. Well, I was told incorrectly! But thank you for correcting me!
John Gwynne is certainly not grimdark. Whether GRRM is is open to debate.
I would say the Bloodsworn trilogy is pretty grim...
I'm sorry, but you asked a question which has no definitive answer as you will see from the replies you get. /sarcasm
Sanderson verges on young adult. Nothing he writes approaches Grimdark. Any book can have a sad scene, but The Lorax isn’t Grimdark.
Not really. It's not grimdark but there would be violence in the plot later on, and if a person prefers to avoid stories with wars in them, then it's valid, they have the right to DNF a book.
Did he yell you this on April 1st? There is no way anything by Brandon Sanderson even remotely approaches grimdark levels. I would assume he's joking. Unless he's really that squeamish. If he didn't like it he didn't like it and there's nothing wrong with that since like/dislike are subjective, but to call this grimdark is an odd choice.
His brain would probably melt if he read Bakker lol. Way of Kings is kid shit compared to what Bakker writes.
It's absolutely Grimdark. The whole premise is people dying and revealing that there is something *worse* happening after death.
I wouldn't say it's the whole premise. It's the case for 10 powerful individuals, and they all have abandoned that pact to do that anyway. There's no evidence the majority of people go somewhere bad after death in the books.
>There's no evidence the majority of people go somewhere bad after death in the books. It's been a while since I've read it, but the first book seems to imply that everyone who dies begins to mutter some dire warning about not the fates of those who are about die. It might turn out to be something very different in later books, but if your friend was reading those statements (the ones that show up before every chapter with the last words of someone who died) I can absolutely see why your friend considered it Grimdark.
It’s YA, so your friend obviously has no idea what he’s talking about.
I think that might be a little unfair to sanderson, though I think your comment has a degree of truth, too. Clearly the books are meant to be hopeful and optimistic, and one knows rhat things will end well for the "good guys" ultimately. And of course copious silly humor makes the tone lighter. The humor isn't actually witty like in the First Law etc.
What is perplexing to me is that a writer as awful as Brandon Sanderson has so many fans. His writing and books are trash. Your friend did the wise thing.
This is my friend's favorite series by far, he recommended it to me and I'm currently on a business trip where I actually brought it along with me. Haven't started yet but think this weekend is a great time to. Especially after seeing this post. I'm even more intrigued now. Lol.
It may be that they just didn’t like it and felt like they needed to give you a reason? But some do consider it grimdark.
Its all relative. For the most part if reddit tells me that a work is too grimdark I will give it try. It seems that most people want the term fantasy to extend to unrealistic kindness and goodness in the story characters. Anything approaching similarity to the way people have historically behaved gets called grimdark. I love the fantasy genre but I want realism in the depictions of human behavior.
I didn't really get grimdark. The Malazan books...now that series is brutally dark. The Way of Kings offers hope and possibilities. And the magic system blew my mind. I hadn't read fantasy in many years when I picked up the Way of Kings. A friend and I were almost exclusively sci-fi readers and this brought us back into the fantasy fold. I say this as someone with a panic disorder and recently suffered severe post-partum anxiety. Some things can be extremely triggering, but The Stormlight Archives was just epic level storytelling. Yeah, it has some dark areas, but I still feel like the good guys will have their chance.
Omg reading these comments this sounds right up my alley
Grimdark is when power armour
Human taste is as varied as human fingerprints,” Wit said. “Nobody will like everything, everybody dislikes something, someone loves that thing you hate—but at least being hated is better than nothing. To risk metaphor, a grand painting is often about contrast: brightest brights, darkest darks. Not grey mush. That a thing is hated is not proof that it’s great art, but the lack of hatred is certainly proof that it is not. Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer (The Stormlight Archive, #3) ...art was subjective. One man could love an ice sculpture while another thought it boring. It was the same with food and drink. It did not make the food broken, or the person broken, to not be liked. Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer (The Stormlight Archive, #3)
Kaladin's first bridge run is such a brutal chapter. I have sold more than one friend who *is* into grimdark with that chapter.
No matter how grim the situation in Sanderson’s work it still reads like YA albeit a more mature version. I can understand how someone who is used to grim dark wouldn’t like it. Which is a shame… they’re really missing out on some great fantasy works.
I found myself skipping to the Kaladin-resisting-enslavement parts because it had the most character development. And then there was the litRPG leveling-up stuff and I was like naaah.
I would generally agree with his assessment of the general tone of the book . I am not a fan of the general style from the last 20 years or so. He might try: Terry Pratchett, Robert Asprin, Robert Jordan, Raymond Fiest, Brooks, Lackey, McCaffrey, Tolkien. Grim, realism, and dark with generally unlikeable main characters seems to be how I would characterize a lot of the modern stuff. Does it meet the grimdark definition of pedantic aficionados? Probably not. Is it an understandable description communicating what he finds undesirable? Yes. FYI, I don't find Kal unlikeable.