"Grimdark"...what it means to you

[MrDarth151]

• those authors i listed covered moral nihilism, existential nihilism or epistemological nihilism. we hadn't defined what form of nihilism you'd meant up to that point.

 

Then for the record: Existential nihilism is the one I'm talking about.

 

 

•  whether or not you'd read them all, you must have heard of them. i mean, fekking chekov. mccarthy! these guys are famoz. it suggests some sort of market for those themes.

 

I know of them, and I know roughly what topics they have covered, but since existentialism is not my speciality, I rather not speak of them without having read their works.

 

And there being a market for those themes is not in question, whatever or not they are suited for something like 40k is. Considering that writers don't really invoke nihilism in their 40k works to a substantial degree, I would say the evidence speaks for itself.

 

•  yes, satre was a big part of my degree. and yes, heavy going. but, satre was only one of a half dozen examples i mentioned.

 

It doesn't really affect my point though.

 

• you might not want to base a franchise around "teh grmdak" but its more than obvious that it works. i mean...here we are. when conceiving a franchise, what can often be more important than the moral or philosophical themes is to carve out an identity. a niche. and grimdark as a brand is immediately recognisable and distinct. as someone who has written and worked on a couple of tv franchises, i think it's a clever move.

 

Is it though? Grimdark is a background, not a brand. It isn't really needed to write a successful 40k novel, the fact that Dan Abnett exists just about proving that point.

 

• 40k isn't a fable or myth where the "eternity of torture" is part of a moral lesson or result of one's actions. what is the framework you're using to deconstruct or evaluate the premise? there's a lot of talk from you about the "moral". you're obviously university educated, what discourse are you bringing to this? what do you look for in fiction?

 

Any moral framework? I am unaware of moral theory that would make preserving humanity a worthy effort in the context of 40k.

 

As for what I look for in fiction: Meaningful conflict, mostly. Moral complexity is nice too. Which, lately, I has been feeling that 40k provides it only when I ignore fundamental themes of the franchise.

 

• lets imagine that the 40k reality is ours- we are all eternally doomed and just ignorant of it. is all of this not worth having? i mean, yes, eternal suffering but...message boards though.

 

You can never prove that in our reality, and that is what makes living meaningful. In the context of 40k there is nothing of that ambiguity, because my perception of things is not limited. I have clear and unambigious statements saying that I am wrong to interpret the themes of the franchise my way. I don't particularly hold it against writers of the franchise, because absolute freedom when it comes to themes and narrative decision on part of a writer was always part of my own beliefs, but neither am I particularly happy to be unequivocally wrong.

 

as for being bitter, i can't empathise. 40k is a bit of fun for me. weirdly enough, i find it more escapist than most other fiction. a lot of it is ridiculous, but that's what makes it great. i can't imagine picking the most shadowy corner of a room to mope over it or trying to drag others over as they wander by. but each to their own.

 

Ah, no. I'm bitter in general. Last few books from the verse I've read have been decent (Or more than decent, thank you Guy Haley and Chris Wraight), and I don't really hate the universe.

 

Mind, I feel like people mean different things from me when they say "Grimdark", so maybe I am simply unsuited to this discussion to begin with. My mind goes weird places when it comes to themes and narratives sometimes.

 

 

I think it's worth mentioning though, that throughout history and even today many people in power have not achieved their position through merit and many times people in power make very stupid decisions.

 

We don't need all our characters to be intelligent and wise and always making good decisions. What we need instead is for stupid decisions to be displayed as stupid, so we as readers can groan and say "Oh, if only you'd done the right thing!". Portraying stupid decisions as good ones (and not from an in-universe sychophantic point of view) is bad for everyone involved.

 

 

That is true. And that is why we still haven't beaten Romans when it comes to having the longest lasting empire.

 

Ironically, it is Grimdark that requires superior competence. Keeping empire of million worlds together is massive administrative task even without Chaos and external Xenos threats. With those?

 

I say that if you don't want simple human frailty to cause fractures in suspension of disbelief, don't write universe that requires supreme competence every step of the way. 

 

 

I am forthright about my interpretation of the setting being much more on the "humanity would be better off extinct than living like this" side of the scales, but I don't think MrDarth151's extremely pessimistic interpretation is supportable.

 

Human souls aren't condemned to an eternity of suffering at the hands of daemons after death; the Warp isn't like the most extreme visions of Christian Hell. The average human soul, barring any possible truth to the notion that the Emperor gathers the faithful to his breast, is torn apart upon death - but it ceases to exist sooner or later. It's only those souls that have sufficiently enraged daemons in life that get "preserved" for longer periods of torture.

 

To that, I will say this: I simply never considered that any of those souls actually ceases to exist after being torn to pieces.

 

And considering that we know for a fact that you can get those pieces back from the Daemons (Because Erebus did it, to ressurect Cyrene, remember?), I do not think I am especially wrong in my assumption.

[Ascanius]

 

To that, I will say this: I simply never considered that any of those souls actually ceases to exist after being torn to pieces.

 

And considering that we know for a fact that you can get those pieces back from the Daemons (Because Erebus did it, to ressurect Cyrene, remember?), I do not think I am especially wrong in my assumption.

 

It seems obvious to me that if something's torn to pieces, it ceases to exist.

 

As for Cyrene, or similar examples, she hadn't been dead for that long. "Persists for some time" is not the same as "exists forever"; we're not talking about a Christian notion of an eternal soul, after all. She may have also lasted for longer than normal because she was a "great soul" of cosmic significance.

 

Besides which, the gods would have foreseen the possibility of her resurrection and could have preserved her for that purpose. If Erebus can see "the ten thousand futures," or however he phrases it, the actual powers of the Warp can.

[mc warhammer]

 

• those authors i listed covered moral nihilism, existential nihilism or epistemological nihilism. we hadn't defined what form of nihilism you'd meant up to that point.

 

Then for the record: Existential nihilism is the one I'm talking about.

 

 

•  whether or not you'd read them all, you must have heard of them. i mean, fekking chekov. mccarthy! these guys are famoz. it suggests some sort of market for those themes.

 

I know of them, and I know roughly what topics they have covered, but since existentialism is not my speciality, I rather not speak of them without having read their works.

 

And there being a market for those themes is not in question, whatever or not they are suited for something like 40k is. Considering that writers don't really invoke nihilism in their 40k works to a substantial degree, I would say the evidence speaks for itself.

 

•  yes, satre was a big part of my degree. and yes, heavy going. but, satre was only one of a half dozen examples i mentioned.

 

It doesn't really affect my point though.

 

• you might not want to base a franchise around "teh grmdak" but its more than obvious that it works. i mean...here we are. when conceiving a franchise, what can often be more important than the moral or philosophical themes is to carve out an identity. a niche. and grimdark as a brand is immediately recognisable and distinct. as someone who has written and worked on a couple of tv franchises, i think it's a clever move.

 

Is it though? Grimdark is a background, not a brand. It isn't really needed to write a successful 40k novel, the fact that Dan Abnett exists just about proving that point.

 

• 40k isn't a fable or myth where the "eternity of torture" is part of a moral lesson or result of one's actions. what is the framework you're using to deconstruct or evaluate the premise? there's a lot of talk from you about the "moral". you're obviously university educated, what discourse are you bringing to this? what do you look for in fiction?

 

Any moral framework? I am unaware of moral theory that would make preserving humanity a worthy effort in the context of 40k.

 

As for what I look for in fiction: Meaningful conflict, mostly. Moral complexity is nice too. Which, lately, I has been feeling that 40k provides it only when I ignore fundamental themes of the franchise.

 

• lets imagine that the 40k reality is ours- we are all eternally doomed and just ignorant of it. is all of this not worth having? i mean, yes, eternal suffering but...message boards though.

 

You can never prove that in our reality, and that is what makes living meaningful. In the context of 40k there is nothing of that ambiguity, because my perception of things is not limited. I have clear and unambigious statements saying that I am wrong to interpret the themes of the franchise my way. I don't particularly hold it against writers of the franchise, because absolute freedom when it comes to themes and narrative decision on part of a writer was always part of my own beliefs, but neither am I particularly happy to be unequivocally wrong.

 

as for being bitter, i can't empathise. 40k is a bit of fun for me. weirdly enough, i find it more escapist than most other fiction. a lot of it is ridiculous, but that's what makes it great. i can't imagine picking the most shadowy corner of a room to mope over it or trying to drag others over as they wander by. but each to their own.

 

Ah, no. I'm bitter in general. Last few books from the verse I've read have been decent (Or more than decent, thank you Guy Haley and Chris Wraight), and I don't really hate the universe.

 

Mind, I feel like people mean different things from me when they say "Grimdark", so maybe I am simply unsuited to this discussion to begin with. My mind goes weird places when it comes to themes and narratives sometimes.

 

 

I think it's worth mentioning though, that throughout history and even today many people in power have not achieved their position through merit and many times people in power make very stupid decisions.

 

We don't need all our characters to be intelligent and wise and always making good decisions. What we need instead is for stupid decisions to be displayed as stupid, so we as readers can groan and say "Oh, if only you'd done the right thing!". Portraying stupid decisions as good ones (and not from an in-universe sychophantic point of view) is bad for everyone involved.

 

 

That is true. And that is why we still haven't beaten Romans when it comes to having the longest lasting empire.

 

Ironically, it is Grimdark that requires superior competence. Keeping empire of million worlds together is massive administrative task even without Chaos and external Xenos threats. With those?

 

I say that if you don't want simple human frailty to cause fractures in suspension of disbelief, don't write universe that requires supreme competence every step of the way. 

 

 

I am forthright about my interpretation of the setting being much more on the "humanity would be better off extinct than living like this" side of the scales, but I don't think MrDarth151's extremely pessimistic interpretation is supportable.

 

Human souls aren't condemned to an eternity of suffering at the hands of daemons after death; the Warp isn't like the most extreme visions of Christian Hell. The average human soul, barring any possible truth to the notion that the Emperor gathers the faithful to his breast, is torn apart upon death - but it ceases to exist sooner or later. It's only those souls that have sufficiently enraged daemons in life that get "preserved" for longer periods of torture.

 

To that, I will say this: I simply never considered that any of those souls actually ceases to exist after being torn to pieces.

 

And considering that we know for a fact that you can get those pieces back from the Daemons (Because Erebus did it, to ressurect Cyrene, remember?), I do not think I am especially wrong in my assumption.

 

 

 

i took your words about people not wanting to read nihilism and nihilism not being a good theme to base a franchise around in a broad context, which is why i brought up those writers, films and tv shows. if by “people” you only mean 40k readers and by “franchise” you only mean 40k, then that’s different.

 

is grimdark not part of the brand? if you want to get into the semiotics of 40k, everything from the logo to the artwork to the designs of each faction (except maybe the tau) reeks of stagnation, horror and hopelessness. get a market research focus group to describe 40k branding next to any other franchise’s and i’d bet they’d come up with something close to “grimdark”. maybe they'd call it the david avocado wolfe universe, who knows?

 

any moral framework? isn’t the amorality of existential nihilism still a framework that morality can be discussed? nietzsche saw nihilism as a process to promote humanity’s deepest self reflection and something to eventually recover from. for me, 40k provides an engrossing and extreme what if scenario and a warning rather than an inspiration (not that there aren't inspiring scenes and stories; i’m a sucker for last stands, do not go gentle, defiant to the end tropes).

 

as you point out, what we know irl is not necessarily what is and the same counts for the characters in-universe for 40k. that we as readers “objectively” know the stories are set against the backdrop of a ragnarokish finale (that we and they will never see) doesn’t invalidate their subjective stories or povs. it informs our interpretations of them, but i don't think it has this undermining effect that you do.

 

if you can easily ignore or be ignorant of that backdrop as a reader in order to enjoy the books, i’m confused as to why you can’t extend a similar courtesy to the characters in those books, the majority of whom are demonstrably ignorant of it by default.

 

and yeah, maybe all this comes down to different definitions of what grimdark is. i like exploring the idea of chaos as entropy (as inaccurate as that might be). equally, the idea of a transformed humanity under chaos is also interesting. from what you’ve said, it seems the soul munching bit is your biggest gripe; that humans won’t receive an eternal reward or sweet oblivion despite their brief struggling lives. they all end up in the same place.

 

reminds me of that joke about the guy who comes last in the olympic race, who realises as he approaches the finish line, that he could have spent the last year eating doritos and not training and still have come last…

[mc warhammer]

on the point of stretching credibility and suspension of disbelief, i sometimes reckon its as much to do with the audience's willingness to go for a ride with the author as much as it's about the author's skill at writing a credible world.

 

people who enjoyed any of the fast and furious movies after the first one were willing to trade disbelief in return for some thrills. you could argue that fans of buffy traded theirs for witty dialogue and character development (the show barely pays attention to its own internal logic and lore). the original gothic novel, castle of ortranto's entire premise was putting realistic people in totally unrealistic situations- a giant helmet falls from the sky in the first chapter and squashes some dude to death and readers took it seriously. a giant helmet. fell. killed a dude. the horror

 

i mean, we all have our breaking points as far as credibility goes, but i would rather work with what the fiction is trying to do than fight against it.

Edited November 2, 2017 by mc warhammer

[Adeptus]

as you point out, what we know irl is not necessarily what is and the same counts for the characters in-universe for 40k. that we as readers “objectively” know the stories are set against the backdrop of a ragnarokish finale (that we and they will never see) doesn’t invalidate their subjective stories or povs. it informs our interpretations of them, but i don't think it has this undermining effect that you do.

I think this is the most important take-away. We're all going to die, one way or another, but that doesn't devalue our stories, our struggles, our experiences or our journeys through life. It's the stories of the characters that are interesting, less so the stories of the factions and societies that they're from. Hollywood as an overwhelming desire for the good guys to always win, so I'm struggling to actually think of an example, but off the top of my head if Saving Private Ryan were changed so that the protagonists were German instead of American, the story would be no less poignant and moving despite the fact that 'their side' lost the war.

 

A skilled writer not only changes the definition of victory to suit his story, he makes the reader change, or at the very least question their own definition of it.

[bluntblade]

It might be less moving on account of them being Nazis, mind.

 

I can think of one recent, very popular Hollywood movie where the heroes died, and that worked very well.

[Adeptus]

It might be less moving on account of them being Nazis, mind.

 

I can think of one recent, very popular Hollywood movie where the heroes died, and that worked very well.

Ooh, I just thought of one. Valkyrie with Tom Cruise!

[mc warhammer]

 

It might be less moving on account of them being Nazis, mind.

 

I can think of one recent, very popular Hollywood movie where the heroes died, and that worked very well.

Ooh, I just thought of one. Valkyrie with Tom Cruise!

more examples :

 

no country for old men, reservoir dogs, inglorious basterds, young guns I + 2, the departed, blair witch, aliens franchise

 

were you thinking of rogue one, bluntblade?

Edited November 2, 2017 by mc warhammer

[Servant of Dante]

I really liked a couple of the posts from here, and to clarify at this point I agree what is attractive about 40K to me is the “last stand” element. The Imperium and humanity is doomed, but they fight on anyway.

 

That being said I would like to add one thing: there may be no hope for a final victory, but in any fiction is there really any guarantee that a happy ending will endure for eternity? The Imperium’s collapse has been happening ever so slowly for ever so many years, and will probably continue for many more after the “present” of the setting.

 

As long as the Imperium exists there will be countless millions that live out their lives in relative peace and die at a ripe old age. There will also of course be countless millions that die horrible bloody deaths. Some of them in defense of their fellow humans, some of them more or less senseless. To me, the hope is that just one more generation can live and die more or less in peace. Every human that dies of natural causes at an old age is a victory, every child born a new hope (well, assuming there’s a chance for said child to be raised). Isn’t that, essentially, what any society seeks to provide? Of course the Imperium fails at making the lives of ever so many comfortable in countless ways, but at its core it’s providing that chance to live to at least some, and will continue to do so for as long as possible, which is basically as much as any society can say (I’m including quality of life improvements and colonizing new places in the “continue as long as possible” category :P )

 

Anyway, that’s what I’ve been thinking about recently. The setting is devoid of hope for an eternal victory, but that doesn’t mean the Imperium’s struggle is meaningless, that it is only symbolic. I would argue that some of the things it achieves are quite real, if fleeting on a larger time scale.

 

This thread has renewed my interest in the grimdark for the time being, and fueled my thinking for the Sisters part of the Liber Unity Project, so thanks to everyone!

 

Edit: I’m aware that the Imperium could be better at providing quality lives for its citizens, but I think we can say sit does the best it can within the framework of what it is, which is a hyper xenophobic, ultra religious police state (more or less imo), but that extremeness is part of what makes it fun, for me at least.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Servant of Dante

[OnboardG1]

Grimdark to me is an extrapolation of all the worst parts of humanity into one enormous dystopian nightmare that arguably is almost as bad as the collapse into the madness that threatens it. And yet you are presented with compelling reasons why it happened. Tolerance died because demons ate worlds that thought psykers were okay. Freedom of belief died because a unified faith is the only thing keeping humanity from faceplanting. Peace is non-existent because external threats are myriad and the very conditions that preserve the Imperium invite rebellion and anarchy. I always liked the way that the setting shines a spotlight on how values change because of threats, real and imagined. 

[bluntblade]

Yes I was, MC

[mc warhammer]

Yes I was, MC

 

i bestow upon myself a cookie

[Phoebus]

"To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginanible. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."

To me, the above introductory text is grimdark. It is the setting. I accept that those words don't inform the reality of every place at every time within this setting, but they nonetheless drive it. Eschewing those core themes is eschewing what makes the setting special. What is, for instance, an Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum novel that skips on the fanaticism, technological ignorance, draconian discipline, and cold-blooded disregard for life of the Imperium of Man's fighting forces?

 

The important thing, for me, is for the authors to maintain a careful balance when conveying these themes. I want the ignorance of man in the 41st Millennium, for instance, to be tragic, not comic: a thing informed by theocrats for whom technology is godly and innovation is hateful precisely because it is a threat to dogma. An author could certainly imagine this mentality producing comical moments, such as a tech-ignorant Guardsman reciting ritual words before pushing an "ON" button, but I would much rather the focus be on a sense of what has been lost.

 

Another thing. A few posters have debated the nihilism and/or stupidity that informs the decision-making of various characters or the inhabitants of this setting, in general. There is an interesting quote from one of the Third Edition rulebook:

 

"In an hour of Darkness, a blind man is the best guide. In an age of Insanity, look to the madman to show the way."

This, to me, goes right back to the tightrope I think an author has to maintain when writing Warhammer 40k. Stupidity should not inform the rulers, warlords, priests, and grandees of the Imperium of Man. Megalomania, paranoia, psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies, and so on? Yes, please - because these are things we should expect from a realm of such scale, in which a rise to power almost always involves fighting nightmares or being indoctrinated in hateful, intolerant, and inflexible belief systems.

 

The authors writing in this setting don't always succeed in this regard, and thus while I don't agree with all of MrDarth151's points, I don't begrudge him his general criticism of how 40k is often portrayed. It's worth remembering, for instance, that while many (perhaps most) World War One-era generals may have cultivated a casual disregard for the lives of the rank-and-file, their tactics and strategy were informed far more by the imbalances and shortcomings of the technology available to them: the killing capability of artillery and firearms far exceeded their ability to maneuver their manpower. Thus, though I have no problem with a Lord General Militant whose wars against the forces Ruinous Powers have irrevocably scarred his mind and psyche being willing to sacrifice any number of Guardsmen to stem the tide of Chaos, I am opposed to him actually doing so in an arbitrarily anachronistic manner.

 

Dylan Thomas, 1914 - 1953

 

... rage against the dying of the light ...

In the passion project that is the novel I've been writing for my own eyes only over the past four years, that text is engraved on the Tactical Dreadnought Armour cuirass worn by the protagonist. Edited November 2, 2017 by Phoebus

[Ascanius]

It might be less moving on account of them being Nazis, mind.

 

I dunno . . . people read books about Space Marines!

[bluntblade]

 

It might be less moving on account of them being Nazis, mind.

 

 

I dunno . . . people read books about Space Marines!

Space Marines never killed anyone's actual great-grandpa.

[Adeptus]

Plus space marines are usually just depicted as high school jocks in space, as opposed to the ruthless indoctrinated fanatical killers they should be.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

It might be less moving on account of them being Nazis, mind.

 

I dunno . . . people read books about Space Marines!

Space Marines never killed anyone's actual great-grandpa.

Indians wiped out a whole branch of my family in Pennsylvania and I still enjoyed Last of the Mohicans. That’s probably the most ignorant statement I’ve read on the forums in a long :cuss time. The Germans are people too. You don’t think any of them loved their grandpas and great grandpas who were in the Wehrmacht?

[bluntblade]

I'm not saying I can't empathise with a Nazi character and therefore wouldn't attempt to engage with a work on that basis. The inference was that some people might struggle to. Space Marines and their crimes take place in a fictional universe where the scale and horror becomes almost abstract. I know people who have issues with that Liam Neeson movie about Michael Collins or, for balance, The Iron Lady, and therefore it's reasonable to suggest that some would take issue with a Nazi being oortrayed sympathetically.

 

Heck, last night in the cinema I found myself empathising with Beria of all people.

 

It was a comment on how people might approach it, not a declaration of my own prejudices.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

=][= Let's drop the talk of Nazis, shall we? =][=

[bluntblade]

Done. It was only meant as an example.