The limits of Grimdark, Grimderp, and Suspending Disbelief

[Phoebus]

I'm a career military man. I'm also a strange, often contradictory animal.

 

Instances like, "Chapter X wiped out an entire world in 24 hours" don't bother me at face value. I can fill in many blanks, and am happy to buy into the idea that a thousand supermen and all the firepower they can summon could sufficiently devastate a planet's defenses for their fleet's continent-sundering weapons to annihilate everyone on the surface. My tolerance is exceeded when an author decides to describe the battle to me but does so in a generic, glossed-over manner. Nothing bothers me more than the stock, seemingly trademarked page or two of "action" featuring the heroes and the villains non-descriptly firing at each other in what often feels like a purposeful attempt at a zero-sum game.

 

Nor do I necessarily mind it when authors have their characters employ anachronistic wargear. The first question I ask myself is whether or not the setting and its context allow for it. For example, we don't use melee weapons in combat because the protective equipment we can issue in mass quantities isn't sufficient to protect us from common ranged weapons and explosives. It's no coincidence that in this setting melee weapons are predominately used by factions that either enjoy protection and/or mobility that are superior enough to overcome ranged weapons. What bothers me is when things are dumbed down or artificially made worse than they should be, in order to support the story. Space Marine Power Armour and everything it does, for example, is a signature part of this setting: it makes Space Marines even greater than the creatures in whose name they make war. Walled fortresses being viable because artillery somehow sucks, on the other hand, doesn't do anything for the story. The same goes for the main tank being used by the Imperium of Man being the equivalent of a World War II tank (in terms of size and weight), or aircraft having to fly within a few hundred meters of their target to strike it. The Mechanicum of Mars thinking the discovery of a new pattern of Baneblade being a religious miracle or that its repair should be left to a tiny number of priests is a valid way of indicating how much knowledge has been lost, or how innovation is a sin. Imperial artillerymen forgetting to raise the firing angle on their howitzer enough to make a 100-meter wall irrelevant is just lazy writing.

 

Tactics? Again, context. This isn't World War 1, so even if the Imperium of Man circa M31 had completely flushed all prior knowledge I'm not particularly interested in the notion that the Imperial Guard's tacticians couldn't figure out late 20th-century combined arms doctrine over a 10,000-year period. I'm much more interested in convincing, compelling examples of how the same men and women commanding city-breaking Titans and continent-sundering starships would nonetheless expend humanity in such numbers on account of ruthlessness, megalomania, and just a general lack of appreciation for the value of human life.

[Huggtand]

I did my mandatory military service as a quartermaster, wonder if that influenced me 

 

If you factor in the spaceships in wiping out a planet, sure no problems  What bugs me is when 1000 men, boots on ground (maybe with APC and MBT) personally finds all people on a planet and kills them

 

 

Tactics? Again, context. This isn't World War 1, so even if the Imperium of Man circa M31 had completely flushed all prior knowledge I'm not particularly interested in the notion that the Imperial Guard's tacticians couldn't figure out late 20th-century combined arms doctrine over a 10,000-year period. I'm much more interested in convincing, compelling examples of how the same men and women commanding city-breaking Titans and continent-sundering starships would nonetheless expend humanity in such numbers on account of ruthlessness, megalomania, and just a general lack of appreciation for the value of human life.

 

This I actually am rather fine with and in universe i can see the reasons for it. In regiments you have sort of combine arms light but it's more on an theatre level you really use those tactics. So it's not that they don't know combined arms tactics, they don't like individual regimental commanders to have that good fighting power on their own if they go rogue (in universe it make kind of sense  ). It's when you combine regiments you get the true potential.

 

As for spending lives so readily, it depends. Some commanders actually tries to minimize the casualties and cares about their soldiers  but the higher you look the less human lives seems to matter. I think the reason is that at a high enough level the mass of humanity is so large that a million lives is just a drop in the ocean compared to the whole and stops to have any real value for you. As for using Titans or starship, the first is a very limited resource, that may not be available and you have petition the mechanicum to deploy them. The latter might be to powerful for what you want to accomplish. If you want to take something somewhat intakt you can't employ weapons that level half a city  Though in better described battles the guard often use the fleet for combined effort. So, commanders do use titans and starship if they have access to them but the core resource (in universe) to spend is the ordinary troopers.  

 

Once again I must recommend Dan Abnett's Gaunt's Ghosts for a more nuanced and realistic portrayal of the Imperial fighting force.  

[Phoebus]

I’ve read them all! I actually re-read the entire series before I started reading Warmaster again.

 

I think I phrased one of my points poorly, by the way. I’m not saying Imperial generals shouldn’t waste manpower because they have Titans or what have you. I’m quite fine with ruthless, psychopathic, or simply horror-jaded generals feeding their soldiers to the grinder. I want it to be for those reasons, though, or because some Ecclesiarch had a fevered vision that only an unbroken wall of men wielding steel would stop the endless hordes of Nurglings at Glorifax — not because a Lord Militant General thinks Mordian doctrine (which boils down to 18th-19th century close-order infantry drill) is somehow effective against tanks, artillery, and rapid-fire weapons.

[Huggtand]

Ah yes, then I understand and I completely agree with you on that point.

 

It's those instances where the characters are so dumb down just for it to be suitable grimdark. Generals that don't know any other tactic but to send in my infantry against anything, and you as the reader just thinks - but why not use the artillery or navy first?

[Phoebus]

Exactly that.

[Tarvek Val]

Well, let's not forget things like void shields here. Maybe its a bit lazy to invent a shield power enough to absorb orbital bombardment and artillery, but it allows for a much more compelling story. I'm thinking of the battle for Vervunhive in the Guant's Ghosts series; had Vervunhive not had void shields the Archenemy could've simply obliterated it with their fleet. I agree that with both of you that, sometimes, it gets a little ridiculous and over-the-top with how, errr, foolish the guys in power are but, from the writer's perspective, not all problems can be solved with destruction from above. Unless you are Commander Boreale, of course, with the beloved Steel Rain stratagem...

[Indefragable]

I sort of just accept the tactical macguffin--the Tactiguffin, if you will--that something is so important that only close infantry tactics can be used.

 

I mean, when you have fleets capable of Exterminatus on a world, and you can (as in is possible) to throw celestial bodies into each other....there must be a reason why tanks and infantry still exist in any meaningful massed capability.

 

For Dark Eldar, it's slaves they need to keep their souls away from Slaanesh.

For Chaos its something-something-something The Dark gods will it!

For Tau it's to spread the little red book Greater Good

Tyranids need biomass (that one actually makes sense).

The Imperium needs to count bodies, I guess. The Emperor decrees enemies slain up close and personal?

Orkz.....heck, with Orkz it actually makes sense!

[Lord_Caerolion]

Well, Exterminatus is all well and good for the Imperium, they've got enough stuff that can carry it out. The thing is, most of the time they want the planet to still be inhabitable afterwards, which Exterminatus isn't particularly good at, and isn't good at leaving infrastructure intact either. Terraforming takes time and resources, not to mention there could be valuable tech/relics on the planet that need to be recovered, and it makes sense why the Imperium wants to take their planets back at least somewhat livable.

 

With the Dark Eldar, the feeling I get is that they do have the ability to perform Exterminatus, it's just that the "armies" we see are raiding parties, rather than the actual military might of the Dark Eldar. I have a sneaking suspicion that if the Dark Eldar ever got serious about fighting a threat, they'd bring out the military-grade weapons, rather than the hunting gear they use at the moment.

[Laughingman]

Its science fantasy... The early fluff about the imperium of man was  likely parody of  fascism (or thatcherism at its logical extreme). The people writing the fluff are rarely demographers or physicist so numbers and units used rarely make any sense.

[Huggtand]

Its science fantasy... The early fluff about the imperium of man was  likely parody of  fascism (or thatcherism at its logical extreme). The people writing the fluff are rarely demographers or physicist so numbers and units used rarely make any sense.

 

As I said in earlier post, we all have our personal gripes what breaks the immersion 

 

That aside, I´m not saying that writers of 40k need to be demographers or physicist, but as a writer in a fictional setting it´s your responsibility as the author to at least stay true to that setting. To put the responsibility on the reader to swallow things that breaks the established setting without any explanation is lazy writing.

 

It is fairly established that the Emperor is a rotting carcass locked to the golden throne in the 41 millennia. If there was a scene in a 40k novel where he is seen doing handstands in the local gymnasium we as a reader would want an explanation for this. To not give a reason and just say as a reader you must have a suspension of disbelief and swallow this is not good story telling. This of course is an extreme example to make a point but it works on a smaller scale also.

 

In the above example about infantry assault, the thing is not that the guard uses massed infantry assault. We know in the lore that the standard Imperial guard is modeled on the first word war concept/mentality. So, when we have generals that don’t care about their men or make stupid decisions to advance their careers we recognize it as appropriate for the setting. The thing is that we know in the lore that the standard imperial guard has artillery, tanks, heavy weapons, apc:s, possibly navy cooperation and depending of the theater even Mechanicum support. So, if an author, without a reason, has a general to send in his lasgun infantry against a baneblade squadron, we as readers just thinks - but why not use the artillery or heavy weapons?

 

To get the most out of 40k novels/fiction you as a reader should have a passing knowledge of 40k lore. The core rulebook and codices gives a good ground for this. Internet pages/forums and YouTube channels also gives easy access to good overviews of the setting. So the writer don’t have to constantly bring a reader up to speed on the current setting of the universe.

 

But that also extends to the writer. If they assume that the reader should have a basic understanding of the fictional universe, it is not too much to ask as a reader that the authors also has that understanding and gives an explanation if the story breaks the established setting

[mc warhammer]

In the above example about infantry assault, the thing is not that the guard uses massed infantry assault. We know in the lore that the standard Imperial guard is modeled on the first word war concept/mentality. So, when we have generals that don’t care about their men or make stupid decisions to advance their careers we recognize it as appropriate for the setting. The thing is that we know in the lore that the standard imperial guard has artillery, tanks, heavy weapons, apc:s, possibly navy cooperation and depending of the theater even Mechanicum support. So, if an author, without a reason, has a general to send in his lasgun infantry against a baneblade squadron, we as readers just thinks - but why not use the artillery or heavy weapons?

like how angron was responsible for stopping the orbital bombardment of the loyalists on istvaan III...turning it into a much more enjoyable (for the reader) ground assault ?

[Huggtand]

 

In the above example about infantry assault, the thing is not that the guard uses massed infantry assault. We know in the lore that the standard Imperial guard is modeled on the first word war concept/mentality. So, when we have generals that don’t care about their men or make stupid decisions to advance their careers we recognize it as appropriate for the setting. The thing is that we know in the lore that the standard imperial guard has artillery, tanks, heavy weapons, apc:s, possibly navy cooperation and depending of the theater even Mechanicum support. So, if an author, without a reason, has a general to send in his lasgun infantry against a baneblade squadron, we as readers just thinks - but why not use the artillery or heavy weapons?

like how angron was responsible for stopping the orbital bombardment of the loyalists on istvaan III...turning it into a much more enjoyable (for the reader) ground assault ?

 

 

Yes, a good example where the authors already established his motives for such a thing in the novels. We as readers understand why he takes the fight to the loyalists in the way he does. And in comparison his more saner brothers do have artillery, tank and navy support when Horus decide to commit to the fight.

 

If, for example Mortarion had charged of in berserk rage without support I would have questioned why since it's out of his established character.

[Indefragable]

See...even in the Istvaan III example, it would be easy for an author to position things as follows:

 

“In operations of this scale, most especially with supreme warriors as individually capable as Astartes, it is all but impossible to guarantee that not a single Loyalist would be able to sneak out of the system. Whether through their own skilled piloting or the ...acquisition...of craft (after all, that was what they trained for on a daily basis), it was all but a certainty that rogue elements could escape in numbers meaningful enough to be a concern, no matter how tight the cordon. As such, there was only way to be absolutely certain that as many loyalists died as was (super)humanly possible, and it was a method as old as treachery itself: put a knife in their backs.”

 

Boom. Now you have a plausible, if not entirely logical, setup for all the ground pounding you want without having to concoct “stupid” reasons not to nuke the site from orbit (its the only way to be sure).

[Huggtand]

Yes, a perfect in universe setup.

 

Istvaan III is a little special since the stupid reason for not nuking them from orbit, which was Horus original plan, was that Angron landed unbidden. Horus was tempted though  

[Huggtand]

Just a disclaimer. I enjoy most of the BL novels very much (mostly the Horus Heresy series) and there are really just a very few examples where I think the author should have done  a little more research of  the internal lore or a better explanation why something breaks the established setting.

[Phoebus]

Well, let's not forget things like void shields here. Maybe its a bit lazy to invent a shield power enough to absorb orbital bombardment and artillery, but it allows for a much more compelling story.

Again, my argument isn’t “don’t do infantry tactics because of orbital bombardment” or really any other logical reason. Rather, it’s that I would rather that the inefficiency of the Imperium manifest through its tragic loss of humanity rather than the apparent dumbing down of technology.

 

That said, you also touched on another thing that bugs me about a lot of stories in this setting. I have no problem with void shields. As with Titans, Power Armour, etc., I consider them a part of the technology that informs this setting. What I do take issue with, however, is the that void shields (and their opposite number, orbital bombardment) are as good or as bad as the author needs them to be to support their story. There’s little consistency to it, and — again, in my humble opinion — it makes for contrived, lazy storytelling.

 

Compare this admittedly basic point to a 40k or HH novel. The writer only has 200-500 pages to work with generally. The object of the book is not to explain the inner workings of the Imperial administration, or the force dispositions of a segmentum and its recruitment capabilities in a particular solar cycle. Rather, the author wants to tell a story of an Iron Hand finding a lost piece of technology, or a Fire Warrior learning his Greater Good really isn’t all that great, or an Ultramarine holding a bridge against 3,000 traitors. There simply isn’t time to constantly bring a reader up to speed on the current setting of the universe every single novel; the reader needs to have a working knowledge of the science fantasy universe to provide the general setting for the authors story. This can absolutely be jarring to people expecting a larger dose of ‘realism’.

With respect, you’re describing the opposite extreme, and I don’t think anyone’s asking for that. I respectfully disagree with the idea that the time and space aren’t available to immerse the reader in the nuances and context of the setting. To use your examples, would the Sharpe series be as enjoyable or interesting if Bernard Cornwell relied on his readership to fill in the blanks where the society, technology, and military mindset of the early 19th century was concerned?

 

Besides, we’re talking about situational applications. An author writing a story featuring an Imperial Guard regiment where the plot requires for them to get annihilated by, e.g., Chaos Space Marines is already committed to certain characters committing certain actions in certain situations. Is it really that much to ask for the author to show those same characters die horribly in a way that is more befitting to the psyche of their faction and the technology available to them? I don’t think this would lead to an increase in word count; I do, however, think it would require authors to commit to more research and present more thoughtfully-crafted battles.

 

I sort of just accept the tactical macguffin--the Tactiguffin, if you will--that something is so important that only close infantry tactics can be used.

Again, I’m fine with the author presenting a reason, if said reason makes sense within the context of the setting. Angron at Isstvan III is a perfect example of irrational tactics being utilized, and Horus berating him for ruining the plan is a perfect response. Graham McNeill’s depiction of Isstvan V, on the other hand, is precisely what I wish Black Library would get away from.

 

Isstvan V is basically a collection of Horus Heresy/Warhammer 40K tropes writ large. Ferrus Manus decides to attack Horus’s prepared defensive position in piecemeal fashion with a smaller force for no compelling reason. Tens of thousands of Space Marines commit themselves to a prepared killing field because the entirety (more or less) of two Legion fleets (and a healthy portion of a third) couldn’t get around the Void Shield MacGuffin. As a result, the Iron Hands, Raven Guard, and Salamanders fight an uphill Bronze Age battle while thousands of 31st millennium-caliber explosions tear the battlefield apart around them. It’s “Rule of Cool” without any consideration as to whether it makes sense, and while McNeill himself never made this argument I almost resent it when readers almost write off the idea that it’s possible to write immersive, powerful battles without compromising on what is available in the setting.

[Indefragable]

@Phoebus:

 

Istvaan V is a special case, I feel, since it was doomed to be rushed from the start. Even though in-universe, it ought to be the single biggest deal outside of the Siege of Terra itself, endlessly analyzed and every moment and maneuver a piece of legend. I mean, it’s basically Jutland, Bull Run, Dunkirk, and the Red Wedding all in one.

 

From a reader’s and author’s perspective, however, it’s like “yea yea, ok let’s get on with the REAL story now!” It’s basically the boarding action that kicks off A New Hope: it’s purpose is to set up laser guns and some of the main characters as quickly as possible with just enough drama to get you hooked.

 

So in that perspective, I kinda feel that Istvaan V was always going to be a bit hand-wavey with “tactics” and “strategy.”

[A D-B]

Some absolute gems in this thread, but Phoebus, I'm especially adoring your insight. (And, natch, I completely agree.)

 

Interestingly(?), this meta-topic starts to get shaky in two places, when people with disagreeing perspectives clash:

 

1. No designer or author ever really uses the function or complexity of the setting to excuse mistakes in writing. At least, not that I've seen. It would be stupid if they did, and I can't believe they would. However...

 

2. ...a lot of the times designers or authors are accused of mistakes, it's because the accuser doesn't know the lore as well as they believe they do, or has missed a point somewhere. There was some of it in response to Gav's tweet, and I replied there:

 

"Gav's not talking about poor writing or inconsistencies, he's talking about the fundamentals of the setting."

 

(That, and a lot of criticism in any fandom these days follows the usual flow of New Lore --> People rant about it online based on synopses and flawed summaries --> People compare it to the memes that form their understanding of the setting and it doesn't match up --> People are angry --> Most people actually then read it and it all turns out fine.)

 

But really, no one involved in the creation of 40K is saying anything different from, say, Phoebus in this thread. I'm sure mistakes happen, but there's also the fact to consider that "40K" at this point is several hundred people's perspectives and publications in a constantly evolving cycle, with many releases every month. When anyone slips into blanket accusations of "the writers do X" or "the lore is Y", you start getting into sticky territory-- which makes it hard to get a consensus.

 

Which (finally!) loops back around the direct point instead of the wider meta-point. No one is saying logical inconsistencies or mistakes are awesome and justified by the setting. But some people insist their view of the setting is the only one that makes sense, and so you get arguments about validity along those lines.

 

Those are what suck, and detract from an otherwise fine point. But they're also inevitable. 

[Vel'Cona]

Reminder that this thread is discussing the issues with GW's approach to a "Grimdark" setting and a subjective suspension of disbelief.  Discuss those issues as you please, but if this is going to degrade into arguments about the veracity of BL authors it will likely be pruned back accordingly.  Stick to the issues, brothers!

[Phoebus]

A D-B,

 

On a purely selfish level, I’m glad you responded here because when I unload rants like the above I often find myself looking back and thinking, “Just how much of a giant douchebag did I come off as this time around?”

 

Beyond that, I respect what you and Gav were saying on Twitter and what you’re offering here re: perspectives. My contributions in topics like this tend to be critical, but it’s sincerely heartening seeing you guys and other authors engage in thoughtful discussions in this forum and others about what this setting is. I borderline resent the stories written about this setting being referred to as tie-in fiction precisely because of the amount of work that has gone into making this a nuanced, engrossing setting. That, in turn, drives my expectations.

 

Basically, what I’m trying to say is, “thanks!”

[Wargamer]

I think one of the things that 40K struggles with is scale. Scale is the source of both grimdark and grimderp.

 

Grimderp is when a regiment of 2,000 soldiers is "sufficient" to defend a planet. No, that's not sufficient. That's not sufficient to guard a city, nevermind a planet!

 

But what's Grimdark Scale? It's the fact that it takes longer than the human lifetime to process information properly. It's the fact that the reinforcements you requested didn't get mobilised until five years after you and your regiment were slaughtered to a man. It's the fact that it can take months, years, decades or centuries to move material from one place to another. It's the fact that the very mechanics used to communicate information and move equipment relies on a medium that considers linear time a suggestion at best.

 

In short, I like it when the Imperium is presented as "stupid" not because it is stupid, but because it's physically impossible for it to react in real-time. When combined with zealotry, suspicion and a paranoid demand for blind obedience, Grimderp can quickly change into a truly meaningful human tragedy.

 

There's nothing I like more than seeing someone who truly believes the galaxy is as the Ecclessiarchy taught them try to reconcile their faith with the reality they are thrust into.

[Xisor]

Bill King did a cracking turn early in the Macharius trilogy where one of the characters is fairly hopeful about one-day being promoted to Space Marine.

 

In some respects, I think *that* sort one thing is routinely overlooked in favour of a more plausible, shall we say "sober" view of the setting.

 

We know that characters and narrators can be (deliberatelyvor otherwise) misleading, blinkered or limited in their understanding, but rarely (if ever) does it crop up outside of a plot point.

[Wargamer]

Master of Mankind had some great touches like that - Land has a pet "monkey" he created based on historical records. It makes parrot noises and has a scorpion tail. Indeed, Land mocks the idea that the monkey is meant to have a dexterous, grasping tail, insisting that all learned scholars agree the monkey's tail was a weapon.

There's a similar line in a book about the TKSons mentioning how "all three" of Shakespeare's plays have been rediscovered. Little things like that are great.

[Huggtand]

It's in Prospero Burns as an example of the progress of knowledge by the unification administration 

 

It's those little touches that, for me, brings the universe to life. Little snippets that shows the common beliefs and knowledge of the people or glimpses into the life of the ordinary citizens. In the same vein I love the little text especially in the earlier codexes that just are there to build atmosphere. 

 

For me those little thing are often more grimdark than the bigger epic story since it it is closer to what I can relate to as a mere mortal. 

[Wargamer]

For 40K novels, something I'd like to see a bit more is a sense that people really believe the Imperial Cult. Usually, it's written off as a joke - everyone knows the Primer is useless save as emergency toilet paper, for example. It'd be nice to see someone who genuinely believes that their lasgun will misfire if they don't recite the Litany of Maintenance during a strip and clean.