There recently
has been a (revival of the?) discussion regarding the place and value of sex
and violence in books in epic fantasy.
The focus on a particular sub-sub-genre dubbed ‘grimdark’, authors,
critics, reviewers, and others are voicing their opinion whether the images of
sex, war, violence, rape, body parts being lopped off, etc. have a legitimate
place. I will voice my own—in a paucity
of words.
Regardless of the
genre or sub-genre or sub-sub-genre of literature, sex and violence have always
had a place in media—printed or otherwise—as indeed they are part of our lives. It may be glossed over or graphically
exposed, but from the first books we have of the Greeks, to Shakespeare, to Conan,
to the latest James Bond, the physical elements—by turns intimate and
aggressive—exist on screen and page in varying quantities. What varies, however, is the intent behind these
elements, and this makes all the difference.
I once received
an invaluable piece of advice: when reviewing or critiquing a piece of writing,
the most important thing to examine is the writer’s goals for their work. What kind of story were they trying to
tell? What did they decide was the best method
and structure to tell it? How did they
characterize their thematic material? Did
they have higher aims—a statement beyond the text, or are they just trying to
earn a nickel? Were they cleaving to
reality, or more interested in telling a ripping good story? In short, there are numerous paths authors
can walk to manifest the idea they have in mind, and this must be taken into
consideration when judging the social relevancy and meta-qualities of a published work.
Thus, when a book
possesses a surfeit of sex and violence which bears little relation to other
aspects of the story, it seems obvious the writer included the material as a
ploy: earning money or getting published was their foremost goal. (The other choice is that they are sadistic,
but I think this can be excluded.) I say
this as the number of authors who use blood and lust to comment on humanity in
intelligent fashion are few and far between.
The overwhelming majority who use these elements, use them as eye-kicks
to sell more books—which is no surprise given the economic model most are
written within. In other words, ‘grimdark’
is by and large just a label for the sub-genre of fantasy which focuses on cheap
sensationalism for commercial and storytelling interests.
As such, I don’t
believe that grimdark is any more realist than the softer side of epic fantasy. The last time I checked, Medieval days are
behind us and rape and murder are minority behavior in the West. I’m not downgrading these topics as
unimportant, rather pointing out that for grimdark’s audience, blood and
aggresive lust are not a normal part of everyday life, and imagining a world
filled with these elements is just as escapist as Middle Earth, Earthsea, or
any other so-called work of soft fantasy.
Moreover, a cornerstone of a progressive society is the idea that it tries
to present these exigencies as obstacles to be overcome, that is, rather than attempting
to present them in fictional form as gratutitously and gloriously as possible.
On the contrary, what
seems obvious to me is the existence of reading material with greater integrity. As limited as its sales may be in comparison
to the latest NY Times bestseller, there
are books and films, including fantasy (epic and otherwise), which dig at the
human condition, examining or trying to answer its burning questions and
provide solutions to its major issues. They challenge or attempt to improve upon
aspects of society and individuals through relevant commentary, presentation of
character, and premises which foreground the idea of evolutionary improvement. Given grimdark adds nothing to the ongoing
discussion of cultural and social concerns save indirectly, its value is entertainment--at best.
In conclusion, a
saturation of sex, violence, grimdark—however you want to identify ”cheap
sensationalism” in media—are elements of entertainment that deserve the
criticism they receive for their inability to raise cultural standards and
weakness to utilize their media position to discuss issues pertinent to
humanity. A rape scene merely for shock
value has no place in society just as violence for violence’s sake is likewise
self-defeating. So while I readily admit
that the complete elimination of grimdark in favor of a market populated only
with material vying for the Nobel seems an impossible utopia, it is at least
our duty to continue censuring grimdark in the hope it is pushed to the margins
as escapist entertainment, that is, rather than promoted as a sub-genre deserving
of legitimacy. Simply put, let’s reward a writer with integrity and whose
concerns lie in the human condition, and try to limit those with self-seeking
goals channeled through the portrayal sex and violence. If history is any indicator, the cheap thrills
of grimdark will be remembered as pulp in the future, after all.
Oh, you people with universally recognized values are such haters. ;-)
ReplyDeleteYes, there is a lot of mincing going on... But secretly we long to take a flamethrower to all of the pulp trash on the market, ridding the world of its insipidness in one massive conflagration! Ha-ha! Die! Die Die!
Delete