This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
″Writing for The Guardian in 2016, Damien Walter summarized what he considered grimdark's "domination" of the fantasy genre as "bigger swords, more fighting, bloodier blood, more fighting, axes, more fighting", and, he surmised, a "commercial imperative to win adolescent male readers". He saw this trend as being in opposition to "a truly epic and more emotionally nuanced kind of fantasy" that delivered storytelling instead of only fights.[5]″
This seems unnecessarily condescending, not to mention the article linked isn't about the subject, but rather it's mirror opposite. His definition could be fairly described as intellectual dishonesty in service to his 'progressive' view of what SF/Fantasy should be. It's fair to take a poke at the idea of Grimdark as even the origin of the word was satirical, it's not quite what that definition achieves though, as it's reductive and, frankly, incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.184.101 ( talk) 00:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I would love to see some information on when the term was first coined. Was it in the last year? The last 10 years? The last 100 years? Mgatland ( talk) 09:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: I'm having trouble understanding this edit summary. The terms genre and style can be used interchangeably, the clarification that grimdark can be a style and not a genre is not in the wording of either version of the article's lede, and the phrasing that grimdark is a "way to describe" something makes no sense, which is why I edited the article in the first place. Help me out. What are you going for here? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
How is this noteworthy in any way? There is no need to coin a term for the opposite of grimdark because grimdark itself was coined in order to distinguish it from other, previous books. LOTR came first. It's not hopepunk. It's just a book. As the article says, GoT was attempting to be the anti-LOTR. You don't need to coin a term that means anti-anti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.100.6 ( talk • contribs)
I added to the article that this term is a neologism, with a source. This added two words to the article prose, and it was supported with a source. I was reverted with the edit comment "Unexplained change; that the word is a neologism (most words are) is not the most important aspect of the topic" What explanation would any policy require me to make? This term is a neologism, so noting it is pretty uncontroversial imo. Clearly, most words are not neologisms, and, while it's not the most important aspect of the topic, adding it is hardly undue.
The opinion of other editors would be welcome. ( Hohum @) 01:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: The wikilinks that I added to the "See also" section are all relevant to the topic of this article, see the "Definitions" section regarding nihilism in grimdark fiction. GenoV84 ( talk) 11:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Grimdark is a subgenre of speculative fiction with a tone, style, or setting that is particularly dystopian, amoral, and violent.[...]
Adam Roberts described it as fiction "where nobody is honourable and Might is Right", and as "the standard way of referring to fantasies that turn their backs on the more uplifting, Pre-Raphaelite visions of idealized medievaliana, and instead stress how nasty, brutish, short and, er, dark life back then 'really' was". But he noted that grimdark has little to do with re-imagining an actual historic reality and more with conveying the sense that our own world is a " cynical, disillusioned, ultraviolent place"." GenoV84 ( talk) 17:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Agreed that linking related concepts in the body is enough. Dark fantasy is a fine link as it overlaps very heavily with grimdark, but the others should be left off. WPscatter t/ c 19:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
Following discussion on Talk:Gritty fantasy, I have blank and redirected Gritty fantasy to point here. CohenTheBohemian ( talk) 05:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
″Writing for The Guardian in 2016, Damien Walter summarized what he considered grimdark's "domination" of the fantasy genre as "bigger swords, more fighting, bloodier blood, more fighting, axes, more fighting", and, he surmised, a "commercial imperative to win adolescent male readers". He saw this trend as being in opposition to "a truly epic and more emotionally nuanced kind of fantasy" that delivered storytelling instead of only fights.[5]″
This seems unnecessarily condescending, not to mention the article linked isn't about the subject, but rather it's mirror opposite. His definition could be fairly described as intellectual dishonesty in service to his 'progressive' view of what SF/Fantasy should be. It's fair to take a poke at the idea of Grimdark as even the origin of the word was satirical, it's not quite what that definition achieves though, as it's reductive and, frankly, incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.184.101 ( talk) 00:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I would love to see some information on when the term was first coined. Was it in the last year? The last 10 years? The last 100 years? Mgatland ( talk) 09:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: I'm having trouble understanding this edit summary. The terms genre and style can be used interchangeably, the clarification that grimdark can be a style and not a genre is not in the wording of either version of the article's lede, and the phrasing that grimdark is a "way to describe" something makes no sense, which is why I edited the article in the first place. Help me out. What are you going for here? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
How is this noteworthy in any way? There is no need to coin a term for the opposite of grimdark because grimdark itself was coined in order to distinguish it from other, previous books. LOTR came first. It's not hopepunk. It's just a book. As the article says, GoT was attempting to be the anti-LOTR. You don't need to coin a term that means anti-anti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.100.6 ( talk • contribs)
I added to the article that this term is a neologism, with a source. This added two words to the article prose, and it was supported with a source. I was reverted with the edit comment "Unexplained change; that the word is a neologism (most words are) is not the most important aspect of the topic" What explanation would any policy require me to make? This term is a neologism, so noting it is pretty uncontroversial imo. Clearly, most words are not neologisms, and, while it's not the most important aspect of the topic, adding it is hardly undue.
The opinion of other editors would be welcome. ( Hohum @) 01:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: The wikilinks that I added to the "See also" section are all relevant to the topic of this article, see the "Definitions" section regarding nihilism in grimdark fiction. GenoV84 ( talk) 11:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Grimdark is a subgenre of speculative fiction with a tone, style, or setting that is particularly dystopian, amoral, and violent.[...]
Adam Roberts described it as fiction "where nobody is honourable and Might is Right", and as "the standard way of referring to fantasies that turn their backs on the more uplifting, Pre-Raphaelite visions of idealized medievaliana, and instead stress how nasty, brutish, short and, er, dark life back then 'really' was". But he noted that grimdark has little to do with re-imagining an actual historic reality and more with conveying the sense that our own world is a " cynical, disillusioned, ultraviolent place"." GenoV84 ( talk) 17:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Agreed that linking related concepts in the body is enough. Dark fantasy is a fine link as it overlaps very heavily with grimdark, but the others should be left off. WPscatter t/ c 19:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
Following discussion on Talk:Gritty fantasy, I have blank and redirected Gritty fantasy to point here. CohenTheBohemian ( talk) 05:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)