When fantasy is just too dark

[elvet]

Here's what made me think about this thread. This is what I'm reading at the moment and what I wrote in the reading thread:

finished The Myth Hunters by Christipher Golden. It had a cliffhanger ending, otherwise I'm not too sure I would have started Borderkind. It's more dark fantasy. There doesn't seem to be much hope - the bad guys are really evil and there's too little positive to balance it out. He also has a steak of thriller/terror running through the story, a genre I've never been comfortable with. Anyhow, if Borderkind doesn't pick up soon, I'm going to leave it.

Most fantasy is about good guys and bad guys. You need to feel that the world is truly threatened, but there must be a glimmer of hope, something that will keep you reading through the depressing parts. This balance is not easy to achieve and have be believable. The heroes usually have faults, but there should be something engaging in their characters such that you want them to succeed.
There can be too much of a good thing as well. There's no tension or excitement in a story where there is not much of a threat looming.
This reminds me of my first read of The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. There was barely enough positive to balance the overwhelming feeling of despair, especially in the last 3 books. Other parts of the story - the characterization, the world and mythos - kept me interested so not only did I read them, but have since visited them again and consider them one of my favorite series.
Have you ever been put off on a book because it was just too depressing? Or because it was just so perfect that no one got killed and everyone lived happily ever after?

[The Ace]

That's why I stopped reading GRRM, apart from one character who was annoying, just about every 'Good,' character is killed off.

Some may say that this is realistic in a harsh and brutal world, but when characters hated as much by their peers as the reader walk away scot-free, you just want to take seven baths and try to forget you were ever involved.

[the_faery_queen]

aw no! that's the reason i likle martin, it was gritty, it wasn't all, good guys win. it was, people are jerks and they all have motives and who knows who will come out on top. i wouldn't say anyone was really evil in that series, they were all driven by different things. and a few good people survived, but they have to change to stay alive.

and i liked the character most people hated (cersi) *shrug*

[Ursa major]

The environment of China Miéville's Bas Lag novels is pretty grim (I, for one, wouldn't want to live there), but the books themselves are not, even when the characters with whom the author obviously sympathises find themselves on the wrong side of a defeat. If, however, the characters had been equally grim, I'm not sure I'd have enjoyed the books at all.

Unrelenting misery, with the characters ground down so much that they accept it and adopt its values, doesn't sound like a good read at all. (Nor would a book where the best always happens.)

[Lith]

Now see, I always thought Martin wasn't nearly as dark as everyone always said. I guess I can handle quite a bit of depressing stuff. It depends partly on your temperament; dark, depressing stuff can be a comfort at times. At others, it's just willful self-indulgent whining (which puts me off pretty quick). And if it really does start to get too depressing (as Dostoevsky's Demons did), then I will put the book down and do something else for a few months. (Though I had to finish Demons for school.)

I'm not sure I've run across stories completely without hope. The Metamorphosis, maybe. Hopeless tales are often warnings against bad behavior, so they're not entirely hopeless. If I've run across stuff that's too depressing, I've forgotten it by now.

For the opposite problem... Stranger in a Strange Land. The back third of the novel absolutely lacks tension, because everything is just one happy thing after another. But that's not really "too dark", is it?

[j. d. worthington]

*spoilers*Hmmm... Think I'd have to disagree about Stranger. As I recall, it's in the final portions of the book that the genuine alienation from the surrounding society happens, as well as Mike's realization that he has probably been used as an information-gathering tool by the Martians for purposes of deciding how to "handle" humanity.... It's also the portion of the book most heavily told from Jubal's point of view, and he is the skeptic of the batch, so what he sees happening troubles him deeply, especially Mike's death and the way the others take it...

As for what is "too dark"... I can't say I've ever run up against such. Even the darkest of the books I've read aren't attempting to be depressing, but are reflecting this or that aspect of life, including the way that people are sometimes ground down and "join the other side", if you will; but even these are generally in the nature of "cautionary tales", pleas to be aware and to always value our noblest aspects rather than give in to the easier path of cynicism, cruelty, and inhumanity. So, even with something such as "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream", I have to agree that these are very humanitarian tales, in the final analysis.

On the other hand, those which promote entirely selfish values, or do spend all their time whining about how bad things are without any sense of proportion... those would have to be written extremely well for me to find them of interest. Fortunately, I've not actually read such; in part, I think because a truly good writer/artist is by nature going to be aware of misproportion if it becomes too great, and will compensate for the sake of their work....

Oh, and as on the "Metamorphosis"... that's actually a deliberately comic piece in many ways; darkly ironic, yes, but by no means without a sense of humour or proportion....

[kauldron26]

Royal assassin and assassins quest was way too dark and depressing. i felt shitty for 2 weeks. i love the novels to death, but Robin Hobb can be evil. seriously, im 22, i was a line backer in high school, im a pretty big guy, my friends and family just couldnt fathom how a novel could completely shatter me like that.

[Hilarious Joke]

You have to keep reading though kauldron! It would be depressing if you left it without finishing, given all the suffering Fitz had to go through.

I'm a massive Hobb fan, by the way .

And as for George Martin's books, I love them and with such a massive cast of major and minor characters, and such conflict in the books I think if it was realistic it was inevitable that some would die. The books are so well written and the plot so complex and well thought out and the world so realistic, that I trust Martin's judgment in this area.

Funny thing, I recently tried to reread the Lord of the Rings again and found it, after the hobbits reach Rivendell, really depressing. The reason was that the quest seemed so close to being hopeless, and there was so much that I knew the poor characters had to go through, and I couldn't go through that again. Which I guess is silly in a way, seeing as I know there's going to be a happy ending. But its still a great story.

I personally haven't found a book to be too happy. Indeed, in one of my favourites, The Iron Tree by Cecilia Dart-Thornton, there is a long period in the marshes of Sievmordhu where nothing bad happens, but it is written so beautifully and there is such joy in it that I love it.

[kauldron26]

Tawny Man was awesome, i loved it especially the ending! if u check out the hobb forums, u'll see my lavish praises and reviews there hehe.

Swan Song by McCammon was dark as effing hell... damn that was an absolutely phenomenal novel.

[Thalador]

Originally Posted by the_faery_queen

aw no! that's the reason i likle martin, it was gritty, it wasn't all, good guys win.

That's why I respect the man so much. I like to believe in fantasy worlds, and the "good guys win" mentality annoys me immensely. What I also like about Martin is that his characters don't fall under generic good and bad categories. Like people, they're self-serving. How can we denote one interest as better than another?

Personally, I like dark fantasy. Even when it gets really heavy, like the Chain of Dogs in Deadhouse Gates. Incredibly depressing to read, but it stirred vivid, memorable emotions in me. I like reading books where characters endure great misery, because it fosters a greater sense of connection.

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

I hate it when fantasy is too dark, down, and depressing. Bad guys slipping through while the heroic people die-there's too much of that going on in the world already. Fantasy is supposed to be just that-fantasy, made up, not real. I think that's one reason I like David Eddings so much-in my remembrance, only one good character died each in the Elenium and the Mallorean-but the bad guys got their comeuppance. I think that's how stories should be.

[elvet]

There is a difference between negative characters and an overwhelming sense of hopelessness due to a malevolent super lord/bad guy etc. that is omnipotent.
It's interesting that some people have brought up Martin. ASoIaF didn't strike me as too dark, maybe because we alternate between POVs and what may be bad for one character is positive for another. Lies of Locke Lamora is another one where (SPOILERS)
many characters die
and yet, the story balances well.
I think that's why I like GGK's books. With the exception of the first one, most are about flawed characters. Yes, they are power hungry and do whatever to achieve their goals, but they have a vulnerability.
In so far as a book that's too positive, I recently read The Redemption of Athalus and found it bland to the point of almost not finishing it. There was no tension whatsoever.

[Lucien21]

I certainly has been the reason I never got very far in the Thomas Covenant novels. I hated the character from the get go and never got further than a few chapters.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Manarion

I hate it when fantasy is too dark, down, and depressing. Bad guys slipping through while the heroic people die-there's too much of that going on in the world already. Fantasy is supposed to be just that-fantasy, made up, not real. I think that's one reason I like David Eddings so much-in my remembrance, only one good character died each in the Elenium and the Mallorean-but the bad guys got their comeuppance. I think that's how stories should be.

My real problem this as a general statement is that this belittles what fantasy is capable of as literature. Fantasy, no less than any other branch of the art, is capable of exploring the deepest aspects of what it means to be human, of touching deep emotional chords and evoking -- and improving -- an appreciation for life in all its richness, complexity, beauty, and awfulness (in both senses of the word). To reduce it to something so simplistic robs it of that high heritage and makes it into a soporific or opiate. Not that such stories are completely outside the Pale, or that such a view doesn't deserve to see occasional exploration (it does), but that idea that "fantasy is supposed to be just fantasy" would reduce the entire field to a childish pastime with no more substance, meaning. Not to mention that it would mean we wouldn't have some of the greatest classics of the genre....

[The Ace]

Broadly speaking, I have no quarrel with heroic quests, battles, hardship and the death of friends, or indeed popular characters. I just feel that turning a novel of any genre into a body count is bad, and when the writer specifically targets characters with whom the reader has sympathy, the whole thing just seems a waste of paper.