[ SECRET POST #5497 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5497 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #787.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[meadowphoenix]

I think you find more of that in comedy fantasy, but I'm guessing you want a more straight fantasy. I think the problem is that both of those types of worlds imply something about the people in them. If most people are fairly good, then what would create a society that was less nice than the people in it? Personally it feels like part of the definition of grimdark that the people in that environment can not helped but be touched by the darkness; if they could, why is grimdark?

But saying all that I would actually really like someone to explore that, so I've come around to what you want OP.

[feotakahari]

The central mechanic of grim vs. noble isn’t the extent to which people are evil, but the extent to which the protagonists are capable of changing things. A grim story can have good protagonists who completely fail to make any impact.

(IRL, this is what people call Moloch—when interlocked incentives create a situation that’s worse for everyone involved, but no one person has enough power to fix it.)

[meadowphoenix]

What do you consider grimdark? I don't think I've ever thought that was the central mechanic, but it's very possible I'm using a more...movie inspired definition.

[feotakahari]

By contradiction: https://1d4chan.fandom.com/wiki/Noblebright

[meadowphoenix]

You're deriving grimdark's mechanic by its contradiction? Theseus ship by shadow, eh?

Anyway, I don't think it makes sense to suggest that grimdark's central mechanic can be defined by abstraction, especially in genre, wherein it's not necessarily the case that noblebright as applied rather than a writer actively playing with the trope is actually the mirror opposite of grimdark; there's a layer of interpretation there that simply can't be ignored. Like, people say that ASOIAF is grimdark, and the protagonists are actually capable of great change within the universe. I think the more popular use, wherein it's the difference between camp batman and ~realistic~ batman, wherein batman's ability to effect the universe does not change, but the philosophy of human nature does. Meanwhile, I don't think you would call BTVS grimdark, even though the slayer's purpose is never-fucking-ending. So I can't agree that that is the central mechanic, in that I don't think that's how it's being used.

[(Anonymous)]

If most people are fairly good, then what would create a society that was less nice than the people in it?

I mean, that's the way that a lot of people feel about the actual world and the society that we actually live in. So, I agree that it's a good and important question how this is possible, but not an unrealistic one, and I think it's quite reasonable to have a fictional world function that way.

[meadowphoenix]

hmm, I definitely do not think that about the world and society we live in. We are very much incentivized to and do exploit others who have worse choices because of that. I think we are all making ethically compromised choices, and I think the ability to make socially good choices in the collective is exceedingly compromised, since collective good remains threatened by the ability of actors to make individualistic choices. I think the world is therefore the level of nice that people are at. So maybe that's why I'm having trouble imagining this.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't believe that is necessarily true.

Plenty of works, if you think about it, are actually grimdark, but instead focus on the heroes that change the tide:

In Halo, humanity is losing a genocidal war, lost their most important fortress world, and have said fanatic hegemony at the doorstep of Earth. However, the games focus on the Master Chief, who defeats them time and again, and eventually leads to the collapse of the hegemonic empire.

In Star Wars: A New Hope, the Empire has eradicated nearly all Jedi, they have become a human supremacist and authoritarian regime that now has access to a planet-killing weapon, but we see it from Luke's POV as he triggers the collapse of the Empire.

In Avatar: The Last Airbender, it is a world that is deep in a conquest war from the Fire Nation, with the Airbenders having suffered a cultural genocide, and that's not even getting into the subjects of authoritarian governments, dynastic madness, parental abuse; but we see the story from the titular Avatar that comes to save the world in its darkest hour.

I think grimdark settings provide a good contrast to the nobility of heroes, though something I tended to notice in grimdark stories and setting, is an oft-forgotten very important element: Why is the world worth saving? For Halo, human culture and our clues about our past; for Star Wars, the colors of the galaxy and the freedom to live; for Avatar, all of the people we meet and to offer a better world.

In all cultures, people are fundamentally people. Even if their system is fucked and potentially created that grimdark world, they are still doing their best, and can be polite or even kind to those they befriend.

[meadowphoenix]

Your examples intrigued me, but I don't think Avatar is grimdark in any sense, and I don't think Star Wars was intended to be grimdark at all (there is more reason to call it grimdark in the prequels than the original, imo). I can't speak to Halo.

So I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what grimdark is. It is something more than simply dark or dysfunctional, imo. I would probably go so far as to describe it as having a specific and universal cynical understanding of power/ethics/morals (which is vague but I do think to a certain extent this is about philosophical atmosphere more than anything else). So OG Star Wars has a moral system too clearly defined to the audience for grimdark. The prequels otoh, don't seem nearly as defined and all of the people including heroes and enemies, are operating on the same understanding of power, which is both very cynical, and which is reflected in their actions. That's way more grimdark.

War is not grimdark inherently, imo. But the type of war that seems entrenched into an understanding of human operations is. That's why I would put OG Avatar outside grimdark (though to that point....if all we had was Ba Sing Se...I might think differently about it). I think there's much more of the grim in Korra, but even that doesn't reach the level of grimdark.

What about those examples make them grimdark to you rather than simply dark?

[ladykyou]

In Halo, the alien hegemony destroys human settlements planet by planet. In the lore, it's common to show just how woefully unmatched human ships are against alien ones, to the point hearing the news of colonies being glassed by the Covenant is as common as hearing of a terrorist attack, a shooting, or an execution someplace else. It becomes even darker when a parasitic hivemind is discovered (that turns out to be Lovecraft!God), as well as a super-advanced vanished empire that built the titular Halos to destroy it. Hell, in one of the books, the creator of the Master Chief loses all hope that humanity will be saved, until he saves them from all three menaces anyway. Halo 4's NPC dialogue shows how deeply the war scarred both military personnel and scientists.

As for Star Wars, to me it is grimdark because it put the Galatic Empire in the hands of a tyrannical, cruel despot that wishes to torture everything alive. And after Darth Vader's birth and the Jedi purge, he has all but won, and the people see it by the enslavement of multiple species, how cheap soldier and pilot lives become, how hopelessly outmatched the Rebellion is, and by the creation of the Death Star. Hell, it's shown that when the Death Star was revealed, the Rebellion would've dissolved then and there had they not found out about the weakness.

Avatar, I will concede I exaggerated. That said, it is a setting that still deals with dark subjects, and again, the setting comes WAY too close to falling to the Fire Nation at multiple points. The fact that element benders are methodically hunted down and purged by the Fire Nation is a terrifying form of ethnic cleansing by itself.

On another example that just came to me, the (indefinitely paused) series If the Emperor Had a Text To Speech Device, which is a comedic parody of Warhammer 40k. However, while the official setting itself is grimdark, the series itself is hopeful in the sense that it portrays the Emperor's efforts to un-fuck the Imperium, as well as improve as a person after the series shows how he was also responsible for its downfall in the first place.

I admit I disagree on war not being inherently grimdark. It's a messy, ugly affair that consumes whole societies, and it is the cause of a lot of grief and horrors. A war can be portrayed as full of action, heroic, and even comedic (in the way Red vs. Blue does, for instance), but it still takes its toll on people. When war exists on a setting, people often suffer for it. That said, some settings only give a surface-level narrative on war merely to move the plot, so I can agree to disagree.

[meadowphoenix]

So I guess I'm confused at how you distinguish merely dark, or with dark elements, and grimdark. Autocratic rule, war are all dark, but not inherently grimdark, though you could certainly write them so.

[(Anonymous)]

In all cultures, people are fundamentally people. Even if their system is fucked and potentially created that grimdark world, they are still doing their best, and can be polite or even kind to those they befriend.

I agree with your entire comment, but especially this.