Is it grimdark? Reader tastes have drifted toward a kind of gritty realism. Heroes are somewhat evil and villains are decent people, perhaps on the same moral plane as the heroes. The world is crapsack. Meta-narratives are invented falsehoods.
Oh, I don't plan to answer the question. Just discuss it.
I want to suggest that there is a certain relativity to this question which is, perhaps, why readers are divided over it. To some, Aragorn is a believable character. To others, men of war are more likely to resemble Logen Ninefingers or Jaime Lannister. Some see a little bit of Narnia or Lothlorien in the world while others see a bleak Westeros.
The relativity thing. It's relative to your situation in this world. Some have a vestige of freedom and opportunity, making it easier to see the lighter side of life. Others are severely oppressed or suffering and see little or no light. Most are in between, with poverty, exploitation, and crime leaving them capable of enjoyment, but only sometimes.
The human experience varies. Sublime things co-exist with suffering. Human nature is corrupt, but not completely so. Is the future more like Star Trek or Warhammer 40k?
Potential answers come to us from a variety of religions, mythologies, and philosophies.
Meanwhile, what do we want as readers? I, for one, am comfortable with a wide spectrum with regard to the moral tone or bleakness scale of a book. Just as human experiences vary, so should stories. And not all heroes are tainted. Not all villains are sympathetic.
But there does seem to be a constant. As light is the constant in terms of astrophysics, I'd suggest that a yearning for goodness lies behind all stories, no matter how grim.
Comments