Because Game of Thrones is on my mind again for the Hardhome sequence. Everyone has their two cents about the grimdark genre but one thing I don’t see discussed at much length, or widely enough, is how wrapping up a grimdark story has one unique challenge: If you establish a world where everything is miserable and characters are selfish and honorless and there’s no hope for heroism or selflessness, you will not be able to sell your audience on a satisfying ending unless everyone is dead.
What I mean by this is if you have your one little flicker of hope in your protagonist or even a side character, the odds of them having a happy ending in a world that you’ve written to consistently show the worst in people, that ending becomes too unrealistic to feel earned.
In other words, Game of Thrones, but also The Walking Dead and on some level, The Boys. In all three of these (have not caught up to The Boys past Jensen Ackles’ season), the threat of doom is so insurmountable that every victory is consistently one step forward, three steps back.
In GoT it’s corruption and the infallible nefarious ways of the villains and their villainous agenda that keep winning while the good guys keep dying. In The Walking Dead every beacon of hope for a cooperative society for humanity dug out of this zombie hellscape is squandered by organized sadism. In The Boys, the hero propaganda machine and institutionalized living weapons where even the good guys are bad guys, there is no way to win aside from nuking the planet and starting over.
—
I don’t mind grimdark academically. I think it’s interesting to explore as a way to interpret the psychology of the author and what compels someone to both write and enjoy content that’s just misery porn. Grimdark has its place in the cultural zeitgeist as a controlled dose of suffering to help us feel better about the world we live in, like watching horror movies for a controlled dose of terror.
It has its (not as deep as it thinks it is) cultural commentary about the human nature or the political landscape or how we treat our heroes or the tragedy of war, etc and tends to feel more gritty and realistic to what these fantasy worlds could be like without all the hope and optimism. There is a place for it.
However, constantly hammering your audience over and over again with a message of hopelessness and that chivalry is dead and that anyone smiling is naive, dumb, or lying Pavlovs your audience into expecting it all the way to the end.
Meaning: The ending of GoT was a dumpster fire, and it was always going to be. If this is the reason the author hasn’t finished writing it, I wouldn’t be surprised. This is a universe where (spoiler alert):
Sexism, racism, rape, assault, slavery, abuse, torture, child murder, and animal abuse are the law of the land.
Pedophiles walk among us and continue to get away with it (specifically Littlefinger) for far too long.
Even when the good guys take the bad guys down with them, the other bad guys resurrect the corpses of the defeated bad guys to continue carrying out their evil schemes, or Oberyn and The Mountain.
Children are burned at the stake for what amounts to be a pointless ritual, because her mother hangs herself and her father loses catastrophically in battle and then dies, or Shireen.
Sansa’s entire arc. All of it. She gets no reprieve for five whole seasons.
So when you’re staring at the mess you’ve made trying to come up with a satisfying ending for so many arcs, you find yourself with a problem: This world doesn’t run on happy endings. You’ve spent 7 seasons proving happy endings are childish and stupid. You have no way to end this cathartically, because by the rules of your world, all your heroes will end up murdered in gruesome ways. Congrats.
But maybe I’m just bitter.
Like this whole iron throne business. Melting it was the only course of action. Why? No matter who sits on it, the life expectancy of those who do is criminally short. Bran probably died choking on a chicken bone shortly after the end credits.
There is no evidence given in-universe for anyone disappointed that they didn’t end up king or queen to just sit back and take it without continuing to scheme and plot and get a lot of people killed.
There is no evidence to suggest that any of these people would realistically rally together to fight a common enemy without stabbing each other in the back once the threat is handled.
There is no evidence that these people would let bygones be and cheer for the new and just ruler to take the throne indisputably.
While the show does have its bright moments of camaraderie, loyalty, and trust, they are vastly outnumbered by the so-called “realistic” nature of the rest of Westeros. In no reality in the current canon would any leader be able to rule because they’re loved more than they’re feared. That’s not how this show operates, thus there is no way to end the series with your audience confident that Bran or Sansa or Jon or whoever would have actually led the kingdom into brighter futures. They’d just be dead just like their naive, dumb, dad.
—
The Walking Dead is no different. The unofficial motto of the show was that the walkers are bad, but the true enemy of humanity is other humans. Every new group of people either got murdered for being too weak, or did the murdering. In a world where the mortality rate vastly outpaces the birthrate and every group has become jaded and cynical enough to shoot first and ask later, anything less than humanity going out on a bitter and cynical end wouldn’t fit the established tone.
I didn’t watch past the season where Carl was killed off in the conspiracy of the year, but I didn’t think I had to. Killing off Carl was the beginning of the end—they symbolically and literally killed the future of humanity. Judith exists, but Carl is just old enough to remember what the world was like before, to have context for how humanity should be, where Judith doesn’t.
They never made any significant efforts to find a cure or more substantial means of eradicating the walkers. There was no overarching goal of the characters beyond Just Survive Somehow. It just wasn’t sustainable to ever have a satisfying ending, especially when no matter if you get bit or not, you become a walker when you die. So even if they all packed up and sailed to a remote island free from walkers, one unseen death could wipe out their entire camp.
It was always going to be a Sysyphisian task to end that show in a meaningful way, and I don’t think they even tried.
—
The Boys… man, I hate this show. It’s not bad, it’s just not as smart as it thinks it is with all its commentary on the political landscape, as the events they’re criticizing continue to unfold around us. Season two has neo nazis… as real neo nazis are still running amok.
It has the same preaching pitfall that so much liberal content does—if you get too preachy, those who already agree with you will feel talked down to and bludgeoned with your unsubtle message, and those who don’t agree with you won’t feel at all compelled to change sides if you spend every waking second of your show insulting them.
The supers in this show are so omnipresent, so powerful, so staggeringly OP that there is no solution beyond attempting genocide on all of them. There’s no legal avenue to pursue, because you can’t imprison them and they don’t care about petty attempts at enacting justice. You can’t arm the regular humans with basic guns and army gear when the main villain can just laser-eye them all in seconds. You can’t mount a peaceful protest movement or a resistance of any kind when telepaths walk among them and can literally stomp out any signs of nonconformity.
You’ve written yourself an unsolvable problem while trying to write a well-constructed criticism of politics and hero worship. If we can’t solve it in the real world in a single cohesive and satisfying narrative, what makes you think you can?
Anything that tries to kneecap the threat would look weak and cheap, because this show has stuck so close to the ongoing real world narrative. The supers aren’t all robot minions of a hive mind where one bomb that takes out the brain disables the entire hoard. Kill the main bad guy and another will just take his place. There is no winning The Boys, at least the story of it that I’ve seen, and I wasn’t impressed.
—
So no, I don’t like grimdark in application, in settings where you have long-running series with audiences dedicated to following arcs and expecting satisfying endings, because grimdark demands enemies and forces of evil that are just too insurmountable to write a cathartic ending that isn’t cheap or unrealistic.
In both GoT and TWD, since those have finished, they didn’t have to end as disasters. If both had sat down in the writers' room around season 4 of both shows and planned out their five-season step plan to shift the narrative away from grimdark and let their characters actually pursue a viable plan for fixing their miserable worlds, you can still kill off all the characters you want in the name of the end goal of whatever utopia they dream of. But the characters still have to work for it and sacrifice for it and maybe they do lose hope but they keep on keepin’ on despite it.
Grimdark sucks, in my opinion, because as a storytelling convention, it never ends. “Hey what if the world was miserable,” is all well and good, but if your goal is to entertain, how do you tell an entertaining story when the miserable world your characters live in will chew them up and spit out something unrecognizable? I don’t even need a happy ending, but the only convincing ending that grimdark allows is dead heroes and “life sucks get over it”.
—
I don’t know how The Boys is doing or how it will end and I don’t care. I hated it for a lot more reasons than its attempts at sounding smart, like Huey as the most annoying modern Everyman I have seen, and that they didn’t even try to redeem Soldier Boy or stick him in therapy to be an actual better alternative to Homelander, which is what they sought him out for in the first place.
So yeah. Grimdark. Maybe it’s just the late capitalist hellscape we find ourselves in, but why would I read it when I am living it, following characters who don’t have solutions, while watching real leaders who also don’t have solutions?
If you want to write in this genre, more power to you, just think about the long term, overarching goals of your heroes before you get too far in so you can start them on the long road to victory in a believable and satisfying way, otherwise you end up buried in a ditch like the endings of two television juggernauts.
Comments