Why is noblebright fiction unpopular?

[Kazyan]

Noblebright is a 4chanism used to mean "opposite of grimdark", and it summarizes what's causing a beleaguered feeling I'm getting.

Media is so grim and gritty now, with dark heroes and moral ambiguity. The settings are often bleaker versions of the real world, or just post-apocalyptic. Fiction likes to talk about why people are bad and why they should feel bad, or it just makes trying to be happy or a good person result in Very Bad Things that don't go away.

What happened to the books and movies that were nice? Personally, I'm burning out on this trend. Where are the noblebright stories? Recently, we basically have...what, Wreck It Ralph, Rise of The Guardians, Adventure Time and MLP:FIM, and only the cartoons seem to be as popular as the dark stuff like Batman (EVERYWHERE, by the way).

Maybe it's just me, and there's lots of happy funtime stuff out there, but why is it so low-profile?

[Pokonic]

I would argue with Adventure Time, because quite a bit of it's content is dark. The Ice King's backstory, hell, the entire backstory, would be Pg-13 worthy if it was explained outright (And it was somewhat,shockingly, in the season five opener). Finn the Human is a title, for example, because he's probably the only one left.

Also, Wreak It Ralph was pretty mature all around, and I dont see many go-happy stories with the possible threat of the nullification of a childs existance in it. Also, husbands being eaten on there wedding day.

Anyway, I would say it's because people have a yearning for realism, and it says something that the popular image of a "realist" is a depressed sad-faced man.

[Tanuki Tales]

Wreck It Ralph has some pretty serious themes and some really dark imagery to it, so I wouldn't necessarily call it "noblebright".

Adventure Time on the other hand is sugar coated Grimdark. I would never call it Noblebright, being as far as I am in the series.

Sure, you get silly stories like Jake the Dad, but the show has been going more towards The Lich, Finn the Human and Jake the Dog for some time now and I think it's gotten better for it.

[Giggling Ghast]

Noblebright tends to be synonomous with "childish", or at least it's thought of that way (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueArtIsAngsty).

[MLai]

All romantic comedies and child-actor comedies are "noblebright". Seems quite popular at the cinemas to me.

If your definition of "noblebright" is confined to fiction which involves conflict, e.g. action movies or law & order movies... then think about the basis of the genera themselves. Action movies depend on conflict (physical and emotional). And in order to foster an "Us vs Them" theme to sell the conflict, one of the sides will be evil or foreign. IRL this involves grim/dark circumstances more often than not. With the advent of the media age, ppl are very cognizant of these circumstances.

Only propaganda media in tinpot dictatorship countries are "noblebright".

[Yora]

If everything is perfectly fine, there is no plot.

[Carry2]

If everything is perfectly fine, there is no plot.
Yes, but this is equally true when everything is utterly wrong.

[Das Platyvark]

I always interpreted the word 'noblebright' less as meaning childish and slightly saccharine as being more of a high adventure counterpart to the 'bad things happening to bad people' bit the op seems to be arguing against. It's not that there are less of the bad things, it's just they aren't quite so bad, and probably a little more obviously not the heros. In grimdark fiction, the villains are almost always pretty evil, and the ambiguity comes in that the heros are just as bad if not worse. In noblebright, they actually deserve the title of heros.

[ZeroNumerous]

Yes, but this is equally true when everything is utterly wrong.

No, because you can create a story of an individual surviving all of the utter wrongness. Or at least trying to.

If noblebright fiction was written as noblebright was originally intended to be written, then there would be no conflict. Because in noblebright everyone is good, altruistic, and helpful. There is no story, because no one is evil, selfish, or dangerous enough to take center stage as an antagonist. The protagonist would have a problem(say, he needs to find a holy grail) and goes out to search for it. Everyone he meets would be helpful, all the "villains" would be ineffectual losers in masks, and the whole thing would play out like a Scooby Doo episode with no comedy.

If you use noblebright as people have re-written it to be, then it's just Dudley Do-Right in X Universe with varying degrees of competency in the work's version of Dudley. The villain is always campy and very punch-clock, and never actually threatening, the hero is always an example of incorruptibly pure pureness, and there's always a love interest tied to (future/ancient/magical/zombie) train tracks.

[Eldan]

There can, however, certainly be a degree of, you know, balance. You can have protagonists who are good people, worlds which aren't doomed and authorities which aren't corrupt without making the story boring.

[Man on Fire]

Noblebright is a 4chanism used to mean "opposite of grimdark", and it summarizes what's causing a beleaguered feeling I'm getting.

Media is so grim and gritty now, with dark heroes and moral ambiguity.

Where? I seen people complaining about it all the time, but never seen anyone pointing out the examples. People complain about things that I have feeling we don't get at all. At best we get dark anesthetics that don't mean anything, because the story is still noblebright. There aren't many trurly dark stories out there, yet people still complain about the very few there are.


The settings are often bleaker versions of the real world, or just post-apocalyptic. Fiction likes to talk about why people are bad and why they should feel bad, or it just makes trying to be happy or a good person result in Very Bad Things that don't go away.

Don't see that either. Show me where.


What happened to the books and movies that were nice? Personally, I'm burning out on this trend. Where are the noblebright stories? Recently, we basically have...what, Wreck It Ralph, Rise of The Guardians, Adventure Time and MLP:FIM, and only the cartoons seem to be as popular as the dark stuff like Batman (EVERYWHERE, by the way).

Meanwhile last Batman cartoon was the total opposite of any form of darkness, and Cartoon Network is actively trying to murder their two only shows that have anything you could, by serious stretch, call dark, namely Young Justice and Green Lantern, and even they aren't really dark, just serious.

No, seriously, what dark things are out there and how I'm missing all of them? Game of Thrones and Walking Dead on TV, Animal Man and Swamp Thing (I could barerly call most of DCnU dark, not even their "dark" line) Avengers Arena (which sucks), Walking Dead and upcoming sequel to Luther Stroode and some stuff at Avatar Press on comics. On movies...I got nothing, unless you count horror movies, which hould be dark, that's the point of the genre. On anime I too got nothing, Berserk movies could count, right? On manga the only dark stuff that's popular had started long time ago, like Berserk.

Where the hell do you see those dark things? Point me out to them, I love this stuff and there isn't anything for me out there.

PS: I'm not counting things like Adventure Time, which have dark undertones hidden under the fluffy stuff, if you have to sneak those things, you aren't primarly dark.

[Tanuki Tales]

PS: I'm not counting things like Adventure Time, which have dark undertones hidden under the fluffy stuff, if you have to sneak those things, you aren't primarly dark.

Sneak them in?

Have we been watching the same show? :smallconfused:

[Man on Fire]

Sneak them in?

Have we been watching the same show? :smallconfused:

I'm nto big on AT, number of episodes terrifies me. But I woudl argue that even wioth the Lich and Farmland saga it's still a light show most of all.

[Gnome Alone]

In noblebright, they actually deserve the title of heros.

I'm guessing that's more what the OP meant, given the specific mention of Adventure Time. "I vowed to help anyone, no matter how small their problem."

[Scowling Dragon]

I agree. Most of the dark will fly over kids heads.

[Grif]

I feel obliged to link this:

Brighthammer 40,000 (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/BrightHammer40k_(1st_edition))

[Tanuki Tales]

I agree. Most of the dark will fly over kids heads.

Mind-raping crowns, balloons that are ecstatic about being released into space so they can die, nuclear bombs that create horrific undead horrors, princesses being dropped into nuclear goo that partially melts them and turns them into a possessed abomination, a sentient heart that rips apart a man to create a body to woo a princess with...

These are things you think fly over kids heads? :smallconfused:

Sure, there's a lot of subtle darkness and mature themes in Adventure Time, but a lot of it is also right in your face.

[Mx.Silver]

I'd say it might have something to do with the term, which strikes me as being rather meaningless. 'Noblebright' is the opposite of 'Grimdark' but I've never seen the latter term used as anything other than a pejorative direct at works that darker than the speaker personally likes. If you consider Batman to be verging on 'grimdark' then I'm afraid you're probably never going to find anything you'd call 'noblebright'.

[Man on Fire]

Yes, but this is equally true when everything is utterly wrong.

not really, you can do a lot of stories about people trying to survive in horrible worlds, trying to fix it (Transmetropolitan), just achieve some sort of goal (Berserk), or simply helping as many people they can (Fist of the North Star). But if everything is good, there isn't really a story to tell, aside of how people live.


In grimdark fiction, the villains are almost always pretty evil, and the ambiguity comes in that the heros are just as bad if not worse. In noblebright, they actually deserve the title of heros.


not true. Fist of the North Star is quite dark, but Kenshiro is still very much deserving a title of a hero. Hell, many people complain he is too noble and merciful, just because he granted some of the nastier psychos he fought a quick, merciful death.

[Carry2]

No, because you can create a story of an individual surviving all of the utter wrongness. Or at least trying to.
Yes, but in order for that story to be interesting, there must be some plausible method by which that individual can survive or combat all the utter wrongness. Which implies that it's not all bad. Heck, in a 100% perfectly grimdark setting, even the fleeting notion of things getting better would be an impossibility.

I feel obliged to link this:

Brighthammer 40,000 (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/BrightHammer40k_(1st_edition))
It's everything I dreamed it would be!

[Eldan]

I always thought Grimdark meant "so dark you can't really take it seriously anymore, close to self-parody". I.e. a lot of 40k material, though they seem to be moving a bit away from the self-parody and towards what they seem to be thinking of as real darkness.

So, wouldn't the opposite of that be so over-the-top saccharine sweet that you can't take it seriously anymore? Where nothing ever goes wrong for anyone, everyone is a nice person and all turns out well in the end?

Because I don't thikn there's much of either.

That said, I like both depressingly dark and more optimistic fiction. I have no problem watching a few episoides of The Brave and the Bold followed by The Road (I actually did that, once).

[ArlEammon]

If everything is perfectly fine, there is no plot.

The promise of going to a place of Eutopia (Not Utopia) and Heaven/Shangrila, etcetera, where everything is perfectly fine excites people. That's kind of what Star Trek is about. Minus the after life, it's a promise of a better future for Mankind. Eventually they have some dark moments in it, but if people believe that they are fighting for "Some time in the future" where everything is perfectly fine, then that makes for a good story, because to make it that far is full of trials and difficulty.

[Bulldog Psion]

I would argue that grimdark is really defined by one of two things: 1. either all the named characters are villains, and some of them are a little less villainous than others, and 2. unremitting corruption and lowliness everywhere. Universally. Every innkeeper is secretly a psychopath, every sturdy yeoman is a wifebeater, every starship pilot is a cad waiting to "space" his passengers. And the few decent people are inevitably doomed.

I would argue that noblebright is more like the Lord of the Rings. Darkness, fear, the menace of the eternal slavery of the world to a power-mad demigod, everything crumbling and all that is fair passing away -- but there IS fair stuff, and there ARE people who are decent people in the story. Flawed, perhaps, but decent. In other words, in Grimdark, Gandalf would turn out to be a secret serial killer, Sam was actually a rapist, and Theoden would be a gibbering coward.

I would opine that too dark a setting is just as unrealistic as too bright and shiny a one. Because if we're going to argue realism, the world is more like a zebra -- stripes of light and darkness, in the human soul and outside of it.

Note that neither pure grimdark nor pure noblebright exist, but there is a continuum between the extremes, and I agree with the OP that grimdark-leaning work seems to be more popular at the moment. Just compare LotR and George RR Martin's series. Is there anyone in Martin's books who isn't a complete piece of garbage?

[OracleofWuffing]

Well, to me, noblebright as "the opposite of grimdark" kinda sounds like Teletubbies, Dora the Explorer, and all the other shows of that kin.

...

So, yeah, I guess I'm not a fan of noblebright, either?

[Weezer]

Because for a good narrative you need conflict. And a world where everything is roses and puppies doesn't make for good conflict, so it's hard if not impossible to make a good story in that kind of world. The only place it's really seen is in very young kids stuff like Teletubbies and Sesame Street, where the goal isn't narrative based.

[GloatingSwine]

What happened to the books and movies that were nice? Personally, I'm burning out on this trend. Where are the noblebright stories? Recently, we basically have...what, Wreck It Ralph, Rise of The Guardians, Adventure Time and MLP:FIM, and only the cartoons seem to be as popular as the dark stuff like Batman (EVERYWHERE, by the way).

Maybe it's just me, and there's lots of happy funtime stuff out there, but why is it so low-profile?


Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.

The reason you can't find what you're looking for is that you're looking for the wrong thing. The opposite of grimdark isn't a story where everything is nice, good, and happy all the time, it's a story where strong heroic characters stand up to the things that aren't good, maintain the courage of their moral convictions, and win.

[Man on Fire]

Reading this thread I think we have problem over what do words "grimdark" and 'noblelight" actually means. The way I see it, having lurked around 4chan a bit, grimdark really doesn't mean anything more than "It's too dark for me" and what's a grimdark vary depending on person. So I'm tarting to thin kall these complains about grimdark are meaningless.

[tensai_oni]

If everything is perfectly fine, there is no plot.

Because for a good narrative you need conflict. And a world where everything is roses and puppies doesn't make for good conflict, so it's hard if not impossible to make a good story in that kind of world. The only place it's really seen is in very young kids stuff like Teletubbies and Sesame Street, where the goal isn't narrative based.

Well, to me, noblebright as "the opposite of grimdark" kinda sounds like Teletubbies, Dora the Explorer, and all the other shows of that kin.

Urgh guys, that's not what Noblebright means.


I always interpreted the word 'noblebright' less as meaning childish and slightly saccharine as being more of a high adventure counterpart to the 'bad things happening to bad people' bit the op seems to be arguing against. It's not that there are less of the bad things, it's just they aren't quite so bad, and probably a little more obviously not the heros. In grimdark fiction, the villains are almost always pretty evil, and the ambiguity comes in that the heros are just as bad if not worse. In noblebright, they actually deserve the title of heros.

This person has it right. Please read the official description (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Noblebright) (it's even SFW! How surprising considering it's 1d4chan), even if some examples provided are... iffy.

Even if the 'verse is pretty dark and serious, if the hero can make a difference, can save the day and make the world an unambigously better place - this is Noblebright. Mass Effect is Noblebright. Star Trek is Noblebright. Exalted is Noblebright. Everything where you can move towards a better future is Noblebright.

[Tengu_temp]

Mr.Silver and GloatingSwine pretty much said what I wanted already. Noblebright pretty much means "heroic and idealistic, with good winning in the end". There's plenty of such stories out there. And Batman is supposed to be grimdark? Really? Next thing, I'm going to see someone saying that MLP FiM is not good for kids, because the Changelings are too dark.

[Hiro Protagonest]

It strikes me as unrealistic.

Why does grimdark seem more realistic? Because we're warlike. We are a race of generals and military researchers. Civilians play wargames, both on the tactical and the strategical levels. Airsoft, Arma, Total War (both computer and tabletop), Axis and Allies, Shogun, Warhammer, WH40k, Mount and Blade, Battlefield 3, Halo, Planetside and Ps2, and the upcoming Castle Story, just to name ones I know of. The military is even more serious about it, having tasked Bohemian Interactive with making and updating a milsim game known as Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS2). So any situation where there's a massive war, or it's the aftermath of a massive war, strikes me as more realistic than one about how we achieved world peace.

[Jayngfet]

The reason you can't find what you're looking for is that you're looking for the wrong thing. The opposite of grimdark isn't a story where everything is nice, good, and happy all the time, it's a story where strong heroic characters stand up to the things that aren't good, maintain the courage of their moral convictions, and win.

Yeah, this is the kind of misconception that seems to be floating around the thread.

I think Superman is the prime example. When he was created, he was one of hundreds of literary and comic book characters like him. He does what's best because he has the ability to and isn't corrupted due to moral strength. This also applies to guys like John Carter from the Barsoom novels for an obvious other example. I mean Carter is kind to animals even when cruelty is easy and they aren't "cute", he's faithful to his wife even when separated for years at a time to the point where other women aren't considered, and even though he's stronger and faster than nearly anyone on that world he never tries to prop himself up as a kind of warlord. And he either gets benefits for this or is able to work through the flaws of this when it comes back to bite him.

Now remember how John Carter gets played when Disney finally does a movie about him? They make him the troubled loner who doesn't care about conflicts and has no real connection to anyone until the end, gutted out any of the compassion he played in the books, and generally attempted to "modernize" him by making him a jerk.

Heck, look at the superman trailers. Clark can't save a busload of children without getting flack from what was supposed to be the center of his morality. Then a bunch of the rest of the trailer cuts to the army arresting him for ...unknown reasons.

That is the real core of the issue. The idea of a protagonist who works to be compassionate and helps others because it's right and that's the end of it, doesn't really exist anymore. I mean Wreck-It Ralph has the same "I don't care, oh wait we have 20 minutes left in the film so now I do" thing going on, same with Rise of the guardians. Finn from adventure time is the only real person on that list who always helps people because he's a good dude.

[Eldan]

Even if the 'verse is pretty dark and serious, if the hero can make a difference, can save the day and make the world an unambigously better place - this is Noblebright. Mass Effect is Noblebright. Star Trek is Noblebright. Exalted is Noblebright. Everything where you can move towards a better future is Noblebright.

Then I'm confused while this needs a new adjective, really. Or how, exactly, it's the opposite of Grimdark. Grimdark isn't "slightly dark". It's "ridiculously dark".

[GloatingSwine]

Grimdark was originally coined in reference to Warhammer 40,000, and comes from its tagline (In the grim darkness of the far future there is only war).

Of course, people don't realise that the levels of grim darkness in WH40k are deliberately over the top in order to be silly* and think it's cool because grim darkness.


* I have met GW designers and know how their minds work. There's a reason the Orks have a unit called a "Nob", to the amusement of 13 year old boys of all ages.

[Tengu_temp]

Yeah, WH40K as written and intended is pretty much an over-the-top parody of how True Serious Fans see it.


It strikes me as unrealistic.

Why does grimdark seem more realistic?

Hold it right there. Grimdark is not realistic. The whole point is that it's not realistic. If you think it is, then either your definition of grimdark is wrong, or you have an overly pessimistic and cynical view on life.

[GloatingSwine]

The OP is actually talking about the rise of "gritty realism", which isn't realistic anyway.

Actually, there was an article I was reading in the Indie that talks about similar issues and why "gritty realism" isn't, albeit specific to crime writing.

here (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/bought-off-how-crime-fiction-lost-the-plot-8449254.html).

[Scowling Dragon]

I mean Wreck-It Ralph has the same "I don't care, oh wait we have 20 minutes left in the film so now I do" thing going on

Well yeah. He was a "bad guy". He cared all the way through. He just fel absolutely horrible after doing something awful. Thats how people act. Thats called depth.

But otherwise you point stands tall.

[Man on Fire]

This person has it right. Please read the official description (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Noblebright) (it's even SFW! How surprising considering it's 1d4chan), even if some examples provided are... iffy.

if by Iffy you mean "make absolutely no sense whatsoever". Old World of Darkness Changeling is Noblebright? The game about how human creativity and imagination are dying, and entire race sustained by it is dying with them and there is nothing to do to stop it, they can just fight losing battle? Steampunk and cyberpunk...nope, sorry, genres cannot belong on such list, unless we're talking about subgenre whose entire gimmick is being dark (Dark Fantasy) or light (Comedic Fantasy), I can easily imagine noblebright cyberpunk and grimdark steampunk. Super Sentai and Kamen Rider - yeah, that is just insulting to kamen Riders, sure, some of them are dark, but so are some Super Sentai series. This list is simply wrong and useless. And only very few things from them are really dark. Rest is just darker than whatever they put as noblebright, which isn't enough by a longshot.


Even if the 'verse is pretty dark and serious, if the hero can make a difference, can save the day and make the world an unambigously better place - this is Noblebright. Mass Effect is Noblebright. Star Trek is Noblebright. Exalted is Noblebright. Everything where you can move towards a better future is Noblebright.

And that is wrong. Because by that logic Berserk, one of the darker things ever created, is noblebright. And if Berserk isn't dark, then nothing is. Yeah, those terms are meaningless.


Hold it right there. Grimdark is not realistic. The whole point is that it's not realistic. If you think it is, then either your definition of grimdark is wrong, or you have an overly pessimistic and cynical view on life.

or maybe grimdark just doesn't mean anything and is a term people use to bash things they dislike?

[Tengu_temp]

Grimdark has a specific meaning, and it's "so over the top dark that it's impossible to take seriously". WH40K is a good example, and it's in fact where the term was born. That doesn't mean WH40K is bad, but it's not a setting that's possible to take seriously - and if you do then you're missing the point, because even the creators don't.

[tensai_oni]

if by Iffy you mean "make absolutely no sense whatsoever".

Most examples are shoehorned in to provide a false sense of dualism. Kamen Rider vs Super Sentai being the most glaring one for me, but others you mentioned fit as well. So yes, the table is pointless. But the definition stands.


And that is wrong. Because by that logic Berserk, one of the darker things ever created, is noblebright. And if Berserk isn't dark, then nothing is. Yeah, those terms are meaningless.

Are you saying that Guts can single-handedly make his world a better place, or change the inherently unfair Berserk cosmology?


Then I'm confused while this needs a new adjective, really. Or how, exactly, it's the opposite of Grimdark. Grimdark isn't "slightly dark". It's "ridiculously dark".

It's a term coined to describe BrightHammer, but you could say that it retroactively applies to most normal fiction. Heroic stories are Noblebright even if they (and most did) were made before the term was popularised.

And it's the opposite not in the way that Grimdark is ridiculously dark and Noblebright is ridiculously saccharine. But rather that in Grimdark, nothing you do matters in the long run and the world will remain a sh*thole as it is. In Noblebright, things you do matter, and you can make the world a better place.

EDIT: By the way, being forced to write it half a dozen times in one post made me realize I really hate the term "Noblebright". Can't we just say "heroic fiction"? Because that's what it is.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Exalted is Noblebright.

...

Wait, what?

[Man on Fire]

Grimdark has a specific meaning, and it's "so over the top dark that it's impossible to take seriously". WH40K is a good example, and it's in fact where the term was born. That doesn't mean WH40K is bad, but it's not a setting that's possible to take seriously - and if you do then you're missing the point, because even the creators don't.

And that defition is meaningless, because everybody and their mother apply the word to every single even slighty dark piece of fiction in existence. I seen even comics like Dark Avengers being called grimdark, and the only thing really dark about it was the coloring.


Are you saying that Guts can single-handedly make his world a better place, or change the inherently unfair Berserk cosmology?

You are looking at a guy who is strong supporter of idea that Guts will single-handely murder entire Godhand one day. Because he is so badass. But that doesn't mean it will be easy and that he won't uffer along the way and that a lot of horrible and very dark thing will happen. The tone of saga is dark, but the mesage is not. Putting it in the same category with MLP is...simply dumb.


And it's the opposite not in the way that Grimdark is ridiculously dark and BrightHammer is ridiculously saccharine. But rather that in Grimdark, nothing you do matters in the long run and the world will remain a sh*thole as it is. In BrightHammer, things you do matter, and you can make the world a better place.

What I get here is that grimdark is just used to bash things you don't like for beign too dark and noblebright is either used to bash things you dislike for being to bright or praise everything you don't find too dark. It's pretty much a pair of false dychotomy coined in order for people to have easy way of complaining about dark stuff.

Worst thing is, it's still used to complain abotu thing that aren't really dark.

[RPGuru1331]

...isn't the thread's title sort of assuming it's conclusion? The top gross in box offices, at least, is generally stuff that would fall under heroic fantasy. Hollywood's kind of not the end-all at all, but it's still not... yanno, nothing.

[Tengu_temp]

...

Wait, what?

Exalted is all about grabbing the world by the balls and shaping it in your own image. Whether it's for the better or for worse depends on the group, but I'd say in most cases it's for the better. Despite what some parts of the fandom claim, most people play Solars as straight-up heroes.


And that defition is meaningless, because everybody and their mother apply the word to every single even slighty dark piece of fiction in existence. I seen even comics like Dark Avengers being called grimdark, and the only thing really dark about it was the coloring.

Not my fault that everyone is misapplying the definition. Just because that happens doesn't mean that the definition isn't there. See: "meme".

[Soras Teva Gee]

I'd ask the question wouldn't the entire existence of "noblebright" be an arguement for the slow but definitely there towards a rejection of grimdark for material where hope is the highest purpose and everything works out in the end.


...

Wait, what?

Well yeah. The setting of Exalted sucks quite a bit but isn't the explicit point of it all that you're all awesome superheroes of epic scale to the max who's job it is to kick all the suck directly in the nads to replace it with one's own awesomeness... or you aren't playing the game right.

Row, Row, Fight Da Powah.

[Man on Fire]

Memes are completely about what people think they are, if those words are memes, then their actual definition is meaningless, how people are using them it's what's important.

[Drascin]

I mean Wreck-It Ralph has the same "I don't care, oh wait we have 20 minutes left in the film so now I do" thing going on

So wait, Wreck-It Ralph "doesn't care"?

Ralph. The guy who shares his food - and notice that he has to normally search around in the trash for leftovers, and when he gets some fresh fruit the first thing he does is splitting it with those evn unluckier than him - with the homeless in the first ten minutes of film. The guy who is easily one of the nicest people around. The guy who explicitly feels terrible because he doesn't want to do bad things but his job entails him doing them. The guy who is willing to lose his only friend in his entire, lonely existence to save her from what he thinks is high likelihood of death.

That Ralph?

[Tengu_temp]

Memes are completely about what people think they are, if those words are memes, then their actual definition is meaningless, how people are using them it's what's important.

I don't agree. If lots of people are using a word in the wrong context, then you don't change the definition to match how they use it. They're simply wrong and should be corrected.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Exalted is all about grabbing the world by the balls and shaping it in your own image. Whether it's for the better or for worse depends on the group, but I'd say in most cases it's for the better. Despite what some parts of the fandom claim, most people play Solars as straight-up heroes.

Turalisj's belief that removing the Great Curse would do pretty much nothing at all does irritate me, but Solars aren't exactly "the good guys". Despite whatever they or the Sun claim, they're only human. They get angry, distrustful, impatient, and sometimes succumb to just taking the easy way out and mindraping everyone. And the Curse just amplifies that.

[Man on Fire]

I'd ask the question wouldn't the entire existence of "noblebright" be an arguement for the slow but definitely there towards a rejection of grimdark for material where hope is the highest purpose and everything works out in the end.

Just because there is a happy ending it doesn't mean story still isn't dark.
The problem we have right now is that people carry this ridiculous assumption that dark equals bad and therefore everything that they like cannot be dark, so they made up pointless words and cathegories in which they can shoehorn everything they like and leave dark with everythign they dislike.

Just because there is a happy ending, jsut because hero is noble, just because there is hope, it doesn't mean the story isn't dark.

And I still haven't seen examples of these grimdark stories that everybody are talking are everywhere.

[Morph Bark]

Isn't the series centered around some alien species termed The Culture popular? The way it's always described it feels rather noblebright to me.

[Axolotl]

Isn't the series centered around some alien species termed The Culture popular? The way it's always described it feels rather noblebright to me.Only under the broadest definition. Almost everywhere outside the culture itself seems to be unremittingly awful. The first novel opens with a guy being drowned in sewage and really only gets darker from there. It's not grim dark but unless your definition of noblebright is simply that happy endings are possible then I don't think it counts.

[The_Snark]

Even if the 'verse is pretty dark and serious, if the hero can make a difference, can save the day and make the world an unambigously better place - this is Noblebright. Mass Effect is Noblebright. Star Trek is Noblebright. Exalted is Noblebright. Everything where you can move towards a better future is Noblebright.

This is a useless definition. I've never come across the world "noblebright" before this thread, but defining it as the opposite of grimdark makes me think that it's, well, basically what Eldan described. Just as grimdark is excessively dark, to the point that it's either ludicrous or really depressing, noblebright is optimistic to the point where it borders on absurd and saccharine. Both terms imply excess.

According to this, all you have to do to achieve noblebright status is... not be hopelessly grimdark? That's a pretty low benchmark. That doesn't need a new word. That's...

EDIT: By the way, being forced to write it half a dozen times in one post made me realize I really hate the term "Noblebright". Can't we just say "heroic fiction"? Because that's what it is.
... yeah. This right here, this is the source of your disagreement with Eldan, Man on Fire and others. You're thinking of noblebright as "everything that isn't grimdark", while they're using it to mean "the opposite of grimdark, an excess of brightness." And for the purposes of this discussion, I think the latter definition is much more helpful. Even you don't like seem to like your definition of noblebright much—it's not the right word for what you're trying to describe. The connotation is all wrong.

[Tengu_temp]

Huh? I don't think I ever disagreed with the Oni here.


Turalisj's belief that removing the Great Curse would do pretty much nothing at all does irritate me, but Solars aren't exactly "the good guys". Despite whatever they or the Sun claim, they're only human. They get angry, distrustful, impatient, and sometimes succumb to just taking the easy way out and mindraping everyone. And the Curse just amplifies that.

Solars don't have to be good guys, yes, but they can be, and often are. They're only human, but humans are capable of both good and evil.

[Eldan]

Sorry, but if that's the definition, it's pretty much meaningless. Because by that point, not even Warhammer 40k is really Grimdark anymore. We have Ciaphas Cain, hero of the Imperium. We have many heroes making it out of stories more or less intact and in situations better than they found them.

What, exactly, is Grimdark, if the definition of Noblebright is "there's a chance things might get better"? Because by that definition, the emperor might be restored. The Eldar might finish their new god. The Tau might rise to galactic prominence.

And much of this is a question of scale. Superman stops Lex Luthor today, but the universe still dies of heat death. Oh no! Grimdark! Ciaphas Cain saves a kitten in a short story where no enemies show up. Yay! Noblebright!

[The_Snark]

Huh? I don't think I ever disagreed with the Oni here.

Oy. Yeah, sorry, had you mixed up with someone else.

[Kazyan]

Oh dear, what's happened to the thread?

I think the hubbub about the specific word "noblebright" shows that I didn't explain very well and definitely misdirected everyone by simplifying. I'm sorry for inflicting the term upon you. Thinking about it a little more and going over the examples/objections to them, what's bothering me (and you don't have to listen to me; I'm just some dude) is, more specifically, settings. The sentiment of "welcome to a world where everything sucks". Dark themes are a prominent periphery, but still a periphery. Thinking about it that way, does the whining hold less water?

[Man on Fire]

I don't agree. If lots of people are using a word in the wrong context, then you don't change the definition to match how they use it. They're simply wrong and should be corrected.

Memes are bits of informations spread from human mind to human mind, it doesn't matter if the bit of the information is wrong, only if it's whidespread. If memetic terms of grimdark and noblebright doesn't match the defititions, it's the difinitiosn that have a proble, because people will use the memetic meanings, as they're the ones that sunk in their minds.

[Kitten Champion]

I've never heard the term "noblebright", but if it's the antithesis of grimdark than undoubtedly it would encompass the Star Trek television franchise. The premise of good and noble humans exploring space as representatives of a utopic civilization based on profound humanist principles is overwhelmingly optimistic.

All the other examples I can think of are comedies and children's entertainment.

[Aotrs Commander]

That is the real core of the issue. The idea of a protagonist who works to be compassionate and helps others because it's right and that's the end of it, doesn't really exist anymore. I mean Wreck-It Ralph has the same "I don't care, oh wait we have 20 minutes left in the film so now I do" thing going on, same with Rise of the guardians. Finn from adventure time is the only real person on that list who always helps people because he's a good dude.

That and the fact it's now common for the heroes to suffer a lot more before they win, and win by narrower margins (it's the former that's more the problem than the latter though). That, in particular, is what riles me more than anything (as I am not entertained by people being miserable - and "imperilled" is not "miserable".) It's this sort of repreated character screwing-over (Joss Whedon, when not on his good days, is especially bad at this) that I find irritating.

X-Men in particular in the last few years has screwed over the good guys again and again and again and again, while the bad guys get off "easy" often only being killed (and we know how long that lasts...), not psycologically (and sometimes physically) devastated. At every turn. (Not too mention the frequent character deaths. Seriously, in the last five or six years few years they've killed off more characters than decade previously, at least as far as the comics I followed go.)



Stuff like David Edding's Belgariad, I would say probably qualify as "noblebright"-ish, where the good guys win in the end with relatively minor losses (at least compared to most things these days!) and Live Happily Ever After, and they were very popular a while back, so there's that.

[Man on Fire]

Just because the characters suffer and bad giuys go away, it doesn't mean the story is dark.

[Coidzor]

I'm honestly not sure I've ever seen anything that was noblebright.

The closest would be the discussion of the joke noble-bright re-imagining of Warhammer 40K, which isn't really a work of fiction so much as a body of metafiction as far as I can tell.

[Zaydos]

Okay to see if I've got the definition straight...

Would the Carebears be noblebright?

What about the (old cartoon not movie) Smurfs?

How about (again the 80s cartoon not the new) He-Man?

Captain Planet?

Or the (yet again 80s) Transformers show (pre-movie)?

[Man on Fire]

That depends - do you like those cartoons? because, so far noblebright appears to mean only "stuff that I like".

[Gavinfoxx]

I think Noblebright is just 20's and 30's Pulp Action.

[Kitten Champion]

If it's the inverse of grimdark, then "noblebright" is -- in my opinion -- fiction determined to express our better nature in an essentially hopeful setting.

The West Wing, is largely "noblebright" -- it attempted to express the best side of politics -- rejecting the cynicism pervasive in real life. The West Wing was about dedicated, intelligent, competent, and compassionate public servants who held as much as possible to an enlightened ideal of what the United States could be. Or at least, what the show believed to be enlightened. Even when they failed, there was always an implicit nobility to their motives and aspirations.

[tensai_oni]

That depends - do you like those cartoons? because, so far noblebright appears to mean only "stuff that I like".

Why so defensive? A definition was already given - a very broad and almost useless one, but a definition nevertheless.

By the way, until this thread came into existence I never, EVER saw NobleBright used outside the context of Wh40k. It's pretty much a /tg/-specific term.

[Tengu_temp]

Memes are bits of informations spread from human mind to human mind, it doesn't matter if the bit of the information is wrong, only if it's whidespread. If memetic terms of grimdark and noblebright doesn't match the defititions, it's the difinitiosn that have a proble, because people will use the memetic meanings, as they're the ones that sunk in their minds.

Not exactly what I meant. I used the word "meme" to make a comparison to another term that almost everyone uses wrong. You know, because everyone and their dog seems to think it means "an image/text macro from the Internet". The real definition of memes is different, although it also encompasses Internet memes.

Should we change the definition to match what most people think it means? No. We should educate people about the real meaning of the words they're using.

[Axolotl]

Should we change the definition to match what most people think it means? No. We should educate people about the real meaning of the words they're using.If the the majority of people are using a word to mean something then that is the real meaning. The purpose of a definition is to tell you what people mean when they say a word, if that definition doesn't align with what the majority of people using the word mean when they say it then it's the definition that's at fault.

[Tiki Snakes]

Should we change the definition to match what most people think it means?

That is exactly and specifically how langauge has always worked, and likely always will.
You are of course free to consider this an undesirable fact.

[Kazyan]

If it's the inverse of grimdark, then "noblebright" is -- in my opinion -- fiction determined to express our better nature in an essentially hopeful setting.

That. I think that gets to the heart of it. Again, sorry for using a poorly-understood /tg/-ism. Should I change the thread title? (Can you do that in this forum?)

[Lord Raziere]

...

Wait, what?

I think he has confused all the bright colors, kung-fu action and super-sentai potential with actual idealism.

that and the picture the corebook paints of Solars doesn't emphasize the villainous side of them enough, its why you have so many people assuming they are glorious sun paladins, since there is nothing in the descriptions of them that truly contradict this. except for the Anathema propaganda stuff, which is propaganda so obviously no player listens to it.

But yeah, I see the Solars being straight heroes more often than not, and I don't really have a problem with that. trust me, even if you did emphasize the villainous side more, people like to play humane characters, and humane often means having some good in them in some manner.

[Tengu_temp]

That is exactly and specifically how langauge has always worked, and likely always will.
You are of course free to consider this an undesirable fact.

Evolution of language is a process that will happen on its own anyway, whether we want it or not. It's not something we should embrace, because it doesn't need our embrace. Giving it as an excuse to use a word incorrectly is nothing more than that - an excuse.

And in general, while evolution of language can be a positive process, most of the time it isn't - "meme" is an example of the meaning of a word used by educated people slowly being pushed away in favour of what the uneducated masses (mis)understand it to mean instead. And for another example, compare the beautiful Russian language of XIX/early XX century with the modern mat.


I think he has confused all the bright colors, kung-fu action and super-sentai potential with actual idealism.

that and the picture the corebook paints of Solars doesn't emphasize the villainous side of them enough, its why you have so many people assuming they are glorious sun paladins, since there is nothing in the descriptions of them that truly contradict this. except for the Anathema propaganda stuff, which is propaganda so obviously no player listens to it.

Oh please. There are villainous Solars, yeah, but despite what rabid Infernal fans would want to see, most people still play Solars as straight-up heroes who make the world a better place, and there is nothing in the game that stops you from doing just that. Deal with it.

[Kitten Champion]

Exalted is Nietzschean, transparently so in my view. Exalts are, to be quaint, beyond good and evil.

Pretty much par for the course with most of Sword & Sorcery or Greek Heroes.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Evolution of language is a process that will happen on its own anyway, whether we want it or not. It's not something we should embrace, because it doesn't need our embrace. Giving it as an excuse to use a word incorrectly is nothing more than that - an excuse.

Excellent so grimdark is not a word and therefore cannot be used inappropriately. Because it only exists from from evolution of "...grim darkness..." and such laziness is not to be encouraged.

Or we can accept that since grimdark is only a neologism it had no determinable definition in the first place from which to evolve. Unless you are supposing and can establish with evidence a single defining moment for the term of course.

And in general, while evolution of language can be a positive process, most of the time it isn't - "meme" is an example of the meaning of a word used by educated people slowly being pushed away in favour of what the uneducated masses (mis)understand it to mean instead. And for another example, compare the beautiful Russian language of XIX/early XX century with the modern mat.

Well meme only exists from 1976 on and seems to have been more along the lines jargon until the net go a hold of it.

It is perhaps a better case to have a pedantic and irrelevant argument about proper language. I suggest a thread of its own in proper latin, the true text of learned men and none of this shameful vernacular. (IE: loosen up a bit just maybe?)


That. I think that gets to the heart of it. Again, sorry for using a poorly-understood /tg/-ism. Should I change the thread title? (Can you do that in this forum?)

You can, but no need. To what title anyways?

I think we can get to the heart of the matter the contention that such things are unpopular?

[Lord Raziere]

Oh please. There are villainous Solars, yeah, but despite what rabid Infernal fans would want to see, most people still play Solars as straight-up heroes who make the world a better place, and there is nothing in the game that stops you from doing just that. Deal with it.

I have already edited my post, you seem to have posted this before you saw it:



But yeah, I see the Solars being straight heroes more often than not, and I don't really have a problem with that. trust me, even if you did emphasize the villainous side more, people like to play humane characters, and humane often means having some good in them in some manner.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Evolution of language is a process that will happen on its own anyway, whether we want it or not. It's not something we should embrace, because it doesn't need our embrace. Giving it as an excuse to use a word incorrectly is nothing more than that - an excuse.

And in general, while evolution of language can be a positive process, most of the time it isn't - "meme" is an example of the meaning of a word used by educated people slowly being pushed away in favour of what the uneducated masses (mis)understand it to mean instead. And for another example, compare the beautiful Russian language of XIX/early XX century with the modern mat.


... oh god, even after only studying a little bit of linguistics this really makes me cringe. This is like every misconception about language compiled into one. Languages change, they don't deteriorate. There is no such thing as "correct" language and "incorrect" language, there is only "language that is used" and "Language that is not used". The colloquialisms of "uneducated masses" is just as valuable and important as the pretensions of "educated people", it's merely the fact that one group is elite and the other isn't that makes their language more "correct" than the others. The concept of language being "correct" or "uncorrect" has to do with who's saying it, not with the language itself.

edit: more on topic

I think you could see it as a continuum of darkness and hope

Noblebright ----- heroic fiction, black-and-white morality, with evil and good clearly defined ----- fiction with grey morality, where evil and good are clearly a point of view ----- Grimdark, where morality and good and evil are clearly not relevant: there is only GRIMDARK

[Tengu_temp]

Or we can accept that since grimdark is only a neologism it had no determinable definition in the first place from which to evolve. Unless you are supposing and can establish with evidence a single defining moment for the term of course.

It's a neologism, but one that had a definition when it was used for the first time. That definition got diluted when people started to use it incorrectly, especially those who simply used it as an idiom for dark. For the source of the word, look at the WK40K fandom.


Excellent so grimdark is not a word and therefore cannot be used inappropriately. Because it only exists from from evolution of "...grim darkness..." and such laziness is not to be encouraged.

Don't put words in my mouth.


... oh god, even after only studying a little bit of linguistics this really makes me cringe. This is like every misconception about language compiled into one. Languages change, they don't deteriorate. There is no such thing as "correct" language and "incorrect" language, there is only "language that is used" and "Language that is not used". The colloquialisms of "uneducated masses" is just as valuable and important as the pretensions of "educated people", it's merely the fact that one group is elite and the other isn't that makes their language more "correct" than the others. The concept of language being "correct" or "uncorrect" has to do with who's saying it, not with the language itself.

So someone who speaks perfect, poetic English with grace and charisma, always picking exactly the right words for the situation and has a huge vocabulary uses the language as correctly as an uneducated rude idiot who mostly communicates in swears, knows maybe 10 words longer than two syllabes and mispronounces or misuses every single one of them?

In case it wasn't obvious, I'm not buying anything you said. I'm only further reinforced in my belief that brushing aside misuses of words as "evolution of language" encourages linguistic detoriation.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

You're assuming that such a thing as "linguistic deterioration" is a thing.

Which it's really not. Languages lose vocabulary, gain other vocabulary. They lose one grammatical method of expressing a concept, gain another method of expressing the same concept.

"Excuse me, I am extremely upset." is just as legitimate as "Yo, I'm mad pissed." Yo and Excuse Me are both legit ways of telling someone that you're addressing them directly. Extremely and Mad can both be used as intensifiers. Pissed and upset in some circles are synonymous.

Grace and charisma are aside from language. You can have someone who speaks, for example, African American English gracefully and charmingly, yet you'd call their language deteriorated because it doesn't fit your elitist standards.

The phrase "Can't nobody say nothin' to dem peoples!" is just as complex grammatically as any "correct" sentence I could say. It's not random mispronounciations and mis-using of words. It's simply following a different set of rules than the ones you think are "right". By insisting that their language marks them as inferior, you're merely insisting that your way of speaking is better because you are better than they are (whether that's your intention or not). There is nothing INHERENT IN THE LANGUAGE that makes one form of speaking English better than the others. It's merely a social construction that we identify one form of speaking with a social elite and another form of speaking with a socially inferior class.

(Though there are those who argue that African-American Vernacular English is different enough to warrant being it's own language, I don't think they have a leg to stand on.)

(sorry this is a pet peeve of mine)

[The_Snark]

So someone who speaks perfect, poetic English with grace and charisma, always picking exactly the right words for the situation and has a huge vocabulary uses the language as correctly as an uneducated rude idiot who mostly communicates in swears, knows maybe 10 words longer than two syllabes and mispronounces or misuses every single one of them?

In case it wasn't obvious, I'm not buying anything you said. I'm only further reinforced in my belief that brushing aside misuses of words as "evolution of language" encourages linguistic detoriation.

But your poetic, eloquent English-speaker is speaking gibberish from the point of view of an equally eloquent 14th-century English-speaker, because the language has changed radically during that time. :smallconfused: Your position is fundamentally untenable, because there is no One True English/French/Insert Language Here. Words have no objective meaning. They are artificial constructs, invented to convey meaning.

Sometimes the meaning of a word changes, and that is not an inherently terrible thing. It's not necessarily a good thing either. It's just a thing. I don't think that you should necessarily embrace every neologism or new definition, if you think that a given usage is confusing or aesthetically displeasing, but nor should you reject all changes out of hand. Clinging to useless or outdated definitions just because that's what a word originally meant is pointless.

[t209]

Sorry, but if that's the definition, it's pretty much meaningless. Because by that point, not even Warhammer 40k is really Grimdark anymore. We have Ciaphas Cain, hero of the Imperium. We have many heroes making it out of stories more or less intact and in situations better than they found them.

What, exactly, is Grimdark, if the definition of Noblebright is "there's a chance things might get better"? Because by that definition, the emperor might be restored. The Eldar might finish their new god. The Tau might rise to galactic prominence.

And much of this is a question of scale. Superman stops Lex Luthor today, but the universe still dies of heat death. Oh no! Grimdark! Ciaphas Cain saves a kitten in a short story where no enemies show up. Yay! Noblebright!
And the Imperium still have goodness in them. Salamanders Chapter are known to protect innocent and show passion for civilians, in contrast to their scary figure. Khyrvaan Shrike's heroism also count. Even the hated Ultramarine's home sector is quite good when compared to other places in Imperium (Weak people are frown upon in Ultramar but it's better than an idiot noble as a governor). But people hated Tau for being too good and putting in the infamous mass neutering of humans in Kaurava Campaign if they won.

[Jayngfet]

So wait, Wreck-It Ralph "doesn't care"?

Ralph. The guy who shares his food - and notice that he has to normally search around in the trash for leftovers, and when he gets some fresh fruit the first thing he does is splitting it with those evn unluckier than him - with the homeless in the first ten minutes of film. The guy who is easily one of the nicest people around. The guy who explicitly feels terrible because he doesn't want to do bad things but his job entails him doing them. The guy who is willing to lose his only friend in his entire, lonely existence to save her from what he thinks is high likelihood of death.

That Ralph?

Yes, the Ralph that pretty much ignored every warning to get and keep the medal.

He isn't a horrible, irredeemable being. But he's hardly any kind of noblebright. Which is the point being made here.

I mean, go back to the first Snow White film. That film is pretty much anti-grimdark. The entire plot revolves around human compassion. The guy sent to kill Snow White couldn't bear to kill an innocent girl, the Dwarves didn't just throw her out even though they didn't understand her, and Snow White herself, even though she couldn't fight, made herself useful in any way she could.

There was still evil. Grimhilde is vile and selfish, but she isn't portrayed as being the kind of ignorant, rash majority that made up the Nicelanders and various other characters in Wreck It Ralph like the Sugar Rush kids or the innefectual security guard guy.

[Tengu_temp]

@Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
So basically, you're arguing that there's nothing wrong with bad grammar, bad spelling, using words in the wrong meaning, small vocabularies, and other signs of lazy language, because a lot of people do that anyway.

I'll never agree with this. I don't care that from a scholarly point of view, all language is equally right, and no change is for the worse. I care about language from a social point of view, and I believe everyone, especially educated people, should put effort into speaking and writing correctly. And excusing terrible uses of language with lingual evolution is just an insult to the people who do.

What I'm demanding is not elitism, because you don't need to be extremely well-educated to speak your language properly, you only need to put some minimal effort into it. Not doing so means you're not willing to put even that token effort.


But your poetic, eloquent English-speaker is speaking gibberish from the point of view of an equally eloquent 14th-century English-speaker, because the language has changed radically during that time. :smallconfused: Your position is fundamentally untenable, because there is no One True English/French/Insert Language Here. Words have no objective meaning. They are artificial constructs, invented to convey meaning.

I don't want language to become an unchanging monolith - not only is that impossible, but it'd also be harmful, because new ideas and objects are constantly created and they need names. But that doesn't mean we should embrace the evolution of language. The language we speak today will change one day, but as long as it's still the current one, let's strive to speak it correctly.


Clinging to useless or outdated definitions just because that's what a word originally meant is pointless.

I'd agree, except for some people useless or outdated is the same as "not the same way Generic Bob understands it". Once again, just because Bob means a meme means a cat image from the 'net, that doesn't make him right, and that doesn't make the scientific definition wrong. Even when there's 100 million Bobs who think that.

[tbok1992]

I think when OP is talking about a work being Grimdark, I think he's really talking about said work being overly cynical. And I agree, there does need to be less cynicism in media these days.

Because, with the world going to hell, the environment falling apart and our corporate overlords consolidating their power, people these days seem far too defeated to actually do anything about the problems of the day, and the media just seems to re-enforce this feeling of hoplelessness.

We need something that teaches us that there are greater forces in this world than greed and selfishness, that you can fight evil and win, that as long as a single person lives and works with a cause burning in their heart there is still hope. We need heroes for an age without any.

[Raistlin1040]

Noblebright is one of the stupidest terms I have ever heard, and everyone is confusing the issue. If it means "the opposite of grimdark", then it's an extreme, just like grimdark is. If it's just "anything that's not grimdark", then it's a pretty useless term in my opinion because true grimdark is pretty rare.

[The_Snark]

I'll never agree with this. I don't care that from a scholarly point of view, all language is equally right, and no change is for the worse. I care about language from a social point of view, and I believe everyone, especially educated people, should put effort into speaking and writing correctly. And excusing terrible uses of language with lingual evolution is just an insult to the people who do.

What I'm demanding is not elitism, because you don't need to be extremely well-educated to speak your language properly, you only need to put some minimal effort into it. Not doing so means you're not willing to put even that token effort.

But unless I'm greatly mistaken, you're defining "correct use of language" as "the way that educated people speak and write", and thereby insisting that everybody to adhere to the standards of your social group. (I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that you consider yourself reasonably educated.) From a social point of view, being contemptuous of everyone who doesn't speak the same way that you do is problematic.


I'd agree, except for some people useless or outdated is the same as "not the same way Generic Bob understands it". Once again, just because Bob means a meme means a cat image from the 'net, that doesn't make him right, and that doesn't make the scientific definition wrong. Even when there's 100 million Bobs who think that.

It doesn't make the scientific usage of the word wrong, no—but if 100 million people understand meme to mean a certain thing, isn't it time to acknowledge that this word has a new usage? That's a lot of people, and a significant fraction of the world's English-speaking population. It's not going to go away. Why isn't it valid?

[Kitten Champion]

To borrow Stephan Fry, there is no correct or incorrect language, just as there are no correct or incorrect clothes. It's all a matter of circumstances, conventions, and good taste.


What's important, in the end, is the pleasure of language.

[Tengu_temp]

But unless I'm greatly mistaken, you're defining "correct use of language" as "the way that educated people speak and write", and thereby insisting that everybody to adhere to the standards of your social group. (I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that you consider yourself reasonably educated.) From a social point of view, being contemptuous of everyone who doesn't speak the same way that you do is problematic.

My standards aren't that high, believe me. Here's what I expect from a native speaker of a language:
1. Correct spelling and grammar. Errors are acceptable from time to time, but they shouldn't be the rule.
2. Reasonable vocabulary.
3. Use the correct meaning of words.
4. Don't swear excessively. It's okay if you're angry, but don't use the f-word as a comma in a normal conversation.
5. Highly subjective, but every language has a list of words and phrases commonly used by douchebags and/or idiots. Try to avoid those.

Not that hard to stick to, isn't it? If someone routinely breaks these rules then yes, I will most likely look down on them, because their language hurts my ears. You won't like someone who spits on your carpet as a greeting either, will you?


It doesn't make the scientific usage of the word wrong, no—but if 100 million people understand meme to mean a certain thing, isn't it time to acknowledge that this word has a new usage? That's a lot of people, and a significant fraction of the world's English-speaking population. It's not going to go away. Why isn't it valid?

Just because something a lot of people do something doesn't mean that it's correct. We can't bend to the majority and redefine stuff as they want just because there's so many of them. Imagine what'd happen if science worked like that!


To borrow Stephan Fry, there is no correct or incorrect language, just as there are no correct or incorrect clothes. It's all a matter of circumstances, conventions, and good taste.


What's important, in the end, is the pleasure of language.

Yeah, and believe me, there is no pleasure in hearing a language getting ridiculously mangled. Once again: poetic book Russian, and mat Russian. The difference is striking, and by that I mean like a strike to the face.

[Avilan the Grey]

Where? I seen people complaining about it all the time, but never seen anyone pointing out the examples. People complain about things that I have feeling we don't get at all. At best we get dark anesthetics that don't mean anything, because the story is still noblebright. There aren't many trurly dark stories out there, yet people still complain about the very few there are.

Your definition of "dark" is very VERY dark though, so I wouldn't judge anything by your standard.

As for dark things... a few examples.

Zombie fiction in general, which is one of those annoying popular things that are all over these days (I hate zombies, I find the very idea boring beyond belief (and disgusting as well)). Why is this trend not over yet? Now they even air it on prime time.

The Hunger Games, a book series / film series that is aimed at 13 year olds! And EXTREMELY darkly themed.

The DC comic reboot is falling into this, with all titles going towards Dark and Gritty and some being truly dark.

These are just a few examples.

Edit: AS for Noblebright: The original idea for ST:TES was well. That. An almost utopian civilization where nobody starved, everybody had a home to go to and technology was wonderful.

[GolemsVoice]

From what I know of Star Trek (which isn't that much, but it's something) that would be an example of "noblebrigt" if we want to use that word.

Technology largely actually DOES help people and solve theirn problems, instead of ruling them or going rogue. Well intentioned people actually ARE well intentioned, instead of a) overzealous or b) just using that as a facade for selfishness. Even when they aren't, they can see the error of their ways. Diplomacy works and get's frequently employed. Violence is only the final solution. We have a multigendered, multi-ethnic and even multi-species crew. And so forth.

Now, of course you can nitpick Star Trek to death, because either their implications didn't hold up, the morals the show espouses have changed or the writers failed to convey the message. This trend of being unable to accept that a show is actually as noble as it wants to be might be a phenomenon of what the OP was talking about.

[Avilan the Grey]

Now, of course you can nitpick Star Trek to death, because either their implications didn't hold up, the morals the show espouses have changed or the writers failed to convey the message.

Hence me specifying the original series. This was Roddenberry's intent; a society where everything was better. Later it got more and more muddled, with the addition of the Marquis for example.

[Man on Fire]

I think when OP is talking about a work being Grimdark, I think he's really talking about said work being overly cynical. And I agree, there does need to be less cynicism in media these days.

Where? Show me where you see that cynicism, because I'm not seeing it.


We need something that teaches us that there are greater forces in this world than greed and selfishness, that you can fight evil and win, that as long as a single person lives and works with a cause burning in their heart there is still hope. We need heroes for an age without any.

We have it. Everywhere. And just because the work teaches you things like that, it doesn't mean it's not dark. see: Fist of the North Star.


Noblebright is one of the stupidest terms I have ever heard, and everyone is confusing the issue. If it means "the opposite of grimdark", then it's an extreme, just like grimdark is. If it's just "anything that's not grimdark", then it's a pretty useless term in my opinion because true grimdark is pretty rare.

This.


Your definition of "dark" is very VERY dark though, so I wouldn't judge anything by your standard.

Or maybe it's your definition of dark that is just slightly darker? Maybe it's your standards for darkness that are too low?


Zombie fiction in general, which is one of those annoying popular things that are all over these days (I hate zombies, I find the very idea boring beyond belief (and disgusting as well)). Why is this trend not over yet? Now they even air it on prime time.

Work being about zombies doesn't stop it from being optimistic or comedic, or even satirical. None of the definitions of grimdark and noblebright given would classify movies liek zombieland as former.

Also, zombies are subgenre of horror. Horror in general is supposed to be dark, otherwise it has no point of existing.


The Hunger Games, a book series / film series that is aimed at 13 year olds! And EXTREMELY darkly themed.

From what I heard it's not so dark really. Could be wrong. But you knwo what?
That's one book series and movie. One. Aginst dozens of Twillight clones and Twillight succesfull movie franchice, against loads of self aware , parodic takes on the genres and generic action movies, that aren't dark either.


The DC comic reboot is falling into this, with all titles going towards Dark and Gritty and some being truly dark.

Two. Maybe 3, I don't know about Wodner Woman. None of the others are really dark. Some are trying, but they fail. Even their books from Dark line aren't mostly dark. Hell, they even took the darkest book from Vertigo, cancelled it and replaced with some kid-friendly mockery. That's the notion towards the dark? Turn John Constantine into character for kids and teenagers?


Why so defensive? A definition was already given - a very broad and almost useless one, but a definition nevertheless.

Yet people in this thread use it to steal works that are dark and force them into noblebright category, which I think they're doing only to enforce extremely stupid idea that "dark things cannot be good". According to seen definitions Fist of the North Star, Berserk, Vinland Saga and Black Company are noblebright. Which is last thing they are, each of these is very dark.

[The_Snark]

My standards aren't that high, believe me. Here's what I expect from a native speaker of a language:

[...]

Not that hard to stick to, isn't it? If someone routinely breaks these rules then yes, I will most likely look down on them, because their language hurts my ears. You won't like someone who spits on your carpet as a greeting either, will you?

None of that is particularly arduous to me, no, but I'm a little leery of insisting that everyone should conform to your aesthetic preferences. And I still think your definition of "correct" for point #3 is needlessly strict.


Just because something a lot of people do something doesn't mean that it's correct. We can't bend to the majority and redefine stuff as they want just because there's so many of them. Imagine what'd happen if science worked like that!

It wouldn't work at all, obviously, but that's because the two fields are very different. :smallconfused: Science is an effort to discover and/or utilize objective facts about the universe. Language is a human social construct used to convey information. It's inherently subjective. You can in fact redefine words as people want, and provided that everyone understands the changes the language will remain perfectly functional. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that, although one might object to certain specific changes.

Anyway. This whole discussion is a bit of a tangent, and I think at this point we've made our positions clear and convinced one another as much as we're going to. Agree to disagree?

[Avilan the Grey]

Or maybe it's your definition of dark that is just slightly darker? Maybe it's your standards for darkness that are too low?

Perhaps, although your criteria for what is supposed to be counted as "dark" seems to be at odds with more people than me on these forums.

[Man on Fire]

Which stil ldoesn't mean I'm wrong.

[Spuddles]

Captain America, Thor, Iron Man 1 & 2, the Hulk, the Avengers, Spiderman 1, 2, 3, Spiderman reboot- huge happyfuntime adventure blockbusters.

[Man on Fire]

Hence me specifying the original series. This was Roddenberry's intent; a society where everything was better. Later it got more and more muddled, with the addition of the Marquis for example.


From what I know of Star Trek (which isn't that much, but it's something) that would be an example of "noblebrigt" if we want to use that word.

Technology largely actually DOES help people and solve theirn problems, instead of ruling them or going rogue. Well intentioned people actually ARE well intentioned, instead of a) overzealous or b) just using that as a facade for selfishness. Even when they aren't, they can see the error of their ways. Diplomacy works and get's frequently employed. Violence is only the final solution. We have a multigendered, multi-ethnic and even multi-species crew. And so forth.

Now, of course you can nitpick Star Trek to death, because either their implications didn't hold up, the morals the show espouses have changed or the writers failed to convey the message. This trend of being unable to accept that a show is actually as noble as it wants to be might be a phenomenon of what the OP was talking about.

Actually, when you think about it, utopian society wasn't Roddenberry's intent nor it really was Star Trek's spirit. Star Trek was about darin cosmic adventure, about "boldly going where no man has gone before". In Next generation however, he bought to his own hype and Star Trek had become that utopia thing, to the point that we were basically told starfleet was made of obsolete relics and most of humanity lived n forms of transhuman hiveminds, and the rules of this utopian society have become dogmas, that can never be wrong, even if it means sacrificing entire alien race. No wonder DS9 tried to bring back some of the original's darker themes.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Your very first point, as I've kept saying, is only meaningful when you assume that the language of the socio-political elite is "correct". Which it only is because they're the socio-political elite, and thus got THEIR version of the language recorded when languages were codified. "My language is right because my language is right and yours is wrong because yours is wrong." Can't you see how this is a circular argument?

Basically, it comes down to classism. You look down at people because of the language they grew up with, which is a part of their identity as working-class or whatever social group that mode of speech is related to. You can try and ignore it but that's what it is when you look at what ACTUALLY is the difference between the language you like and the language you detest. Things like swearing and jerky words are again besides the point. Upper-class users of "correct" English swear just as much, but they do it *PROPERLY*

[Soras Teva Gee]

Captain America, Thor, Iron Man 1 & 2, the Hulk, the Avengers, Spiderman 1, 2, 3, Spiderman reboot- huge happyfuntime adventure blockbusters.

No superhero movies (or at least those) are just y'know normal. They don't go any sort of extra mile on either end of things.

Now comics do have some examples, All-Star Superman is a better case of "noblebright" while much of Frank Miller's work would be grimdark. And Alan Moore's stuff would be all over the place.


Actually, when you think about it, utopian society wasn't Roddenberry's intent nor it really was Star Trek's spirit. Star Trek was about darin cosmic adventure, about "boldly going where no man has gone before". In Next generation however, he bought to his own hype and Star Trek had become that utopia thing, to the point that we were basically told starfleet was made of obsolete relics and most of humanity lived n forms of transhuman hiveminds, and the rules of this utopian society have become dogmas, that can never be wrong, even if it means sacrificing entire alien race. No wonder DS9 tried to bring back some of the original's darker themes.

Utopian is kinda in the eye of the beholder.

However while early TNG is probably at the highest end of the spectrum there's still plenty of that in TOS. I personally think of the episode with the black and white aliens where the humans are all utterly baffled that a difference in skin color orientation makes a difference. Yes this was verging on anvilicous in its day, but you don't write humans that way without a high regard for the future. Heck its well known Rodenberry wanted to have a female first officer, to state that in the future there is no consideration of gender. Here's a quote from him.

Star Trek speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow—it's not all going to be over with a big flash and a bomb; that the human race is improving; that we have things to be proud of as humans. No, ancient astronauts did not build the pyramids—human beings built them, because they're clever and they work hard. And Star Trek is about those things.
- Gene Roddenberry (from TVTropes)

Roddenberry shows every sign of being a pretty classic humanist. That humanity can and will rise above its challenges, that we are ultimately noble creatures who make the world a better place. Or at least should be, its not like consistency and Trek ever mixed. Then again its not like Roddenberry was the only cook in the kitchen either. Don't think that highly idealistic cancels out action and adventure though. As that's the exact sort of thing that expresses it.

You seem to be taking the view that nothing can be exciting or dramatic without becoming dark. Which dovetails I think with the sentiment that "grimdark" is just a label for dark people don't like, which is no less true. (Yes I saw that deleted post)

[DomaDoma]

"Idea as evolutionary construct" is a much more useful concept than "thing that is funny because people say/depict it a lot on the Internet". Therefore, it is worthy of preservation.

Anyway. Noblebright fiction exists in scads, but it tends to revolve around the power of love and similar cheats. What I'd like to see is capable people successfully working out a thorny problem - more recently than Michael Flynn's Firestar series, which I believe concluded in 2000.

[Tengu_temp]

Your very first point, as I've kept saying, is only meaningful when you assume that the language of the socio-political elite is "correct". Which it only is because they're the socio-political elite, and thus got THEIR version of the language recorded when languages were codified. "My language is right because my language is right and yours is wrong because yours is wrong." Can't you see how this is a circular argument?

Basically, it comes down to classism. You look down at people because of the language they grew up with, which is a part of their identity as working-class or whatever social group that mode of speech is related to. You can try and ignore it but that's what it is when you look at what ACTUALLY is the difference between the language you like and the language you detest. Things like swearing and jerky words are again besides the point. Upper-class users of "correct" English swear just as much, but they do it *PROPERLY*

Bull. I've met working-class people who spoke correct Polish, and I've met technically middle-class people whose language made them sound like dumb *******s. It's all a matter of personal culture. "I'm a rude idiot who can't use words longer than 2 syllabes and must say **** every third word" is not a part of anyone's cultural identity, it's just a sign of lack of culture.

[Johel]

In the end, it's all about the outcome :

What is the best that the protagonists can hope to achieve ?

Maintain the status-quo through horrible sacrifice in what is already a slowly dying world, with no real hope of improving things ?
GRIMDARK !!

Positive change through daring acts of heroism, in such a way that all Mankind benefits from it, in a world already full of progress and optimism, while the heroes survive and live happy ever after ?
NOBLEBRIGHT !!!

What is the worst that can unfold if the protagonists fail ?

The world is plunged in an abyss of untold torments, the heroes suffer a fate worst than death while never trying to do much beside saving their own skin ?
GRIMDARK !!!

The heroes die and, despite their best effort, the villains win the day but all hope isn't gone and, already, because of their exemple, others prepare to face the challenge ?
NOBLEBRIGHT !!!

300 is noblebright :
Sure, the Spartans aren't exactly all about love and compassion, what with them having very darwinist views on education.
And a few of them are corrupts, carving power and wealth rather than honor and freedom.
But overall, Spartans look like nice guys, in a "larger than life, honorable psychodudes" way.
No mention is made of the other, less savory aspects of IRL Sparta.
It is even subverted, with several call about "FREEDOM" and "LIBERTY" and "JUSTICE", ect...
And while all Spartans die, they do so willingly, with the (fullfilled) hope that their sacrifice will motivate the rest of the Greeks to stand up to the invader.
It's over the top and we love it for this.

Dredd, while not exactly noblebright, ends on a positive note :
Sure, Megacity One is a crapsack place to live.
Crime is everywhere and decent living space is a luxury.
Morality is low and "justice" is expeditive, wether applied by judges, slumlords or mobs.
But Humanity DID survive the apocalypse, new infrastructure is being built and order is maintain, albeit with difficulties.
Small crimes go past the radar because judges lacks raw numbers.
But major criminals are taken down when they become a real threat.
And despite the apparent futility and low rewards of the job, there are still highly motivated new recruits for the judges.
So things are improving.
It only looks dark because things started from the very bottom.

Walking Dead is not noblebright but it's not grimdark either :
Sure, Mankind is contaminated with a undead virus and EVERYONE will become a zombie soon or later.
But there are still healthy newborns, which means Humanity isn't doomed.
Several attempts at making a new functionnal society are made and only fail by the slightest margin.
It is only a matter of time before one of them endure long enough to have a functionnal administration that doesn't rest on a single "strong man".
Each survivor is taking out dozens of zombies before being killed so, eventually, some areas will become zombie-free, allowing for civilization.
The protagonists have it hard... but they are getting better, albeit bitter, and they have hope beyond simple daily survival.

The closest thing I have recently seen from Grimdark was "The Cabin" :
Group of students become the soon-to-be-sacrificed pawns of omnious powers-that-be.
The "triumph of good", like in Japan, is depicted as actually WORSE than the brutal slaughter of innocent people, as it will awaken cosmic horrors.
The establishment isn't even trying anymore to permanently get rid of the cosmic horrors and just goes along with what looks like the lesser evil.
The protagonists fight for their own survival but in the end, they realize it is hopeless and they have to die for the world to live one more year.
They assume the cynical view that such a world is not worth saving, as there's no point in just being the playthings of destiny.
Even as they die, we know that Humanity is doomed because no amount of good deeds and courage can protect us against the wrath of the Old Ones.

[Man on Fire]

No superhero movies (or at least those) are just y'know normal. They don't go any sort of extra mile on either end of things.

Which, according to some people in this thread, already makes it noblebright. I disagree really, but I would say that with people complaining about how "everything" is dark these days, they should remember those movies. Just because something isn't fluffy kittens and rainbows, it doesn't mean it's dark.


Now comics do have some examples, All-Star Superman is a better case of "noblebright" while much of Frank Miller's work would be grimdark. And Alan Moore's stuff would be all over the place.

How about making some examples that can stand on equal footing here? Black Summer? Supergod? Irredeemable? Very good grimdark series, they represent quality of dark stories much better than Frank "Goddam Batman and Dic* Grayson, Age twelve" Miller.


Utopian is kinda in the eye of the beholder.

However while early TNG is probably at the highest end of the spectrum there's still plenty of that in TOS. I personally think of the episode with the black and white aliens where the humans are all utterly baffled that a difference in skin color orientation makes a difference. Yes this was verging on anvilicous in its day, but you don't write humans that way without a high regard for the future. Heck its well known Rodenberry wanted to have a female first officer, to state that in the future there is no consideration of gender. Here's a quote from him.

Star Trek speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow—it's not all going to be over with a big flash and a bomb; that the human race is improving; that we have things to be proud of as humans. No, ancient astronauts did not build the pyramids—human beings built them, because they're clever and they work hard. And Star Trek is about those things.
- Gene Roddenberry (from TVTropes)

Roddenberry shows every sign of being a pretty classic humanist. That humanity can and will rise above its challenges, that we are ultimately noble creatures who make the world a better place. Or at least should be, its not like consistency and Trek ever mixed. Then again its not like Roddenberry was the only cook in the kitchen either. Don't think that highly idealistic cancels out action and adventure though. As that's the exact sort of thing that expresses it.

No, highly idealistic doesnt' cancel action and adventure. Doesn't change the fact that there are people who felt that TNG was too mellow and that crew had spend too much time escorting diplomats and boing boring, safe things, instead of "boldy going where no man has gone before".


You seem to be taking the view that nothing can be exciting or dramatic without becoming dark. Which dovetails I think with the sentiment that "grimdark" is just a label for dark people don't like, which is no less true. (Yes I saw that deleted post)

What deleted post?

And I do not think that story needs to be dark to be exciting or dramatic, I'm a big fan of Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, I love Journey Into Mystery, I like Gladstone's Scool For World's Conquerors, I enjoyed Nextwave I've read first two Discworld novels and loved them, liked all episodes of Adventure Time I saw and I grew up on Donald Duck comics, never stopping to regred not being able to buy Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck when I had a chance as a kid.

However, I'm very annoyed at notion of people to complain whenever anything is a tiny bit darker than their comfort zone and try to enforce worldview that dark things are all bad. Look at this thread - we have guy who is arguing that 300 and Judge Dredd aren't dark, that's on the level of people trying to claim every fantasy book that doesnt fit their stereotypical perception of the genre as endless rehashing of Tolkien and claim things like Chronolicles of Amber, Jack of Shadows, Tales of Alvin the Maker or even goddam Earthsea are science-fiction or mainstream.

What I'm opposing is this ridiculous delusion that dark cannot be good. Because it can. Just because soemthign is light, it doesn't make it automatically better.

[t209]

About Beserk, is it Grim Dark?
Both before before and after the turning into D&D world arc.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Bull. I've met working-class people who spoke correct Polish, and I've met technically middle-class people whose language made them sound like dumb *******s. It's all a matter of personal culture. "I'm a rude idiot who can't use words longer than 2 syllabes and must say **** every third word" is not a part of anyone's cultural identity, it's just a sign of lack of culture.

Give me some credible scholars who believe that, and I'll maybe reconsider my opinion. In the meantime, I suggest if you care about language that much, consider reading a basic linguistics textbook. Specifically try Sociolinguistics, as it deals with, well, language and society. Though it seems like you'd reject all of the arguments out of hand as being contrary to what you've already decided to be true.

I'm afraid it's just a documented fact that certain variants of a language are seen as inferior, for reasons to do with the group who uses that language, not their language itself. Which has nothing to do with a) inability to use long words or b) swearing. I've been dismissing those arguments because they're besides the point, intelligence has nothing to do with language abilities. If you want, I can show you the studies that prove that too, though again I doubt you'd believe me... As for swearing... eh, you have a point there, I admit. Though I personally don't see a problem with swearing a lot, I swear a ridiculous amount, casually, without any harm meant. It has to do with differing social expectations and readings of such behaviour.

edit: Johel, by your definition what would differentiate Noblebright from just normal heroic fantasy? That's my main stickler thingy sticky point with this noblebright thing, is either it seems to not really exist in fiction, or is all heroic fantasy. Doesn't seem to be much of a useful concept.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Which, according to some people in this thread, already makes it noblebright. I disagree really, but I would say that with people complaining about how "everything" is dark these days, they should remember those movies. Just because something isn't fluffy kittens and rainbows, it doesn't mean it's dark.

And? No need to come off all defensive methinks. There's also other posters noting that as grimdark is the more extreme end of dark, as its opposite noblebright would have to be itself at the more extreme end. Not everyone agrees, but then that's kinda rare on the net to begin with.


How about making some examples that can stand on equal footing here? Black Summer? Supergod? Irredeemable? Very good grimdark series, they represent quality of dark stories much better than Frank "Goddam Batman and Dic* Grayson, Age twelve" Miller.

I didn't mention Crazy Steve for a reason. I'd think Crazy Steve would be one of the few works that meets Tengu definition of grimdark, when to me its sheer ludicrous badness rather kinda cancels that. 40k one can see why its Serious Business, I'm not sure I've ever encountered someone really taking Crazy Steve seriously

However Frank Miller has had a long career remember. Most of it thought is certainly darker then average and a place like Sin City say where heroes only by comparasion relative, victories are minimal at best....



No, highly idealistic doesnt' cancel action and adventure. Doesn't change the fact that there are people who felt that TNG was too mellow and that crew had spend too much time escorting diplomats and boing boring, safe things, instead of "boldy going where no man has gone before".

Which is all kinds of beside the point. TNG's quality peaked well before the idealism started being chipped off in my estimation. That was a DS9 and loosely VOY thing. (Whether it was ultimately good I won't bring up here)

However you were saying that utopian elements of Star Trek only came in later as Trek bought its own hype. To which I disagree, because there's plenty of that in TOS, starting with Uhura and the original Number One among other thing. It certainly climbed higher, but was never originated from buying its own hype.

(At minimum it predates TNG... see ST:TMA)



However, I'm very annoyed at notion of people to complain whenever anything is a tiny bit darker than their comfort zone and try to enforce worldview that dark things are all bad. Look at this thread - we have guy who is arguing that 300 and Judge Dredd aren't dark, that's on the level of people trying to claim every fantasy book that doesnt fit their stereotypical perception of the genre as endless rehashing of Tolkien and claim things like Chronolicles of Amber, Jack of Shadows, Tales of Alvin the Maker or even goddam Earthsea are science-fiction or mainstream.

Yeah going a bit far. I think 300 as referenced was an argument trying to be too clever to end up working but it was not a hostile assertion. And right or wrong that's got nothing to do with an idea like "all dark=bad" and what appear to be veiled suggestions of 'canon defilement'


What I'm opposing is this ridiculous delusion that dark cannot be good. Because it can. Just because soemthign is light, it doesn't make it automatically better.

Personally I've not encountered that yet in this thread. Heck the titular premise says nothing about that and is asking why the opposite is not more popular. This says nothing about the quality of any dark or grimdark work. You seem to me to be objecting to things not actually argued.

[Tvtyrant]

How many pony avatars are there on this forum? I would argue that the massive success of MLP is a direct argument against this trope. Especially in the first season, when every problem was solved with understanding.

[Scowling Dragon]

Because I would argue it IS quite childish and simple (And if you dare get all passive aggressive on me I will be very upset!) . I think they where referring to stories with a bit more complexity, where friendship isn't a literal LAZOR that zaps away the bad problems.

Its noble-bright, but thats sort of expected of the tv shows aimed at the target demographic.

[Zaydos]

I would say that does not disprove the idea that its popularity outside of its target audience shows that society wants some media with that level of optimism and general faith in humanity.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Because I would argue it IS quite childish and simple (And if you dare get all passive aggressive on me I will be very upset!) . I think they where referring to stories with a bit more complexity, where friendship isn't a literal LAZOR that zaps away the bad problems.

Its noble-bright, but thats sort of expected of the tv shows aimed at the target demographic.

Well certainly there are limits to the complexity one can have in an episodic 22 minutes that are nominally supposed to be watched in any order so that's fair enough.

Also childish in that it appeals to children is certainly true. Because indications are it is successful with its target demographic. Though if never having given up cartoons has taught me anything its that as I have aged my tastes have broadened more then they've changed.

Which I think plays in with what makes the show so successful at the core, it doesn't limit itself by being childish. Especially in consciously averting that childish is any reason to not put one's whole heart and best ability into the show. Lauren Faust set out to specifically counter that since she (fairly) viewed it as particularly true of girls entertainment.

Though sneaking in unchildish elements helps with the parents and periphery demographic too. Nopony in the target demographic should understand the My Little Lebowski gag.

Now then I think its perhaps an overstatement/simplification that children's entertainment is a default into noblebright. I remember for example Goosebumps when I was a kid, and its aimed at kids too. Plenty of classic Disney is thrown into there, but is probably more normal spectrum range then going any sort of extra mile with idealism. Heck isn't there even a Power Rangers season where most of the planet is flat out dead too?

(Given getting grimdark probably has to involve disabling the radar, so general trending will be higher on average)

[Tengu_temp]

I don't think MLP FiM is particularily un-childish. It's just a rare example of a cartoon aimed at little girls that's well-written and doesn't patronize its audience. Other well-written cartoons tend to attract adult audiences, too.


Give me some credible scholars who believe that, and I'll maybe reconsider my opinion. In the meantime, I suggest if you care about language that much, consider reading a basic linguistics textbook. Specifically try Sociolinguistics, as it deals with, well, language and society. Though it seems like you'd reject all of the arguments out of hand as being contrary to what you've already decided to be true.


As I said already, I don't care about language from a scholarly point of view. For a scholar, both negative and positive changes are equally important and good, because they give him data to analyze.

What I do care about is personal culture. And trying to speak your native language correctly is a part of that, just like not spitting on the person you're talking to is. If it's elitist to look down on people who don't even match my pretty low expectations of personal culture, then I'm fine being elitist this way. Hang out with some people who represent intellectual and cultural bottom of the barrel a bit and you'll see what I mean.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

For a scholar, there is no negative or positive change only change.

*sigh*, whatever though. I can see why most linguists have given up trying to influence common thought about language, people just refuse to see language objectively.

[Kitten Champion]

I was thinking,

If I'm thinking grim-dark, the cosmic horror of H.P Lovecraft is my baseline. It's even more nihilistic and depressing than Warhammer, which says something about Lovecraft's talent and particular psychology.

If I'm thinking noble-bright, which for the sake of this thread I'm going to consider a thing, I would say the baseline is Brandon Sanderson. Now, his worlds are hardly utopic -- Mistborn is a straight dystopia by all accounts and Stormlight is on the darker side of things without mentioning Jordan's WoT -- however, central to all these worlds are noble figures who hold on to hope, faith, and humanity in order to bring light into that darkness. The positive humanist themes in his works are more laid bare than in most works of speculative fiction. I would also say that I read his works for the noble-bright aspects of his narratives.

This is just coming off of Wheel of Time and The Emperor's Soul, so perhaps it's just on my mind.

[DomaDoma]

For a scholar, there is no negative or positive change only change.

Change that you'd better accept or else you're playing into the hands of the upper class. But even without the hypocrisy, that is absolute horse puckey. If English transitions to Newspeak, it's a change for the worse, and no timidity to acknowledge that some things are better than others will change that.

[MLai]

WTH is Newspeak??? Do you mean texting language?

[Tvtyrant]

WTH is Newspeak??? Do you mean texting language?

He is referencing 1984. Orwell believed that thought was bound to language, and so by modifying language you modified people's ability to think.

That's why people have never, ever invented a new word to meet a new idea.

[Scowling Dragon]

Which I think plays in with what makes the show so successful at the core, it doesn't limit itself by being childish. Especially in consciously averting that childish is any reason to not put one's whole heart and best ability into the show. Lauren Faust set out to specifically counter that since she (fairly) viewed it as particularly true of girls entertainment.

I beg to differ. I attribute its massive success to the fanbase continuously overhyping whatever it does.

In a few words, I would say MLP is carebears done right. But it still HAS the element of carebears in it which makes it slightly patronizing, and too simple.

Don't get me wrong. I would show this to my sister over Dora the Explora in a heartbeat,

but I just don't see this as a pro-noblebright example thats not aimed at a more "younger", which is what I think this thread was searching for.

And I found the occasional "Adult" joke kinda phoned in ("He spiked the punch!" YUKYUKYUKYUK).

PS:

Whats with the language thing? Is anybody saying that language evolution is bad for some reason? Cause its been happening forever.

[Bhu]

To the OP: Your question on why darker fiction is more popular than media with less violence and darkness in current times can be answered in one word: Schadenfreude.

[Man on Fire]

And? No need to come off all defensive methinks. There's also other posters noting that as grimdark is the more extreme end of dark, as its opposite noblebright would have to be itself at the more extreme end. Not everyone agrees, but then that's kinda rare on the net to begin with.

I'm only opposig that one specific group. And if they have right to their definitions, why I'm wrong for having mine?


I didn't mention Crazy Steve for a reason. I'd think Crazy Steve would be one of the few works that meets Tengu definition of grimdark, when to me its sheer ludicrous badness rather kinda cancels that. 40k one can see why its Serious Business, I'm not sure I've ever encountered someone really taking Crazy Steve seriously

However Frank Miller has had a long career remember. Most of it thought is certainly darker then average and a place like Sin City say where heroes only by comparasion relative, victories are minimal at best....

I know Miller mostly from movies and they indeed are dark. However, I also know people are more willing to remember him for his recent works and for bad ones, which makes "grimdark" itself look bad, when you put him as it's representative. Now good stuff, like Black Summer and Irredeemable, can hold their own to All-Star Superman.



However you were saying that utopian elements of Star Trek only came in later as Trek bought its own hype. To which I disagree, because there's plenty of that in TOS, starting with Uhura and the original Number One among other thing. It certainly climbed higher, but was never originated from buying its own hype.

(At minimum it predates TNG... see ST:TMA)


The point is, that in TNG idealism had become quite insufferable and threated dogmatically, which is why people grew tired of it. It just wasn't so much "in your face" before and DS9 tried to balance that by toning it down and adding few shades of grey.


Yeah going a bit far. I think 300 as referenced was an argument trying to be too clever to end up working but it was not a hostile assertion. And right or wrong that's got nothing to do with an idea like "all dark=bad" and what appear to be veiled suggestions of 'canon defilement'

Okay, I recognized this as a trope name and checked on tvtropes, but...but I don't see what this trope has to do with anything.


Personally I've not encountered that yet in this thread. Heck the titular premise says nothing about that and is asking why the opposite is not more popular. This says nothing about the quality of any dark or grimdark work. You seem to me to be objecting to things not actually argued.

Yet this thread is full of people who are trying to claim any good dark thing as not really dark and leave dark with only complete piles of turd. It also has people who belive dark is automatically making the work horrible (Hello, Alvin!). I see the need to oppose that. if I won't, I feel that one day I'm gonna wake up in the world where people tell me how Sandman is worse than MLP because it has real conflics and character development, as irrational, as it may seem. Through considering how defensive MLP fans can get when somebody suggest anything is better than it, I wouldn't really be suprised.
{Scrubbed}

[Scowling Dragon]

Man on fire, nobody praises the silver age. People can enjoy it because its lighthearted and fun, and is completely unparodyable. Not because people think that truly the best stories come from it.
{scrubbed}

And I didn't like Irredeemable. Or Black summer. Not for being too dark. I just thought them to be bad. =P

[Lord Raziere]

I care not whether its "dark" or "light"

In fictional media, I care for quality. I care that it expresses some sort of truth about this world that people can relate to, characters that people can relate to, and conflicts that I can care about. Now tell me, since did anyone say they can relate to noblebright?

people however, relate to grimdark easily…

I'm not saying that we are all inherently pessimistic or anything, but the very nature of our vast complicated world can make us feel powerless and unable to change anything. the "I won't speak up, cause I'll just be drowned out by everyone else" effect. essentially feeling like a water droplet amidst a waterfall. of course this is not actually true, but people just have these perceptions...

[Man on Fire]

Man on fire, nobody praises the silver age. People can enjoy it because its lighthearted and fun, and is completely unparodyable. Not because people think that truly the best stories come from it.

Doesn't stop them from calling people who doesn't like Silver Age manchildren and telling them to get a laid. Including professionals doing that in their comics (that @#$% ending to Flex Mentallo).


So maybe your ALSO a hypocrite?

How? Explain to my my hypocrisy.


And I didn't like Irredeemable. Or Black summer. Not for being too dark. I just thought them to be bad. =P

That's the matter of personal tastes and I can respect that. Yo uthink they were bad, I think they were both great.

[Scowling Dragon]

Doesn't stop them from calling people who doesn't like Silver Age manchildren and telling them to get a laid. Including professionals doing that in their comics (that @#$% ending to Flex Mentallo).
I don't follow. Mention the example.



How? Explain to my my hypocrisy.

That you call an entire style of comic garbage whilst defending from an entire style of comic/ media from being called garbage.


That's the matter of personal tastes and I can respect that. You think they were bad, I think they were both great.

Mostly I thought they didn't work because we didn't know the characters until the miniseries began. So as a result it just felt like pointless blood.

If I knew about the characters beforehand and thought they where cool, THEN suddenly we find out they are super evil and stupidly voilent and stuff then that would have got a better reaction out of me.

[willpell]

I do think the pendulum is due to swing back a little bit. I was hugely incensed that the Green Lantern movie turned Hal Jordan into an irresponsible jerk; of all the superheroes ever written (including Big Blue, whose upcoming turn toward the more navy and indigo hues I'm quite looking forward to), GL is easily the one who MOST deserves to remain a square-jawed, unflinching beacon of the uncorruptible. That's literally what empowers him, after all...not just imagination (or else Abin Sur would have gone looking for a comic-book artist in the first place), but the raw grit necessary to stand by your convictions no matter what, and the genuine moral purity necessary for that not to make you a jack-booted Knight Templar (link to TVTropes redacted for sake of community protection). The only way I will forgive this lapse is if they were saving the "untarnished idealism" shtick up to put it in a Wonder Woman movie, as she's #2 on the same list (and the idea is probably a little more marketable coming from her).

[BlackDragonKing]

Personally I find it problematic to answer questions of this type because because the terms involved mean different things to different people.

40k is grimdark. All of the factions are horrible in various degrees, and as Brighthammer points out in a tounge-in-cheek fashion, the Tau, who are the closest the setting gets to a nice species, would be villains in a more idealistic setting. There will never be peace, there will never be compromise, evil is built into the foundations of sentient life, and the entire galaxy will be a relentlessly ****ty place to live, forever.

The Song of Ice and Fire, to me, is Grimdark. Bad things happen to good people constantly, evil regularly triumphs because mercy and honor generally mean weakness, you need to be ruthless to have any hope of surviving, trying to do good will almost inevitably backfire on you, and there is a strong implication that Westeros is doomed even if it survives. If the war doesn't kill everyone, the Others that they're not even aware of will, and if Dany somehow gets there in time to save them (which looks more unlikely with each passing book) Westeros is already down to a fight to see who lives long enough to starve to death, and their years-long time of winter and famine hasn't even STARTED.

The Lord of the Rings, to me, is Noblebright. As Sam said, "the sun will shine again, and when it does it will shine out the clearer!" There is a great darkness in the world that must be defeated, and men can be weak and fall before it, but the world is guided by a benevolent force, goodness and mercy are ultimately more powerful than the will of evil, and the heroes don't survive their horrible world, they triumph and the world is better off for the struggles that put aside their differences.

The Innistrad set of Magic The Gathering is sort of a study in this, since the first two sets show the world as it has descended into Grimdark, with the third showing a shift into Noblebright that has restored balance to it. Without Avacyn, Innistrad's natural inclination is grimdark; humans are beset on all sides and from within from a plane swarming with creatures dedicated with implacable malice to their complete extinction. The best you're going to get from Innistrad's monsters is vampires treating you like cattle; the ghosts will burn you to death or possess you or kill you in many nasty ways, zombies and werewolves will tear you apart and eat you, and demons and devils ceaselessly work towards the annihilation of your species. There was hope, once, but it has abandoned the world, and even survival's not a possibility; the best thing you can ever hope for is to die and not rise as some kind of monster to torment your friends and family.

Then Avacyn is restored, and Innistrad becomes Noblebright again. Humans' heroism in the face of impossible odds is finally rewarded as the angels return to aid them, and the powers they needed to keep the darkness at bay return. The vampires don't magically disappear, and there's more demons than ever, but light has returned to Innistrad. Humanity is allowed to win the day, not stave off the inevitable a while longer with massive losses, and the world becomes balanced, with some hope that the dark age of despair is finally at an end.

Noblebright, to me, does not mean there are no problems. It's a world where there are problems, and powerful ones, but good can triumph while remaining good and the world comes out of its darkness stronger.

Grimdark is a world that is built to induce despair. Black and Gray morality, or Black and Black in some cases, an actively malevolent cosmology that hates you and wants you to suffer, every faction involved being an ******* at best and a monster at worst, and most importantly, the premise that you may survive, but you won't ever WIN, not really.

[Scowling Dragon]

I would agree with the above. GrimDark is simply defined by having no hope (Unless a new element is introduced).

NobleBright is based on there always being hope.

[Telonius]

It's a few years old by this point, but ... where would the Harry Potter universe fall on the scale? Definitely has some dark elements to it, but I'd definitely put it on the "noblebright" side. As I recall it did have some amount of popularity.

[Scowling Dragon]

I think we need to create a new term. Not grimdark.

Its when a work is very dark, yet it either doesn't fit in with the older tone of the work, or the setting the work takes place in (Taking itself too seriously):

Grimdork!

I would say that the later books of the Harry potter franchise where grimdork. The 90s for superhero comics where grimdork, and the Noland Batman movies where grimdork.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I beg to differ. I attribute its massive success to the fanbase continuously overhyping whatever it does.

That was not my experience personally. I've been watching animation for years and figured I'd like ponies enough before starting but just plain hadn't been around any bronies beyond noting how gee ponythread seemed to be on the top of the board but I knew it was worth a shot... and then it was 3 AM and I'd devoured 12 episodes in a night smiling from ear to ear. I've never encountered another piece of entertainment that simply made me so very happy to watch. Its an entirely different/richer experience from any obsession I've had before. I was never one of those people that say peppered my english with the three japanese words I knew because of anime... but I've accidentally said everypony in normal conversation. There's something about that show.

However not to sound cynical but merely breaking out "overhyping" I have to conclude I won't convince you. No problem really. However I'm of the firm opinion that "overhyped" is essentially an illusion without substance. Because it arises from the perceptions of the person expressing the sentiment not anything about the show.

I say this from my own experience because I realized some of the few media that have truly disappointed me were because I had set myself standards and expectations before hand but since the real thing could never match the mental model I'd constructed, that structural dissonance was transformed into disappointment. The specific example was Fight Club which I'd heard of for years but also managed to avoid the twist's answer, and found the reality disappointing since it was to me a rather passe mind screw with generic anarchism. I oddly felt Evangelion and anime at large managed to ruin Fight Club for me by changing my standard for mind screws. It wasn't that Fight Club was bad but it wasn't the amazing thing I'd let myself expect. (And I've been around long enough to see those that didn't encounter Eva as early as I did wonder what the big deal with that show was)

But enough of that tangent. I'm not expecting to find agreement there.

Getting back around while certainly the show has been advertised by its fanbase (I nominally do with every post for example) and reaped the benefits from it... well its something of a joke in ponythread that its like the best disease you will ever catch. The show itself is just infectious, which the community then reinforces with its immense amounts of content and general warmth.


In a few words, I would say MLP is carebears done right. But it still HAS the element of carebears in it which makes it slightly patronizing, and too simple.

Well this isn't nessecarily wrong on specifics... I happen to be reading the Steve Jobs biography at this time and I'm suddenly reminded of a maxim he found from Da Vinci and liked:

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

So while I will freely admit the show is not the most complex, well I'm reading a bit of criticism there when to me its approaching one of the shows highest virtues.

but I just don't see this as a pro-noblebright example thats not aimed at a more "younger", which is what I think this thread was searching for.


And I found the occasional "Adult" joke kinda phoned in ("He spiked the punch!" YUKYUKYUKYUK).

I thought that one flat too. Weaker episode too. But you know some tween something just old enough to get that is laughing. And as a user of shameless puns myself I can't be too hard on that.

I get more of a kick out of when Twilight dressed up like Snake, the invoking of Aztec mythology, or when they homaged (but did not just cheaply knock off) a Streisand song.



I know Miller mostly from movies and they indeed are dark. However, I also know people are more willing to remember him for his recent works and for bad ones, which makes "grimdark" itself look bad, when you put him as it's representative. Now good stuff, like Black Summer and Irredeemable, can hold their own to All-Star Superman.

And I have faith that people on this board at least can understand the nuance of referring to Frank Miller as a broad type without focusing exclusively on his descent into insanity/trolling.

This however is the exact sort of defensiveness I was talking about. You seem to be waging this thread like a battle in a greater meta-war to defend things you happen to like by assuming everyone is taking small-minded and shallow positions.



The point is, that in TNG idealism had become quite insufferable and threated dogmatically, which is why people grew tired of it. It just wasn't so much "in your face" before and DS9 tried to balance that by toning it down and adding few shades of grey.

Here I'm going to disagree with you. TNG famously balanced out and got better (and less preachy) as it developed over time round about when Riker grew his beard and the uniforms stopped looking silly.

Not that there weren't bad episodes, it is still Trek. It ended more because many people involved were getting tired of doing the show after seven seasons running out of decent ideas.

Frankly I think people complain more about about the use of the holodeck episode then with Federation philosophy.


I feel that one day I'm gonna wake up in the world where people tell me how Sandman is worse than MLP because it has real conflics and character development, as irrational, as it may seem. Through considering how defensive MLP fans can get when somebody suggest anything is better than it, I wouldn't really be suprised.

Wait what?

No seriously this (http://wiseman288.deviantart.com/#/d5okr8f) and jokes/shipping concerning Luna are the worst you have to worry about.

Could we try to not go making Miko level Jump checks with out conclusions about where things are going.

[Scowling Dragon]

That was not my experience personally.

Well believe me it is mine. This is going to sound stupid and patronizing but when people believe into hype they overlook or begin to love the flaws. So hype generates more hype in a perpetual hype loop as long as new content is released. Like the early release of Skyrim felt like the second coming of christ. Only did a while later when more honest reviews came out that pointed out some realistic flaws did I pick up the game based on reviews.



No problem really. However I'm of the firm opinion that "overhyped" is essentially an illusion without substance. Because it arises from the perceptions of the person expressing the sentiment not anything about the show.

Yup. I would not say its without substance. Its just that its not realy the amazing show everybody makes it out to be. And the fact that its aiming for a young child demographic is felt more strongly then something like adventure time.


But enough of that tangent. I'm not expecting to find agreement there.

Me neither


Well this isn't nessecarily wrong on specifics... I happen to be reading the Steve Jobs biography at this time and I'm suddenly reminded of a maxim he found from Da Vinci and liked:

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

So while I will freely admit the show is not the most complex, well I'm reading a bit of criticism there when to me its approaching one of the shows highest virtues.

I meant the stuff like the friendship LAZORS or the unsubtle (Again done better then most 5-7 years old kids shows but not THAT much better) moral messages the episodes are usually based around.

Thats sort of my motto as well (Make something as simple as possible), but I think the simplicity merely makes it "childish" in the bad sense.


I get more of a kick out of when Twilight dressed up like Snake, the invoking of Aztec mythology, or when they homaged (but did not just cheaply knock off) a Streisand song.

Again I just find these things more like reference jokes rather then anything more.

Generator Rex making an subtle Monty Python and the Holy Grail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiB9MbkX8zM) reference whilst making it flow as part of the episode is something I find works better.

Or something that makes me go "HOW did they manage to get it past the censors!" like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahA67YIBxQA).

I meen geeze. How else can you hear it but "Sexy Fun Dancing?" and then he proceeds to pole dance.

[snoopy13a]

Why does everything have to be one extreme or another? Instead, most fiction is on a spectrum between these two extremes.

[Kitten Champion]

I don't think noblebright is an extreme, it's merely a re-branding of romantic fiction by some trope-happy individuals. It's not really any worse than the stories of chivalric heroism that have been around for centuries in terms of gentle idealism.

Whether grimdark represents an extreme would depend on whether what's being released now is any worse than the Brother's Grimm or the Gothic poetry and fiction for the last few hundred years. I think it feels like it is, because unlike the noblebright fiction, grimdark was largely marginalized into the fringes of popular culture.

The Song of Ice and Fire, for instance, takes the noblebright inclinations of the medieval period and inverts them utterly. Without a network like HBO to serve as a filter, we'd never see Game of Thrones. Relative to modern sensibilities, grimdark is extreme,

[Soras Teva Gee]

Well believe me it is mine. This is going to sound stupid and patronizing but when people believe into hype they overlook or begin to love the flaws. So hype generates more hype in a perpetual hype loop as long as new content is released. Like the early release of Skyrim felt like the second coming of christ. Only did a while later when more honest reviews came out that pointed out some realistic flaws did I pick up the game based on reviews.

Well that's a different case.

Certainly hype exists, I just find the mindset that goes from there to "over-hyped" is still illusionary. Sort of the reverse other end of that though is also not listening to closely too others opinions on things because that's part of what builds the dissonant mental construct that creates the disappointment with the final product. People are prone to hyperbole after all.

(Me I'll freely say Skyrim is the best use of the Morrowind engine... but I have old remnant biases against Bethesda's style there. So that's damning with faint praise for me. )


Yup. I would not say its without substance. Its just that its not realy the amazing show everybody makes it out to be. And the fact that its aiming for a young child demographic is felt more strongly then something like adventure time.

And like I previously gushed, it was an entirely unique experience to me. I know that not everyone is going to dig everything. I'm an enormously tough sell on comedies for example, I just don't dig the sort of comedy statistically speaking a lot of people do.

However I think this is exacerbated by sentiments like overrated and so forth. One shouldn't expect to like something merely because its popular, but I think a lot of people take that something isn't from them into some level of resentment. I don't like something I try to move on.


Again I just find these things more like reference jokes rather then anything more.

Generator Rex making an subtle Monty Python and the Holy Grail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiB9MbkX8zM) reference whilst making it flow as part of the episode is something I find works better.

You don't think much of reference jokes, then post a reference joke? Something doesn't match there, just saying.

However I say your link it much more in line with the show. How about a three-for-one special?

Future Twilight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEBfzKNH_Jc) brings us Metal Gear (or Escape From New York) and that outfit ends up being completely explained over the episode. The arrival is all Terminator style. And the music is a take off a Doctor Who theme. Also it all ends up making as much sense as any time travel story ever does.

(I also didn't find Rex there that subtle, I enjoyed it but its not exactly hiding)


Or something that makes me go "HOW did they manage to get it past the censors!" like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahA67YIBxQA).

I meen geeze. How else can you hear it but "Sexy Fun Dancing?" and then he proceeds to pole dance.

That's not slyly getting past the censors at all. People just always imagine the censors as a lot more sensitive then they are anyways.

I like Adventure Time a lot but I'd also seriously question whether it really belongs before 9 pm on CN since it seem more in the spirit of Adult Swim. Nothing about whether thats good or bad, just a choice they made. Its teen/adult programming with a veneer of being for kids. While MLP:FiM is actually for kids but well made enough to be enjoyable by anyone. Neither is a choice of superiority, but they are different choices.

(That said I'm not sure Adventure Time ever snuck in a pederast and felon, but then I think that was an accident by FiM's staff who probably didn't think beyond: dude the girls are bowling, lets put the Dude & Co in!)

[Scowling Dragon]

You don't think much of reference jokes, then post a reference joke? Something doesn't match there, just saying.

I like my reference jokes subtle and integrated. I have to be fair and say that the Snake outfit was more subtle then I gave it credit for. :smallwink:


That's not slyly getting past the censors at all. People just always imagine the censors as a lot more sensitive then they are anyways.

Eh whatever. It varies on time. I loved the joke anyway.


I like Adventure Time a lot but I'd also seriously question whether it really belongs before 9 pm on CN since it seem more in the spirit of Adult Swim. Nothing about whether thats good or bad, just a choice they made. Its teen/adult programming with a veneer of being for kids. While MLP:FiM is actually for kids but well made enough to be enjoyable by anyone. Neither is a choice of superiority, but they are different choices.

I would just flat out agree with you there. Mostly. I would disagree on adventure time adult swim. Its limits make it funnier. And the slightly raunchier adult swim stuff is on Youtube Bravest Warriors.

My dislike of ponies mostly falls on personal taste. I just don't find it to be that revolutionary. I find it falls back on too many tropes that I am bored by, I don't think that characters are ever much more then their archetypes (FlutterShy as well. :smallannoyed:) and I don't find enough humor in between moral messages.

[huttj509]

I get more of a kick out of when Twilight dressed up like Snake, the invoking of Aztec mythology, or when they homaged (but did not just cheaply knock off) a Streisand song.

Just gotta say, I think you mean a Sondheim song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJFz-ucuTvs Streisand did a wonderful version of it, focused around musical art rather than the physical, but I feel it's useful to realize what she in turn was referencing.

That, and Sondheim did some great musicals, and I like seeing them get credit/awareness. :-)

[PhantomFox]

I'm just waiting for the media to get it through their heads that adding mature rated content doesn't make a more mature show. Oh, let's add more sex, violence, shock value and gore! Kids aren't supposed to watch this stuff, so that must mean only adults can. And if it's adults only, that means it's automatically better quality! Since nothing kids like can have any value whatsoever!

Oddly enough, this brings one of Yahtzee's lines to mind. "Talking about gushing fountains of blood is a great way to get friends when you're a kid, but a great way to LOSE them when you're an adult."

[huttj509]

I'm just waiting for the media to get it through their heads that adding mature rated content doesn't make a more mature show. Oh, let's add more sex, violence, shock value and gore! Kids aren't supposed to watch this stuff, so that must mean only adults can. And if it's adults only, that means it's automatically better quality! Since nothing kids like can have any value whatsoever!

Oddly enough, this brings one of Yahtzee's lines to mind. "Talking about gushing fountains of blood is a great way to get friends when you're a kid, but a great way to LOSE them when you're an adult."

“Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”


― C.S. Lewis

[snoopy13a]

I'm just waiting for the media to get it through their heads that adding mature rated content doesn't make a more mature show. Oh, let's add more sex, violence, shock value and gore! Kids aren't supposed to watch this stuff, so that must mean only adults can. And if it's adults only, that means it's automatically better quality! Since nothing kids like can have any value whatsoever!

The American theatrical verison of Chariots of Fire--a England-produced movie about 1920s British sprinters--added a single profanity so that it would not get a "G" rating. Apparently, the producers thought that audiences would not take a G movie seriously. The producers may have been right; it won the Best Picture Oscar.

[DomaDoma]

He is referencing 1984. Orwell believed that thought was bound to language, and so by modifying language you modified people's ability to think.

That's why people have never, ever invented a new word to meet a new idea.

Weak Sapir-Whorf is as certain as strong Sapir-Whorf is refuted. Here are some examples. (http://www.cracked.com/article_18823_5-insane-ways-words-can-control-your-mind.html)

[KnightDisciple]

I do think the pendulum is due to swing back a little bit. I was hugely incensed that the Green Lantern movie turned Hal Jordan into an irresponsible jerk; of all the superheroes ever written (including Big Blue, whose upcoming turn toward the more navy and indigo hues I'm quite looking forward to), GL is easily the one who MOST deserves to remain a square-jawed, unflinching beacon of the uncorruptible. That's literally what empowers him, after all...not just imagination (or else Abin Sur would have gone looking for a comic-book artist in the first place), but the raw grit necessary to stand by your convictions no matter what, and the genuine moral purity necessary for that not to make you a jack-booted Knight Templar (link to TVTropes redacted for sake of community protection). The only way I will forgive this lapse is if they were saving the "untarnished idealism" shtick up to put it in a Wonder Woman movie, as she's #2 on the same list (and the idea is probably a little more marketable coming from her). We...are we remembering the same Hal?

Even in the Silver Age he could be kind of a jerk. In the Bronze age, he definitely could be.

And then there's the fact that he went crazy and killed a bunch of people because the Guardians wouldn't let him resurrect his home city (OH WAIT IT WAS PARALLAX THE FEAR ENTITY).

Sorry, but while I don't think Hal's a total loser or anything, Kyle Rayner, John Stewart, and Guy Gardner are all better than him. Kyle's my favorite, but John might be the best of them in many ways.

And the rings run on willpower. They don't read motive, or Sinestro couldn't' have used his to oppress his home planet while still a Green Lantern.

[warty goblin]

The Song of Ice and Fire, for instance, takes the noblebright inclinations of the medieval period and inverts them utterly. Without a network like HBO to serve as a filter, we'd never see Game of Thrones. Relative to modern sensibilities, grimdark is extreme,

I wouldn't say it so much inverts them as sets them in a reasonably authentic rendition of the sort of world that birthed them. Which really makes them all the more poignant, since you see both why they are ideals for that world, and why they can never become reality. GRRM is entirely too much of a romantic to do something as blase as simply play idealism backwards.

[Kitten Champion]

I wouldn't say it so much inverts them as sets them in a reasonably authentic rendition of the sort of world that birthed them. Which really makes them all the more poignant, since you see both why they are ideals for that world, and why they can never become reality. GRRM is entirely too much of a romantic to do something as blase as simply play idealism backwards.

Authentic rendition? There's too much exaggeration of the hypocrisy for that, even more pronounced than during the genuine War of the Roses.

The presence of Eddard and Sansa Stark enter areas of the satiric, in my view.

[Dienekes]

Authentic rendition? There's too much exaggeration of the hypocrisy for that, even more pronounced than during the genuine War of the Roses.

The presence of Eddard and Sansa Stark enter areas of the satiric, in my view.

Honestly, while the inspiration is War of the Roses, I always think it feels more like the political turmoils of Rome. Which if anything were much worse than how GRRM portrays Westeros.

If GRRM was really as grimdark as he's made out to be, a few good characters would have been dead twice over by now and quite a few evil characters would still be alive.

[snoopy13a]

Honestly, while the inspiration is War of the Roses, I always think it feels more like the political turmoils of Rome. Which if anything were much worse than how GRRM portrays Westeros.

If GRRM was really as grimdark as he's made out to be, a few good characters would have been dead twice over by now and quite a few evil characters would still be alive.

It depends when in Rome. Some of those guys--I'm looking at you, Sulla--really played hardball.

But ancient Rome was really only grimdark for the elite of the elite. For example, during the messed up reign of Caligula, the common people were really happy with their bread and circuses. In Westeros, the smallfolk of the Riverlands aren't doing too well (although the small folk of the Aerie, Reach, and Dorne, among others, have been untouched so far).

On a semantic level, I really hate the term "noblebright." It kinda reminds me of the cheesy LiteBright toy I had when I was a kid.

[Dienekes]

It depends when in Rome. Some of those guys--I'm looking at you, Sulla--really played hardball.

But ancient Rome was really only grimdark for the elite of the elite. For example, during the messed up reign of Caligula, the common people were really happy with their bread and circuses. In Westeros, the smallfolk of the Riverlands aren't doing too well (although the small folk of the Aerie, Reach, and Dorne, among others, have been untouched so far).

On a semantic level, I really hate the term "noblebright." It kinda reminds me of the cheesy LiteBright toy I had when I was a kid.

True but the Roman peasants went through their famines, periods of starvation, and great fires as well, and the land that the Roman armies went through, during some of the civil wars especially, where hit hard and brutally.

Even then though I don't think I'd describe any of it as grimdark, not when compared to Warhammer level everything is about big guns. But people do tend to glorify past ages even though when you really look at them, it was utterly horrifying.

[Avilan the Grey]

True but the Roman peasants went through their famines, periods of starvation, and great fires as well, and the land that the Roman armies went through, during some of the civil wars especially, where hit hard and brutally.

Not worse than anywhere else though. Such is the life before the 19th century. Pox, Plague, forest fires, invasions, wars... All classes had to bear those burdens. Peasants suffered most when it was wars, the people in cities suffered the most when it was epidemics.

Anyway, a Deadly Decadent Court tend to only be Deadly to those Decadent enough to be in it.

Very few despots have actually gone "LULZStomp" on their own peasants, at least not beyond "slightly overtaxing them" (the whole "tax into starvation" seems unlikely to have happen for real anywhere, ever. You still tax them too heavily if they revolt against you, though. Not good for buisness. Or the Kingdom.).

[Aotrs Commander]

Very few despots have actually gone "LULZStomp" on their own peasants, at least not beyond "slightly overtaxing them" (the whole "tax into starvation" seems unlikely to have happen for real anywhere, ever. You still tax them too heavily if they revolt against you, though. Not good for buisness. Or the Kingdom.).

Weeeeell... France springs to mind (though that was, I recall, one of the reason behind the revolution, so...!)

Or the Paraguanyan War, which, largely under the sole auspices of Francisco Solano López, ended up wiping out catasptrophic amounts of the population of Paraguay (estimates range up to 60% of the entire population or up to 90% of the male population), and only ended with his death.

So... while by far not common... it can happen.

[Avilan the Grey]

Weeeeell... France springs to mind (though that was, I recall, one of the reason behind the revolution, so...!)

Or the Paraguanyan War, which, largely under the sole auspices of Francisco Solano López, ended up wiping out catasptrophic amounts of the population of Paraguay (estimates range up to 60% of the entire population or up to 90% of the male population), and only ended with his death.

So... while by far not common... it can happen.

Yes it happens, but when it comes to the French Revolution I don't think the intention was to literarily starve them, as much as a failure from the Nobility to realize they needed to do anything about the defacto situation (bad harvests etc) to save their necks. Yes, they looked at the peasants as amusing (if lucky) filthy bugs, but they still didn't go out and intentionally frakked them up.
Besides, it is thought now that Marie-Antoinette have been quoted wrong. She didn't say "Why don't they eat pastries" as in "too dumb to live", she suggested that the court should give the poor their pastries. Quite a difference.

[Aotrs Commander]

Yes it happens, but when it comes to the French Revolution I don't think the intention was to literarily starve them, as much as a failure from the Nobility to realize they needed to do anything about the defacto situation (bad harvests etc) to save their necks. Yes, they looked at the peasants as amusing (if lucky) filthy bugs, but they still didn't go out and intentionally frakked them up.
Besides, it is thought now that Marie-Antoinette have been quoted wrong. She didn't say "Why don't they eat pastries" as in "too dumb to live", she suggested that the court should give the poor their pastries. Quite a difference.

Oh yes, I know that (and why I didn't bring up the famous quote myself, as I would have felt the need to explain it myself!)

But France it does sort of illustrate your point that sometimes - but not every time - you can only push the unwashed masses so far before, as you say, they come a gunnin' for you.

Paraguay sort of being closer to the council for the other side, of course.

[Eldan]

Or much more likely, she never said it at all and it was put into her mouth long after her death.

[Avilan the Grey]

Or much more likely, she never said it at all and it was put into her mouth long after her death.

Seems unlikely since the whole problem is the misunderstaning of the quote. Already just after the revolution it was used against her.

[Dienekes]

Not worse than anywhere else though. Such is the life before the 19th century. Pox, Plague, forest fires, invasions, wars... All classes had to bear those burdens. Peasants suffered most when it was wars, the people in cities suffered the most when it was epidemics.

Anyway, a Deadly Decadent Court tend to only be Deadly to those Decadent enough to be in it.

Very few despots have actually gone "LULZStomp" on their own peasants, at least not beyond "slightly overtaxing them" (the whole "tax into starvation" seems unlikely to have happen for real anywhere, ever. You still tax them too heavily if they revolt against you, though. Not good for buisness. Or the Kingdom.).

Which is what's happening in Westeros. The only one idiotic enough to attack his own peasants/townsfolk was Joffrey, though admittedly their problem was they were crying out in hunger since their breadbasket was in revolt at the time. Which was not, entirely his fault. He still handled the situation horribly.

Everyone calls him out on how stupid he is for this.

[BRC]

Yes it happens, but when it comes to the French Revolution I don't think the intention was to literarily starve them, as much as a failure from the Nobility to realize they needed to do anything about the defacto situation (bad harvests etc) to save their necks. Yes, they looked at the peasants as amusing (if lucky) filthy bugs, but they still didn't go out and intentionally frakked them up.
Besides, it is thought now that Marie-Antoinette have been quoted wrong. She didn't say "Why don't they eat pastries" as in "too dumb to live", she suggested that the court should give the poor their pastries. Quite a difference.

The French Revolution wasn't really caused by any malice on the part of the Nobility or the Monarchy. The Peasants just kind of got shafted.

The way it worked was that Louis XIV had centralized power, taking away most of the political power the Nobles used to have, and centralizing it in Versailles. However, the Nobles and the Clergy retained their special Privilege which protected them from taxation, specifically the Taille, a land tax. This meant that, when the time came to raise revenue, they would just raise the Taille, which was only paid by the peasantry. Everybody recognized that this system was terrible, but even though he was an Absolute Monarch, Louis XVI was too spineless to actually revoke the special privilege and tax the Nobles, so he kept convening councils (First the Council of Notables, later the Estates General) to tell him that it was okay. Meanwhile the Nobility and the Monarchy were both publishing things blaming each other.

The rural peasant uprising, known as the Great Fear, was caused when Peasants became convinced that the Nobility were stockpiling food in order to starve them out.
...Sorry, I just spent a semester studying the French Revolution...


Anyway, as for the original question, I don't think "Noblebright" fiction is gone, unless you're defining it as "Totally 100% Everything is Perfect" fiction, where the good guys are all unconflicted paragons of virtue who work at soup kitchens for orphans and the bad guys are all scheming villains. We're trying to find a happy medium where you can have conflicted and flawed yet ultimately sympathetic heroes.

[warty goblin]

Authentic rendition? There's too much exaggeration of the hypocrisy for that, even more pronounced than during the genuine War of the Roses.

The presence of Eddard and Sansa Stark enter areas of the satiric, in my view.

Granting for a moment your hypothesis, exaggeration is a pretty traditional part of fantasy. ASoIaF is generally pretty restrained for its genre, but it still does it - the Wall being six hundred feet high, the length of the seasons, and so on. It's essentially a signpost for 'this is important.' So it exaggerates the cruelty to some degree to emphasize it.

And it's not like the middle ages weren't a fairly whacked out time anyways. France during the Hundred Years War for instance was anything but a happy place for the peasantry.

[Selrahc]

Granting for a moment your hypothesis, exaggeration is a pretty traditional part of fantasy. ASoIaF is generally pretty restrained for its genre, but it still does it - the Wall being six hundred feet high, the length of the seasons, and so on. It's essentially a signpost for 'this is important.' So it exaggerates the cruelty to some degree to emphasize it.


What are the long seasons an exaggeration of? Surely they're just invention, without any exaggeration thrown into things.

[warty goblin]

What are the long seasons an exaggeration of? Surely they're just invention, without any exaggeration thrown into things.
Well, they exaggerate actual seasons for one thing.

They also exaggerate the thematic changes in the narrative . In late summer when the series starts, all is decadence; jousts, feasts, plots for power etc. Autumn reaps the summer's harvest of civil war. Then comes winter, when the failures of summer and autumn are felt the keenest, and everybody's left to bleakly follow the course they have inevitably set themselves on. Note how most of Dance with Dragons isn't about the choices people are making, but about the choices they have already made.

As part of this the long seasons provide a consistent metaphor for who characters are, and also for the stakes. The entire civil war is painted as in essence futile because Winter is Coming. The knights who go into it seeking glory are painted as naive, childish. They are called the knights of summer - which recalls Eddard's conversation with Arya when he refers to her and Sansa as summer children. Autumn and winter sees the knights dying, the children losing their childhood, and the general darkening of the entire narrative as the world moves into the Long Night.

The impact of these metaphors are I think enhanced by the extreme length and consequences of the seasons. Arya and Sansa's status as children of summer is both metaphorically true in that they've never seen real hardship, and literally true because they've never seen winter. The onset of winter is more important when that winter will last years. That in turn increases the resonance of the very explicit link between the onset of winter and the destruction left by the war.

The seasons are a central metaphor for the entire series, which uses them and their exaggerated effects frequently. There's a reason the last book is supposed to be titled "A Dream of Spring."

[Scowling Dragon]

I have to wonder, how do any plants survive for a decades long winter?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I have to wonder, how do any plants survive for a decades long winter?

They survive just as our plants do, but with the ability to do it for up to years on end, I'd imagine.

[Tiki Snakes]

I have to wonder, how do any plants survive for a decades long winter?


They survive just as our plants do, but with the ability to do it for up to years on end, I'd imagine.

I don't recall the books really explaining anything much about the whole seasons thing, it's just kind of dropped in there. So unless the more recent book goes into any detail, the answer to the plants thing is the same as any other aspect of the whole long season thing.

Damned if I know.

[warty goblin]

Damned if I know.

Which is very much the correct sort of answer to this kind of question.

[Selrahc]

Well, they exaggerate actual seasons for one thing.


Again, I don't think exaggeration is the right phraseology for this.

You're talking about it in terms of metaphorical meaning. But that isn't exaggeration.

Within the fictional universe? Long seasons are a thing that happens.

As a representational concept? They aren't an "exaggeration", although they do carry symbolic resonance.

I mean, I think I basically agree with what you're saying. I just don't see how them having a thematic resonance with the events of the narrative makes them an exaggeration.

[warty goblin]

Again, I don't think exaggeration is the right phraseology for this.

You're talking about it in terms of metaphorical meaning. But that isn't exaggeration.

Within the fictional universe? Long seasons are a thing that happens.

As a representational concept? They aren't an "exaggeration", although they do carry symbolic resonance.

I mean, I think I basically agree with what you're saying. I just don't see how them having a thematic resonance with the events of the narrative makes them an exaggeration.
It takes a real thing (seasons) and quite literally makes them bigger. How is that not exaggeration?

Maybe there's some specific term for this I don't know, but absent that I'm not really sure what's incorrect about calling the extremification of somethingl an exaggeration.

[Selrahc]

Maybe there's some specific term for this I don't know, but absent that I'm not really sure what's incorrect about calling the extremification of somethingl an exaggeration.

It contains a connotation of untruth. When somebody is exaggerating, they aren't giving you an accurate account. Whereas within the series, all this stuff is literally true. If somebody in real life said the seasons were years long, *they* would be exaggerating. If somebody in Westeros said it, they'd be telling the truth.

Amplification might be better.

[Kitten Champion]

The author is using hyperbole for dramatic effect, the characters in his fiction are merely being internally consistent.

Yes, fantasy is synonymous with exaggeration, some aspect of the natural world or human nature, culture, or society are externalized, personified, or embellished beyond credulity for dramatic effect. This includes the heroism of heroes, or the nefariousness of villains.

I'm not criticizing Martin for continually emphasizing the ignoble qualities of mankind in an archetypal winter story, merely pointing it out.

[huttj509]

The author is using hyperbole for dramatic effect, the characters in his fiction are merely being internally consistent.

Yes, fantasy is synonymous with exaggeration, some aspect of the natural world or human nature, culture, or society are externalized, personified, or embellished beyond credulity for dramatic effect. This includes the heroism of heroes, or the nefariousness of villains.

I'm not criticizing Martin for continually emphasizing the ignoble qualities of mankind in an archetypal winter story, merely pointing it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Not meant to be taken literally.

In universe, it IS literal.

[Kitten Champion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Not meant to be taken literally.

In universe, it IS literal.

The author and we, the readers, aren't supposed to take it literally. It's ya'know... fiction.

This is only going to get more annoying the more you confuse perspective.

[huttj509]

The author and we, the readers, aren't supposed to take it literally. It's ya'know... fiction.

This is only going to get more annoying the more you confuse perspective.

The world has exaggerated seasons compared to ours.

The seasons are exaggerated.

Those two statements carry different connotations and implications as to the intent of the author and presentation in the story, even in a work of fiction, despite being able to be interpreted as meaning the same thing. The former is what I think was being aimed for. The latter implies that even in that world, the seasons aren't really that long, they just seem like they are. Those differences lead to significant implications in terms of what message/story an author is attempting to convey.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Perhaps all the ASoFaI discussion can be taken to another thread.

Just saying its more off topic then is normally par the course around here.