Yes, you can actually have too much "darkness"

I recently finished "Gentlemen and Players" by Joanne Harris - of "Chocolat" fame - and I'm rather puzzled as to why she is considered to be a "popular author" rather than one of the Booker Prize brigade. I can well understand her popularity: "G&P" is gripping. But it is also well-constructed, well-written and at times thought-provoking (is loyalty to an institution such as the renownded school St Oswald's a good or a bad thing?). The main characters are interesting, if not always likeable. I was especially impressed by the way the reader is manipulated into sympathising more and more with the Latin master Roy Straitley, who at first seems to be a pompous old buffer carrying on a somewhat mean-minded feud with the teachers in the German section. When the school is under serious threat, however, he stands up for his colleagues, including his old antagonist, the head of the German department. The description of the interloper who is trying to bring the school down is skilfully done: on the one hand, you shudder over the descriptions of a bleak childhood, while on the other hand, you realise that no end of childhood traumas can excuse the monstrous behaviour of this clever psychopath. I guessed one of the main twists of the plot, and still had a good time reading the book while feeling not a little clever myself. So why, to get to my point, do I get a feeling that members of the literary establishment look down their noses slightly at this author?

I may be imagining it, of course: but it is a starting point as good as any for an uninformed theory (as most theories are). I think the answer lies in the label "of 'Chocolat' fame". I remember reading a few reviews of "Chocolat" when it came out, and they were generally very favourable. It was probably the film that harmed Harris's reputation. I did see the film, and for me the problem with it was not its feel-goodiness, but the relentless trumpeting of hedonism which made even a lover of creature comforts like myself feel we ought to give the poor ascetics a break. Film critics, though, objected more to the feel-good factor. It was observed that the book was more "dark" than the film. Nevertheless, whenever I read a review of a Harris book now, I can be pretty sure that there is a variation on the theme "this book is more dark than 'Chocolat'" in it somewhere. Yet you get the impression that the reviewer doesn't think the new book is quite "dark" enough. Throughout, "dark" equals "good": the "darker" a book or a film is, the better.

Now, I'm not against a spot of darkness in fiction. After all, that is where villains come in: their job is to generate conflict and make lives difficult for heroes and heroines. A book without its fair share of strife would risk becoming boring. I have myself used the expression "dark erotic drama" about "Dombey and Son" and meant it in a positive way: happy couplings in modern Regency Romances are simply not as interesting as a spot of Dickensian power play (though that might have something to do with who the author is). Having said all that, darkness is only one ingredient available to an author. Like any ingredient, you can add too much of it, and there are some situations where it should not be used at all.

On the subject of too much darkness, it eludes me why unhappy endings are considered much more chic than happy ones. Unhappy endings are not more credible or more true to life than happy ones. The series of catastrophes at the end of "Madame Bovary" is about as realistic as if Charles had won the lottery. A classical tragedy which makes you sob your heart out has its beauty, but as for the smug "ha ha sucks to you unsophisticated readers who wanted this story to end well" unhappy endings constructed by would-be cynical authors (actually, you're not a real cynic unless you have a poor view of your own moral worth along with everyone else's, which authors rarely do), they leave me completely cold. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, there is no such thing as a sophisticated or unsophisticated ending. Endings are either well written or badly written. That is all.

On the subject of darkness where it's really not needed: why does every film in every conceivable genre have to have a "dark" aspect nowadays? I'm not a Batman fan, but if I were I believe I would rather watch him driving the Batmobile and kicking eccentric baddie ass than contemplating his tortured comic-book soul. Every new "Harry Potter" film is described as more "dark" than the previous one: why is this a good thing? These are films about a kid wizard! People don't watch them in order to get a "King Lear" experience. The supposed "darkness" of the HP films is mostly moonshine anyway, but all the same, you wonder what's next. A "dark" Winnie the Pooh film?

Ironically, "Gentlemen and Players" is pretty dark in places, so those who like that sort of thing won't be disappointed. But more importantly, it's simply a good read.