Writing for displeasure

When I read a review for a film or book that carries the word 'devastating' I wonder when the awards will start flowing. It seems that narratives of displeasure are just what the public are looking for. Or are they?

The Oscar/ Booker/ Bafta judges seem oblivious to their repetitive choice of winning narrative formula. Perhaps because they are so dosed up on anti-depressants, a minor side effect of having to watch and read miserable narrative after miserable narrative each with their own brand of, and this is a vital award winning ingredient, unhappiness at the end. A few examples are; Million Dollar Baby, The English Patient, The God of Small Things, Atonement. Although I'm sure you can think of many more.

Of course there are exceptions. Take Slumdog Millionaire (the novel was called Q & A, you can see why they changed it. The original title does not have a whiff of Oscar winner about it) with its happy ending. The evil Shaksperean brother dies in a hail of redemptive bullets and the princess finds her prince. Of course this happy ending was preceded by enough misery to allow it to compete with its predecessors in the misery genre. Think homeless children, eye gouging, limb cutting, rape.

I was relieved when I read that Daisy Goodwin, one of the Orange Prize judges, had complained about the amount of misery memoirs she encountered in her role as judge, "There's not been much wit and not much joy, there's a lot of grimness out there," she said of the 129 books that were submitted by publishers to be considered for the prize. I don't necessarily think there has been an increase in dark novels and memoirs, instead publishers choose to submit them to prizes such as the Orange Prize because they believe that a panel of judges is more likely to choose a 'devastating' novel as the winner than a lighter, funnier one. Indeed this does seem to be the case so publishers, in turn, think that the public must want to read this type of story. Of course this is a circular arguement: A novel with more marketing spend behind it sells well and publishers will spend more marketing budget on a book that has won a prize.

Goodwin continued '"I think the misery memoir has had its day, but there are an awful lot of books out there which had not a shred of redemption in them. I'm more of a light and shade person and there does need to be some joy, not just misery." A good story illicits feelings in the audience and keeps us captivated however one story is not nessesarily better than another simply because it offers us a dark ending. For instance I do not think Million Dollar Baby would have won an oscar without the ending it had and I don't actaully think it should have won Best Film. Obviously this is my opinion however my point is that a story is a good story and one that is bleaker than another does not always equal better.

The dark side of life exists but must we always applaud it? Would it not be nice to award novel/ memoir/ film that makes its reader/ viewer laugh, more than cry, that makes the sky seem bluer rather than cloudier, that makes our smiles brighter? No I'm not suggesting we all take the anti-depressants the awards judges have no doubt driven to after endless miserable story telling.

So should there be no light in sight? Ever? Doesn't life deliver enough grit on its own? I say bring back the Hollywood ending please. It might just lift my spirits.