What’s really rare that I love to see is a depressing movie that has extremely funny parts.
River’s Edge, an early Keanu Reeves, Crispin Glover flick that features Dennis Hopper is the only example I can think of right now. It’s a movie based on a true life incident about a teenager who killed his girlfriend, then showed the body to his friends. None of the friends called the police.
There’s probably other movies that fit this parameter.
When it comes to the arts, I’d say that a song or movie can be both depressing and good. Requiem for a Dream is the best example I can think of.
But when it comes to ice cream, depressing is always bad.
That was the first thing that came to mind. The most depressing film I’ve ever seen, and one of the best.
As long as people have been making art, “depressing” has been a thing. There is a reason ancient Greek tragedies are classics. *Oedipus Rex[/x], ain’t exactly a pick me up. Shoot, Shakespeare’s (to bring it up to ermm. more modern times) best plays were also tragedies.
No one is going to argue that Macbeth, or Hamlet, or Othello, or fucking Romeo and Juliet aren’t good. That last one had two 14 year old kids committing suicide. Depressing as hell. Still a good story.
I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea. I just assumed the thread title (“The most depressing book you’ve ever read, but was still a good book”) was meant to rule out books that were depressing but bad (or even depressing because they were bad).
Of course something that’s depressing can be good.
But sometimes, the book (or movie or whatever) can just be manipulating you into feeling depressed, or piling on the misery in hopes of seeming “deeper” or more serious, or of winning awards. See “Death by Newbery Medal,” or previous discussions here in CS such as “Why do they always have to kill the dog?”
Oh, I’m sure you’d find someone willing to take a crack at arguing that they aren’t good. Some of Shakespeare’s tragedies bug me because they’re this close to being an Idiot Plot, Romeo and Juliet especially.
Yes, it’s perfectly possible for a depressing piece to be good. See Goya’s post-occupation work (including the fusilamientos) or Picasso’s Guernica. And a tragedy isn’t necessarily depressing: Fuenteovejuna is a tragedy and I’ve never heard anybody call it depressing… in Spain references to it are a sort of “call to arms”.
RnJ is good, but the protagonists are such morons that I tend to find myself wanting to assist them… I know, I know, I need to work on my romantic streak. Sorry, too late. So, a work can be depressing, it can have morons as protagonists, and it can still be good.
The trouble with depressing works is that you are less likely to re-experience them, because they’re not enjoyable. For example, let’s say a re-run of Futurama is on, I’ll happily watch it, and enjoy my next 30 minutes, unless it’s Jurassic Bark, in which case, I’d rather watch a blank screen.
To be fair, if they made it a happy ending, it would be just another episode, the sad ending made it special, but I just can’t bring myself to watch it again.
Brazil fits this category for me. It’s my absolute favorite movie, I have indeed seen it multiple times, and it’s such a viciously dead-on satire of society, self-centeredness, bureaucracy, etc. that the ending really is the best ending possible and kind of a happy ending, really. Plus there’s a ton of dark comedy - one tiny example is the subway scene where a pregnant, one-legged woman is stuck standing up and hanging onto an overhead strap, while all around her, men in business suits sit down, oblivious and uncaring. And for sheer meta-ness, the making of the film turned into a bureaucratic/corporate nightmare for the director, Terry Gilliam, to the point where the making-of documentary adds another layer of insanity.
My general experience is that almost all the books and movies the critics like are either depressing or unintelligible. Sometimes both.
Don’t forget excruciatingly boring, too.