Most Depressing Books and Authors

[The Bluestocking]

Here's a related question that's been kicking about in my head:

Can Horror novels all be regarded as depressing or not since horrible things happen to the characters in there and there's lots of dying and going insane happening in all of them and nobody actually escapes unscathed?

Or should we leave Horror novels out of this list of depressing books because their genre is literally built on evoking negative emotions like fear?

 

[j d worthington]

Here's a related question that's been kicking about in my head:

Can Horror novels all be regarded as depressing or not since horrible things happen to the characters in there and there's lots of dying and going insane happening in all of them and nobody actually escapes unscathed?

Or should we leave Horror novels out of this list of depressing books because their genre is literally built on evoking negative emotions like fear?

I would take strong exception to the above characterization. While it is true that some branches of "horror" (to use the common term) fit, a lot of it doesn't; particularly that which deals with terror more than horror. Nor is fear necessarily a "negative" emotion, as its "terror" aspect has a great deal in common with the religious impulse and moves a person to awe and wonder as a part of the complex emotional response (see, e.g., Lovecraft's apt phrase "ecstatic fear"). Nor do all horror or terror novels result in a feeling of depression: On the other side of all the characters go through is often a feeling of triumph and expansion of the soul or self, an increased awareness of the experience and wonder of life and/or the universe, etc. Much of so-called horror literature is also deeply akin to tragedy and pathos, both of which can stir one to feelings of empathy and compassion toward one's fellows -- hardly a depressing result.

So it all depends on the piece or writer involved. Even Lovecraft, for all that his protagonists seldom come out in one piece emotionally (though, contrary to popular opinion, damned few actually end up "mad"), is more geared toward the more complex emotions described above, while one of his modern followers, W. H. Pugmire, almost always has a strong element of pathos and sadness (not depressing, however moving) to his work. On the whole, I'd say it's the poorer end of the spectrum with such writing which tends toward an honestly depressing effect; the bulk of the better work is much too complex in emotional resonance to be labeled such.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I agree, but I also think some of the better modern authors balance horror with character well. Firestarter by King, for instance, isn't, for me, entirely depressing, far from it. Nor The Dead Zone. In fact by putting the characters in extreme peril you can bring out the humanity in them - The Stand does this well (although would not be what I call an uplifting read...)

 

[Ogma]

The ending of Stormbringer was exactly uplifting. I remember thinking the last of the Cities in Flight novels was a bit pointless and depressing.

 

[Randy M.]

Nathaniel West's Miss Lonelyhearts -- wonderfully written and observed, completely draining and depressing, far more so than any horror I've read.

Jean Rhys's Wide Sargasso Sea -- see comment on Miss Lonelyhearts

Leonid Andreyev's "Lazarus" -- see comment on Wide Sargasso Sea


Randy M.

 

[Rodders]

I always found the depicted future of Alistair Reynolds Revelation Space series to be a little bleak. Don't get me wrong, i love these books but the plague, the inhibitors...

 

[TheDustyZebra]

House of Stairs (William Sleator) is pretty depressing to me, although I continue to read it every few years or so.

 

[Idoru]

I recall Dickens's Hard Times being rather unrelentingly depressing and found the end of Perdido Street Station somewhat bleak. I love China Mieville, but could have done with a bit of lightness at the end.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Single most depressing book I've ever read was Game of Thrones.

 

[Toby Frost]

I would draw a pretty clear distinction between books in which bad things happen because characters and creatures in them cause evil to happen, and books where the author has rigged the world to be inherently miserable - in effect, changed the laws of physics to ensure an unhappy outcome. I'd put 1984, most of Stephen King's writing and The Lord of the Rings in the first category. To me, horror novels often involve characters being tested by some terrible thing, but either defeating it at great cost or dying in the attempt. I'm not sure I would see that as inherently depressing, as such. It might be bleak, or grimly awe-inspiring, but I don't think stories like Alien or The Thing get me down, as such.

In the second category, I'd put Thomas Hardy's books, The First Law, possibly A Game of Thrones and some of the Warhammer books, but this depends on the author. The second category is more depressing in a way, but less realistic, because (however it may seem during your teenage years) the world genuinely isn't rigged so that God can intervene to stop anyone nice winning the lottery.

Lovecraft's work is set in a world where humans are pretty much tiny and unimportant, but it is possible to have a perfectly happy - if ignorant - life in his stories. I think he straddles the line, and has the best of both worlds.

 

[Toby Frost]

Actually, if you factor in musicians, the second category - of writers whose world operates to more miserable rules than reality - is huge and terrifying. Imagine being trapped in a song by Leonard Cohen, Morrissey or Lana del Rey!

 

[Idoru]

Good distinction. Of my choices, I'd say Mieville falls into the first. I might not have liked what happened to certain characters, but those events did happen for a narrative reason and the book itself isn't a misery-fest, unlike Dickens, which I'd definitely put in the second.

 

[Grunkins]

The first book in Stephen R Donaldson's Gap Cycle. Great book, but so filled with misery.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I wouldn't say everything by Dickens was depressing (parts of each book, yes) because there are always some uplifting moments, and some characters who manage to rise above their circumstances, either to escape them, or to be better than them.

Although I can see how readers might find some of them depressing (Hard Times and Bleak House for instance).

I haven't read a lot of Hardy, but Tess depresses me. The ending (not the ending-ending, but, you know, the thing that makes the last part inevitable) seems a bit forced, so that the author can make his point.

 

[svalbard]

The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, first and second series. So unrelenting in their misery that they should have come with an advisory caution for anyone prone to depression.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, first and second series. So unrelenting in their misery that they should have come with an advisory caution for anyone prone to depression.

Definitely, main because Covenant is such a miserable b*stard. He comes from a world where everyone (including his wife) despises him, where he has a horrible incurable disease to a world filled with so much wonder , where people admire him and he is full of health. Yet he complains and self-pities the whole way through. I still wonder to this day how I got through this series. First time I read it was about 20 years or so ago. I actually re-read it a couple of years ago to see if it was as bad as I remembered it; not bad in the writing or story telling (which are both exceptionally good), but it's almost painful to read Covenent's (and later Avery's) whining and griping through a couple thousand pages.

 

[svalbard]

I agree the writing, world building and story were top notch. But Thomas should have being put down by a 12 guage shot gun. I was nearly rooting for Lord Foul at the end

 

[HareBrain]

I didn't find the Covenant books depressing at all, almost the opposite. The world was fabulous, the depiction of the health of the Land fantastically well-done and even inspiring, and as for Covenant's reaction to it, I thought Donaldson was very clever with that. The whole point of the story is that Covenant initially cannot afford to believe in the world or appreciate it for what it is. If he had done, there wouldn't have been any reason for the book. I can see how some would find the depiction of his character a bit one-note, but at least it was original.

 

[Maximillian]

Hardy, again (*). Probably GRRM if I could make myself read beyond the first bit. Anything without hope.
(*) Though, to be fair, apparently A Pair of Blue Eyes has a happy-ish ending, and I do quite like some of his poetry.

Gods, I love those books, of course I have actually read up to the end of A Feast For Crows. GRRM does like to surprise us with his killings, but I have finally realized they are not random, simply un-foreshadowed.
So, the ones he decided to live through the whole were always safe, we just didn't have all the clues as to who those would be. Now I have a much better idea. And I have hope for all of them. I even have hope that the biggest villains of book 1 will end up being the very best heroes by the end. Some are already on their way. I love that kind of transformation.

I don't suppose GOT needs my defense, either, as likely the most successful non-juvenile series of all time.

 

[Hex]

It depresses me that so many people love them so deeply and I haven't managed to read them yet. I'd really like to love them.

I don't like characters being killed at all, and I loathe it when I can't see it coming. Sigh.

Edit to agree with HareBrain -- I didn't find the Thomas Covenants depressing. I think perhaps because it was a new world, and also perhaps because I was young and optimistic when I read them...