Discussion about this post

User's avatar
J. M. Elliott's avatar

i think there is an (erroneous) assumption in art that unhappiness = interesting, authentic; happiness = boring, phony. this has become a kind of feedback loop in entertainment and life. individuals no longer feel their lives are unique or worthwhile unless they suffer in some visible way, and artists no longer feel their work is worthwhile to an audience unless it offers a reflection of that inner turmoil or external oppression. which is ironic, because so much of the 'darkness' is dull, fake emo brooding that has become predictable. there is little room left for modeling or celebrating joy, the way earlier art often did.

i also think there is a disconnect between lived hardship and what is translated into 'darkness' on the page or screen. the roddenberry example is a perfect case. there was a man who suffered a great deal of hardship, yet rather than casting a dark gloom over his entire existence and work, perhaps it gave his life purpose and meaning... in other words, something like happiness. in the past, a heroic deed would have been understood in these terms. we assume hardship necessitates sadness when often people report just the opposite--they crave the purpose, challenge, or camaraderie of it. those who live sheltered, comfortable lives and write dark fictional stories are possibly the least equipped to understand genuine hardship like roddenberry's. yet, their 'understanding' continues to influence ours through their books and films.

Expand full comment
Angela Nagle's avatar

Darkness became associated with depth and authenticity and happiness with shallowness, the false surface. That seems to follow the logic of Psychoanalysis.

Expand full comment
105 more comments...

No posts