Let’s keep it simple to begin with: Rick Gekoski’s “Darke” is a good book. It deals with some big issues honestly, sensitively, as well as starkly and unrelentingly.

Is there a ‘but’..? Sort of. As I was reading it, I couldn’t help but feel boundaries blurring between author and character – especially perhaps in the first half. Was it really the character saying something, or was it what Gekoski himself believes? Is Darke a convenient mask for a good old rant, the chance for Gekoski to insult someone – like Ian Hislop – and get away with it? And were some of the things Darke said there because Gekoski felt they ought to be? Surely that’s what a grumpy old man would say… One or two rang a bit hollow in that way. *

But once you get over this faintly pointless hypothesising, it doesn’t really matter any more.

My second ‘but’ is a bit nit-picky, but there’s one shudder in a latter part where, in maybe half a page, Darke’s daughter goes from being livid and furious to taking Darke by the arm and walking him round the garden. I read it more than once to find the transition, but I couldn’t find one. Surely that should take pages… But then again maybe I didn’t look hard enough.

For all of that, I’d recommend it. One of the best depictions of someone dying in here that I’ve ever read…

* In the acknowledgements section at the end of the book, Gekoski talks about how the character, Darke, inhabited him. Under those circumstances, is it any wonder lines became blurred?


Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: