3 Ways to Make a Depressed Character Interesting

A common story arc is to start a novel with a main character who is down in the dumps and to show their recovery from whatever it was that was depressing them in the first place. For example, a woman who's recovering from a bruising divorce will end up triumphant with a new life that was much better than the old one.

Triumph over disaster, hope springs eternal, never say die, the worm turns - they're all good themes to use for a novel. However, there is an inherent problem. A depressed main character can be, well, depressing to read. Once they're on the road to recovery their lives will be more fun to read about, but those beginning pages when it's established just how miserable/sad/downbeat their lives are can be miserable/sad/downbeat for the reader too. And that means the reader may never get to p 25 when it all picks up.

There are three solutions, and ideally you'd apply all at the same time.

One is to make the character self-aware. If your character lacks self confidence, then make them aware of that. Let them acknowledge how pathetic they're being, let us see them struggle to try to get out of the mire. If their well meaning friend suggests something, then don't have the character immediately stamp on the idea (it'll never work, I can't do that because...). Have them think about it in a positive way before being knocked back.

The second solution is for them to have some area of positivity in their lives. Yes, everything else in their life may have crumbled but their painting, garden, wood-working, whatever is still a source of pleasure and consolation. Make them skilled, knowledgeable or gifted in some way and show that there is some positivity in their life.

Thirdly, let them display positive qualities outside their depression. Just because the character's situation is sad, it doesn't exempt them from humanity. Actually the opposite applies - we may pay lip service about being nice to the sad and depressed, but not many of us actively go our of our way to spend time with them unless they are our nearest and dearest (and let's face it, we might well be staying with them out of duty rather than pleasure). So while the character may be sad, let them also be resourceful or ingenious. Let them be generous to others. Let them be loyal, brave and kind. Best of all, let them be funny...

Positive people planning with purpose is my motto, so while your character may be depressed work hard to make them depressed in positive way. Put bluntly, no one wants to read about someone who is moaning. So don't let them.

Applying The Lift Test To Characters

Imagine you're going up to the 8th floor when the lift shudders, then stops. You wait but nothing happens. It looks like you're going to be there for some time. You turn to the sole other occupant of the lift and - well, who would you like to be stuck with? Do you want to be stuck with the person who drones on about how hopeless the situation is, or the one who thinks of an escape plan? Would you prefer the person who tells you at length about their very dull, static life, or the one who has plenty of interesting stories? And at a more basic level, would you like the one who is distinctly lacking in attractive qualities, compared to the one who is full of life and energy?

Reading a novel is a bit like being stuck in a lift with a set of characters, if you think about the length of time it takes to read one. It usually takes me about eight hours to read a novel, and that may be spread out over several days or even weeks. So I need the characters to be engaging or I'll put the book down. 

When I'm writing, at the back of my mind I'm imagining what it would be like to be stuck in the lift for eight hours with my main character. Life may not be going well for them, but they don't, won't, can't whine about it. Instead, they're busy trying to work out an escape plan. Perhaps because we worry whether readers will like our main character there's a tendency to make them bland, and I suppose it's better to be bland than out and out offensive. But only just better. Instead, apply the lift test. The characters to write about - good, bad or plain ugly - are always going to be the ones who make those eight hours seem like eight minutes.

(I posted this about 2 years ago, but writing about The Hare with the Amber Eyes made me think of it.  So you've got it again!)

Characters Need to Do, Not Sit Around Talking and Thinking

A friend passed this saying to me "We judge ourselves by our intentions, others by their actions," which anyone who meant to get a loved one an Easter Egg but forgot will understand.  Even though one of the delights of reading prose is that we can know what a character is thinking, and therefore know their motivations, we will still judge the character by their actions.  

Characters who sit around and do nothing will be judged as not interesting.  This is especially true when we first meet them - after all, who wants to read about someone who does nothing?  It's very important that when your character first turns up they are doing something.  

But what?  The temptation is to show them doing something dramatic - rescuing babies from a burning building perhaps, or foiling some dastardly deed. I once read the opening to a first novel which started with a gin palace being blown up, killing all the occupants.  It was, I suppose, exciting but given that the only thing that defined the characters was the single quality of being in smithereens, it was hard to engage with them.  

Instead, show your character doing a straightforward action.  One of the best actions to start with is to show them making a choice, even if it's something as ordinary as choosing between Braeburn and Pink Lady apples at the supermarket, but any action will do.  The thing to avoid is the character talking or thinking about doing something.  To quote another saying: Actions speak louder than words.

Falling in Love With Your Characters

So we were out on a walk and talking about Colin Firth, and whether he was fanciable or not.  I said yes. 

My friend countered with, 'But if you were Bridget Jones, you'd have been much better off shagging Hugh Grant, because he was fun.  Whereas Mark Darcy was set to carry on being stuffy and repressed.'

'Ah, but it's not all about the shagging,' I riposted (I have these intellectual sort of conversations).  'Hugh Grant is all very well in his own way, but Mark Darcy thinks Bridget is perfect just as she is.  He loves her, with all her faults.'

Writing's a funny way of making a living.  You invent this set of people and give them stuff to do, and then see where it develops.  This takes a long time - a year, usually, though the more literary your writing, the longer the industry will give you to produce the book.  You have to love your characters to put up with them for so long.

When I was doing my MA in Creative Writing, there was one WIP I loathed because the main character was so perfect.  Nothing she did was wrong.  Her make up never smudged.  She was kind to children and animals.  She helped old ladies across the road.  These are all good things, but frankly, she was hateful. She wasn't lovable because, unlike Bridget Jones, she had no faults.

Bridget has faults, and Mark Darcy - and millions of people across the world - loves her for it, and we love him for loving her.  So when you're writing give your characters faults. The more faults they have, the easier it is to love them.

Get Some Attitude

‘I can’t do it,’ Abigail said, doing that stupid soppy thing with her eyes that makes her look like a pug about to be sick. Pathetic.

‘Give it to me,’ I said, grabbing the jam jar from her. I’d show her.

***

‘I can’t do it,’ Abigail said, looking at me with big eyes shining like stars, so fragile, so helpless, for a moment I could hardly speak.

‘Give it to me,’ I finally managed, gently taking the jam jar from her delicate fingers, hoping that this time I’d get the lid off.

***

The dialogue is the same, the actions are the same. The only difference is the narrator’s attitude. When I read I like to know how the characters are feeling about the situation, otherwise I might as well be reading a script. I want to feel I am in the scene, experiencing it through their eyes. Their attitudes to life might not be mine, but this is how I’m going to understand them and, in understanding, get involved with their story.

As a writer I find attitude is a useful tool, especially if I’m finding a scene difficult to write. I stop for a minute and ask What is my viewpoint character’s attitude to this situation or these people? How do they feel about what they can see? Then I write the scene using character attitude to drive it, and the scene almost writes itself.

Some people advise that you spend hours and weeks preparing detailed character backgrounds before you start writing but that's not how I work. I don't need to know where a character went to school or what his first pet was. All I need to know is my character's attitude to life.

Poor Little Me, a Character to Avoid

Fiona's comment on Playing What If got me thinking about my terrible tendency to write Poor Little Me. I can guarantee that the first draft of chapter 1 will begin with some character moaning on about how life is unfair, nobody likes her, nobody loves her, she's trying really hard but it's all going wrong, oh, oh, oh, poor little me. I'm not sure quite what it says about my innermost being but poor little me is, I'm afraid to say, my default setting.

The problem is two fold. First, I want you to like my central character. Show the character as the underdog and - goes the reasoning - bingo! We automatically like them. Maybe, but in real life while we may offer sympathy as our friend moans on about how hard done by they are, unless there's something really dreadful going on, secretly we're thinking: Get a grip!

Same with characters. Making them put upon doesn't actually make us like them. Just as we avoid the real life heartsink friend when they phone, we don't want to read about books about moaners - even if by p15 they've got their act together and are now kicking ass. It's too late.

Secondly, novels are about people with problems solving them. Characters without problems don't work. If you're writing contemporary women's fiction, as I do, then problems are more likely to be domestic in scale rather than baddie makes a bid for world domination a la James Bond novels. Husbands, children, boyfriends, jobs, parents, lovers, pets, money - it's the stuff of most of our lives, and most of us will have a good moan about some aspect of it some of the time. So, make the character someone with an everyday problem at the beginning, and we'll like them, yes? Actually, no.

Because I know whinging moaners are my natural setting, I have to forcibly make my characters cheery and resourceful, constantly plotting and planning to improve their lives. I think I'm getting better at it. Although Natalie, in A Single to Rome, is first met getting dumped by her boyfriend, she is determined that she can get him back and plans accordingly. Lu starts Kissing Mr Wrong on a mission to get Marcus and find out about Jack.

So, bringing this post back to Fiona's What If comment, if I make my character not like her job at the start I can guarantee that my innermost self is getting all geared up for a quick round of Poor Little Me. It's best avoided.

Positive People Planning with Purpose

When I started writing I made lots of new friends. One of them was a woman who was working on an intriguing project of interwoven short stories. I found the theme fascinating and enjoyed it when it was her turn for workshopping. The stories were beautifully written, with lyrical descriptions and such interesting situations, they always triggered good discussions. Over a five year period those stories were always about to be sent out but somehow, nothing ever happened to them. It was as if the talking was enough for her, doing anything other than passively receiving comments wasn't required.

I've met other people like that, both in real life and in student writing, but it's rare to find a passive central character in published work. Let's face it, most of us can do procrastination and day dreaming at home, so the last thing we want to do is read about it. Instead we want to read about characters who do stuff, whatever that stuff may be. We want to read about characters who make things happen. Characters who are active. Characters who plan with purpose.

Suppose your main character is about to lose their job. Do they...cry in corner? Or start up their own business?

They discover their partner is having an affair. Do they...fall into depression? Or stalk the lover?

Their novel is turned down. Do they...rant and rage about how stupid agents are before ripping up the ms? Or reach out for the Writers and Artists Yearbook and send it out to six agents at once?

The second action is always going to be better for a story character, no matter how true to life the first action may be. (BTW Positive refers to the energy of the action, not how morally reprehensible it may be. Scarlett O'Hara is a Positive Person Planning with Purpose. Melanie Wilkes isn't.) Get your characters going. Motivate them. Don't let them be passive victims. If they dream of sailing round the world then they'd better start making it happen from the outset. It took about five years for my real life friendship with the passive writer to wither; it'll take about five minutes for a reader to up sticks and read elsewhere.