Voice, past and present

[Steerpike]

Like many others here, I suspect, I like to read a wide variety of fantasy, spanning from the time of Tolkien to the best currently in the field. One thing I've noticed is that most of the modern writers lack the distinctive voices of some of the past writers. It is not surprise, because the modern thinking is that the words themselves should not call attention. The story is the thing, and the writer becomes largely "invisible" in the telling of it.

One of the current authors who does not appear to follow this is Steven Erikson, and I have little doubt I could read a few pages of one of the Malazan books I haven't read yet, and without anything to identify the world or characters in a way to tell me it was Erikson, I'd likely identify it.

As should be evident to those who recognize the name "Steerpike," I'm a fan of Peake, who was probably the single most gifted fantasy writer in terms of the actual use of language. The writing itself is part of the wonder of the Gormenghast books. Stepping outside of Fantasy, Nabokov was the same way. The story was still the thing, but the telling of it and the playful use of language that only he could achieve set him apart and cast a work like Lolita as more fully his. It could not have been told in the same way by another writer. On the other hand, most modern fantasy on the shelves could, I feel, have been written by any of a number of skilled writers whose personalities disappear into the telling of the tale (doesn't make them bad or mean these authors are not talented; they are).

So I'm reading Storm Lords, by Tanith Lee, a product of the seventies, when the distinctive author-voice I'm talking about was nearing the end of its life, to give way to the more modern forms. Lee retains that older feel. In two chapters, I've come across a number of short passages I really like. For example:

When a queen is paying one of her servants, Lomandra, to perform a vile deed. She offers a ring, and Lee writes the exchange as follows:

Lomandra stared at the Queen's extended hand and saw what Val Mala offered her - a ring of many precious stones, a beautiful and valuable ring.

Lomandra seemed to hesitate, and then, softly, she drew it off and placed it on her own finger.

'It becomes you," Val Mala murmured, and Lomandra was wedded to her scheming.

Or this sort part, referring to a captive, pregnant girl Lomandra is watching over (what a way to describe the pregnancy and to characterize Lomandra's view of it):

So Lomandra returned to the Palace of Peace and found only a thin and wasted girl chained to the parasite of creation.

Describing a trip to a mountain temple:

A silver dawn was replaced by a pitiless lacquering of blue as the towered city fell behind. Birds loomed on broad wings, casting ominous shadows.

Another description:

Night was drowning the sky when he took the chariot and rode out of the River Gate, out of Koramvis, into the barren hills. The mountains, still tipped with with the last light, were a monolithic desolation crowned with blood.

There were at least a dozen others, a description of morning light, a time 'long after the star Zastis had paled and fallen from the sky."

A lot of you might not like these excerpts. Too flowery for some, I suppose. I expect, particularly, younger readers may not (but that's just a guess), having started reading after the more modern trends took hold.

I sometimes wonder if we lose something in the emphasis on the invisible author. You don't see the range of styles and the idiosyncratic writings. You don't have so many of the Lees, or Tolkiens, or Fritz Leibers, Michael Moorcocks, Jack Vances, and the like. The same thing is true in Science Fiction, though to a lesser degree.

What do you guys think...are we better off without it? Or is there some "artistic" element that has been pushed to the wayside? I tend to go with the latter, but I'm interested in how others view it.

[T.Allen.Smith]

I think in some respects we have lost artistic differences between authors. The changes that have taken place over the last 20 years can largely be attributed to the business side of writing.

Just my opinion but if you want to write in a more artistic vein I think that's awesome. Just don't expect to get published if you're too far off what publishers consider a potentially successful commercial book.

It's been said in other threads that established authors can pretty much do what they please. I'd say this falls under that idea.

[ThinkerX]

I think many more excerpts like those and BWFoster will have to be forcibly restrained.

That said, this is something I've been commenting on for a while now. I grew up reading the older works - Lin Carter, Andre Norton, Tanith Lee, and many others. To me, most of the present day material 'reads flat'. Most of the few present day authors who do impress me draw to a greater or lesser extent on those old line techniques.

[Christopher Wright]

Things that people consider "bad writing" now will be considered "good writing" in 20 years.

Today we rail against "purple prose." In 20 years we'll rail against "gray narrative." It all comes around.

[JCFarnham]

Things that people consider "bad writing" now will be considered "good writing" in 20 years.

Today we rail against "purple prose." In 20 years we'll rail against "gray narrative." It all comes around.

VERY true.

The moral of the story seems to be thus: Write however you please but make damn sure you can make people believe that they like what you're doing. Be the trend setter.

[Steerpike]

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I've been having the same reaction to modern fantasy as ThinkerX, above. It has started to come across as flat for me. I read a lot of books, and the style and "voice" have started to become so generic across them that they are starting to bore me. That's why I've been picking up some older works.

On a positive note, I've seen a few books come out the past few years where the narrative voice takes on a greater importance. Maybe things are already trending, in the way Christopher suggests.

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I dunno, the passages you quoted from Tanith Lee I kinda liked. I'm not good at that kind of metaphorical descriptiveness ("a monolithic desolation crowned with blood"), and for my taste it's a little purple, but I don't mind reading it. Actually a little of that sort of thing goes a long way, and I think it's best used intermittently at most, or it could become kind of overwhelming. Humans respond better to a jewel among dross than they do to fifty jewels in a row.

To make an analogy: If you've ever watched any TV by Joss Whedon (e.g. Buffy) there are parts of the episodes that are silly and funny and rapid-fire banter. Then there's the dark, deeply dramatic parts.

To me, "normal" writing is the silly/funny/rapid-fire banter section, and "purple" writing is more appropriate in certain darker, more dramatic areas. It sets a different mood to describe mountains as "crowned with blood" versus "red in the setting sun". If two characters are riding along having a conversation, and one of them happens to notice the mountains glowing red, inserting "crowned with blood" into that might throw off the tone. But if a character is departing a city after massacring the inhabitants in his quest to rule the kingdom, "crowned with blood" would be perfectly apt. That sort of thing.

[Steerpike]

Benjamin: the "crowned with blood" description does echo the events and atmosphere of the scene.

Not every sentence of the book is written as the excerpts above, of course. As you said, a little goes a long way. But I do believe that every sentence of the books is uniquely Tanith Lee. If another author were writing the same story, even following a scene by scene outline, it would be markedly different simply as a result of word choice. Whether Lee is describing the setting, or a character, or putting dialogue in the mouths of the characters, she's distinctive. I think a lot of the writers were back then.

[Penpilot]

I don't know. Maybe it's not the number of authors with distinct voices that's changed but rather the ratio of them to the more bland ones that has. So there's still X number of authors with distinct voices around but now they're floating in an ocean of 100X blandness instead of 2X like in the past.

There are specific authors who's who's voice I find distinct. A couple that come to mind are Neil Gaiman and Paolo Bacigalupi. They stand out most for me for the more newer authors. Another I think is Scott Lynch, but I've only read one of his books so... can't say for sure. But going back just a little to the '80s, Gibson's voice in his spawl series was very distinct. He's one of my big influences for my earlier years.

[Devor]

Purple prose can very often be too much, and moments can be over written. I like most of your examples. I'm a little skeptical of "parasite of creation," but it's hard to say out of context (I've no idea what it's referring to).

Normally I don't mind the invisible author. I could argue that, timed well, a phrase like "crowned in blood" can deliver the moment without calling attention to itself. But there are times for me where I do feel the invisible grey narrative isn't enough to deliver on the moment. Something terrible or wonderful is happening, and your narration is one of your tools for setting that tone and bringing that sensation to the reader.

From learning marketing in college, I've been ingrained with branding. I don't even realize it most of the time. But in good branding, everything is part of the brand. Applying that principle to storytelling, everything in your novel - including your use of language - should convey the emotion you're bringing to your reader.

Of course, doing "Purple Prose" badly is worse than not doing it, and a lot of people - maybe me, too - can't tell when they're doing it well or not. So, there's that.