# Writing Beyond Good



## Steerpike (Aug 15, 2013)

An interesting article here about how to make your writing standout for publishers (and for readers as well). The author points out that good writing simply isn't enough these days - good writers are a dime a dozen, frankly, and the fact that you can write well isn't going to distinguish you.

I particularly find that the advice about voice and character resonates with my own feelings as a reader. What do the rest of you think. 

Writing Beyond Good | TMR Blog


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 15, 2013)

> I particularly find that the advice about voice and character resonates with my own feelings as a reader. What do the rest of you think.



Voice doesn't do much for me.  Characters are a big part of why I read, but I don't need them to be weird or standout in some way; I simply need to want to root for them.


----------



## Graylorne (Aug 15, 2013)

If you want your writing to stand out, Steerpike, could you use a slightly larger font? 

I'll read the blog tomorrow, when I'm fitter. Been writing all day, I'm done.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 15, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Voice doesn't do much for me.  Characters are a big part of why I read, but I don't need them to be weird or standout in some way; I simply need to want to root for them.



I find voice important. I've grown tired enough of generic writing that I'm as likely as not to put a book back on the shelf if something about the author's voice doesn't engage me. I don't know how prevalent that is among readers, though.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 15, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I find voice important. I've grown tired enough of generic writing that I'm as likely as not to put a book back on the shelf if something about the author's voice doesn't engage me. I don't know how prevalent that is among readers, though.



Voice isn't easy to define.

When you use that word, I tend to picture what I feel is overwrought sentences that focus much more on style than substance.  Like the example the author of the blog post used; from that short sample of the character, I think I'd abhor the book.  I so value clarity over style.

That being said, I do feel that I should be able to tell who the POV character is even if the author doesn't tell me.  Though I haven't come close to mastering the necessary techniques, I feel it's possible to employ subtle differences that make such things clear.

In contrast to my reaction to when I read the word, I'm not sure that it's what you mean.  From what I've read of your work, while you tend to give your characters a much more distinct voice from a wording standpoint than I do, I don't feel you create overwrought pieces.

I would think that most readers either wouldn't care all that much or would prefer clean writing.  I have no objective basis for that conclusion, however.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 15, 2013)

Voice doesn't have to be wordy or heavy on description, though if it is and it's done well it doesn't bother me.

I suppose it is hard to define as well, but for many of my favorite authors I think I could be presented with a page or so of something of theirs I've never read, maybe less, and have a pretty good shot at telling you who wrote it. 

Steven Brust has a great authorial voice, for example. Very effective. Steven Erikson does as well. Other authors with voices that work well are Joe Abercrombie, and Terry Pratchett (even though I'm not a fan of the latter). I can pick out James P. Blaylock's fantasy work in a paragraph or so, I imagine. 

Some of those authors use a more wordy style, and some don't, but there is something distinctive or at least engaging about the voice of each of them. I'm not sure how to define it in concrete terms.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 15, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Voice doesn't have to be wordy or heavy on description, though if it is and it's done well it doesn't bother me.
> 
> I suppose it is hard to define as well, but for many of my favorite authors I think I could be presented with a page or so of something of theirs I've never read, maybe less, and have a pretty good shot at telling you who wrote it.
> 
> ...



Of those, I've only tried one of Erikson's works.  Ankari will find this heretical, but I found his writing well nigh impenetrable.

As we've discussed before, I'd much rather someone be able to pick up my book and say, "That's Xan speaking" than say "Brian Foster wrote this."


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 15, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I find voice important. I've grown tired enough of generic writing that I'm as likely as not to put a book back on the shelf if something about the author's voice doesn't engage me. I don't know how prevalent that is among readers, though.



I couldn't agree more. Although, you don't want the reader to notice writing, a writer with a unique voice can make the reading more enjoyable, fresh & distinct, if you will. If done well, the reader still won't feel as if they are reading.

The main points:
1. Surprise
2. Voice
3. Memorable characters
4. Enlarge the scope of your story
5. Allow the reader to participate in the story

I agree with everything here. The one I haven't really given much consideration, until now, is #4...enlarging the scope. I find that very interesting and I'm going to learn more about that aspect.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 15, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Of those, I've only tried one of Erikson's works.  Ankari will find this heretical, but I found his writing well nigh impenetrable.



I find it heretical as well 

But diverse views are good for the craft.


----------



## Daichungak (Aug 15, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Voice isn't easy to define.
> 
> When you use that word, I tend to picture what I feel is overwrought sentences that focus much more on style than substance.  Like the example the author of the blog post used; from that short sample of the character, I think I'd abhor the book.  I so value clarity over style.



Voice is the style _of_ the substance.  Just like I can identify my family and friends by hearing their actual voice, an authors literary voice identifies them as an individual.  Clarity never requires the sacrifice of style, but style certainly can affect clarity.

Personally, style is why I read.  If I want clarity I will go find a textbook.


----------



## Creed (Aug 15, 2013)

Daichungak said:


> Voice is the style _of_ the substance.  Just like I can identify my family and friends by hearing their actual voice, an authors literary voice identifies them as an individual.  Clarity never requires the sacrifice of style, but style certainly can affect clarity.
> 
> Personally, style is why I read.  If I want clarity I will go find a textbook.



Hit the nail on the head.
I think that's the phrase…


----------



## Caged Maiden (Aug 15, 2013)

I think voice is the hardest thing for writers to develop.  Voice turns the drab into the colorful, and for me, it's the single most enjoyable part of reading.  Recently I did a crit on a story about a ghost haunting a house.  The ghost wanted to be famous and lamented dying early without reaching his goal.  So when a boy moved into the house, he tried to turn him into a rock star...  Okay, first let me say, it's the single best short story I've ever critiqued.  Other than one sentence with a wonky flow, I had only positive things to say about it.  One of those comments was "You took a concept that could easily have gotten silly and ridiculous and turned it into something compelling and absolutely entertaining."

I was floored.  The writing was great, the flow and pacing bang on... The voice, however, was the star of the show.  One of her analogies:  "Like the sound of twenty dogs running on a hardwood floor..."  I mean, you got into the character in every sentence.  it was minimalist, not heavy at all, but the voice of the character came through so loud... it was really amazing.  Every single description was short, sweet and to the point.  "U-Haul", "cornrows" every word she chose conveyed so much more than bland descriptions.  

So, yeah, for me, voice is the key to writing something that stands out, if you ask me.  Anyone can write a cute story that is clean and flows well.  They can tell a tale of characters that amuse and entertain.  It's the rare writer that leaves me raving about the manuscript's awesomeness and makes me want to share it with everyone I know.  This story was exactly that.  

When a story lacks voice, it tends to read (for me), like:  "There were some people and then they went here and then they did some stuff..."

It's just night and day.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Aug 15, 2013)

I've made a couple mentions of a story I once critiqued that didn't, strictly speaking, have an authorial voice. The narration was plain and spare, saying exactly what the reader needed to know with no emotion and no unusual turns of phrase. I actually think it worked well for that particular story--the just-the-facts presentation contrasted interestingly with the various unique speech patterns of the characters, setting the stage to question what the characters believed and expected. (On the other hand, a similar style worked out badly for a story about mounting chaos and creeping terror--the intended feelings just didn't shine through.)

I think one of the most valuable skills a writer can develop, and one of the hardest to learn, is to create a voice not for themselves, but for the story. Even many great writers can't pull this off, writing in the same voice for every story they tell, and while this can bring new insight (a slice-of-life written like a horror story, or a horror story written like a slice-of-life), it can also feel forced or even distracting. It's better to dig out the story's mood and feel, and write in such a way as to bring it out.

Granted, this is something I still have trouble with . . .


----------



## Philip Overby (Aug 16, 2013)

My opinion about writers is about the same as guitar players (I've probably mentioned this on the site before, but if not, here I go again). There are probably millions of competent guitar players in the world. Maybe some have taken lessons, others are self-taught. Some can play any cover song you throw at them while others can read sheet music. This doesn't mean you're going to get a record deal though.

Same goes with good writers. Just because you're a good writer doesn't mean you'll get published and people will buy your stuff.

I agree that good writers are a dime a dozen. Just because your writing is technically sound doesn't mean it's going to attract readers. Generic, cookie-cutter writing just doesn't cut it anymore. With so much competition on the market, I feel like you absolutely have to have some kind of voice in order to attract readers. For me, my definition of voice is that intangible "it" factor a writer has. It makes sense that people have different interpretations of what voice is because it probably means different things for different people. Voice to me means if I pick up a book, I'm going to become engaged by something the writer has done. For me, Steven Erikson is engaging because his style feels fresh and unique. Yes, it's hard to get into, but once you do, you'll understand why so many people like him. Same goes for people like Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, and Guy Gavriel Kay. I don't think their styles are as easily accessible as say Brandon Sanderson or Patrick Rothfuss, but they're widely considered masters of the genre because they're the total package.

Great characters are also super important obviously, but I think the best writers inject voice into their characters. I think the two go hand in hand. I've read a lot of writing that I couldn't tell you who is talking half of the time unless I constantly had dialogue tags to remind me. Memorable characters with memorable goals are going stand out more to me than just a run of the mill story about saving something or someone.

However, all that said, I do think good writers definitely have a leg up. If you're technically good, then you're going to have an advantage over a sloppy writer that makes numerous mistakes in the first couple of pages. 

So for me "writing beyond good" means:

1. Having something that makes you stand out from the crowd
2. Being able to follow simple guidelines and be a technically sound writer
3. Have engaging characters doing engaging things (not just sitting around staring at each other or waiting for something to happen)
4. Have a "feel" to your world. Like if I'm reading Abercrombie's work, I feel it. Same as if I'm reading J.K. Rowling.
5. Break out of the shell. Meaning genre conventions are made to be broken. Break some.


----------



## The Dark One (Aug 16, 2013)

Voice is everything. Far more important than technique, for the obvious reason that there are plenty of books published with bad technique - break every rule under the sun - but are nevertheless popular because of an engaging voice that makes the bad technique irrelevant. There is an Australian author (I won't name) who has been one of the top selling fiction writers here for the last 30 years. His books are rubbish, but they undeniably have a really strong narrative voice that keeps his readers coming back again and again for another serve.

But good storytelling technique blended with distinctive voice - that's the sweet spot. I don't know how to advise people on finding their own voice but I can describe how I found my own.

By relaxing.

My first book, I was trying too hard and it was badly overwritten. The second book, I had relaxed into my own style a bit but it was still trying too hard and writing about a really fake and made-up world. But I could see, in some of the more relaxed passages my true voice coming through and that was the inspiration. My third book was completely relaxed and (non-fantasy) writing about a subject and world I know really well. That book was my first published in the mainstream.

Writing in my own voice is now second nature and the book I have coming out next month is, I know, really different to anything else in the market. Partly because of the original premise and characters, but mainly because of the voice.

I have high hopes for this one.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 16, 2013)

Thanks for the link, Steer.

Voice is a big deal for me. I've become a firm believer in the theory of limited core plots. The author's voice is what makes the whole thing a resurrected memory, a thing buried at the edge of awareness and forced into your mind, tapping all five senses and the collective human conscious.

I see the argument made that author's voice cannot coexist with character voice. I don't buy into this. Characters can have their separate pool of memories, emotions, vocabulary, and influences. Authors can still weave their own voice in each character.

For me, good writing means:

1. Distinct, clear author voice.
2. Thoughtful, living world.
3. Characters you care about.
4. Characters you identify with.
5. Characters you hate.
6. Emotion. The kind that swells quietly to the surface and manifests against your will.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Aug 17, 2013)

Maybe I'm looking at this differently because I'm coming at this from a different direction. When I'm impressed by the artistry of a comic, movie, or video game, I tend to be drawn in by the characters. The elements more equivalent to "voice," like cinematography or music, just set the stage on which the characters act. Narration in a book is a bit more intrusive, for lack of a better word, but I still think of it in the same terms. I've given up on beautifully written books because the author put so much effort into voice and flow that he forgot to have the characters do or say anything interesting--it felt like listening to someone play a technically difficult piece, and wondering when it was going to turn into actual music.


----------



## Jabrosky (Aug 17, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> 1. Having something that makes you stand out from the crowd


This doesn't seem that hard for me. I've always had a fairly unorthodox range of passions, and I like think this gives my writing more distinctive subject matter than others' in the same genre. Far be it from me to write about elves, orcs, and all that other trite pseudo-medieval crud. In my experience it is a lot easier to defy genre conventions when your special interests don't conform to those conventions in the first place.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 18, 2013)

> For me, my definition of voice is that intangible "it" factor a writer has.



This is part of my frustration with conversations like this.  I think every person who has replied to this thread has a different definition of what we're discussing.

I think there are a lot of authors whose success haven't had anything to do with either style or sound technique.  It's all about the ability to capture a reader's attention from the start and not let go.  Seems to me, the way to do that is to:

1. Introduce a relatable character.
2. Put that character in trouble.
3. Resolve the trouble by putting the character in more trouble.
4. Go back to 2.

Not really what I'm trying to produce, but that's a formula for success that many writers have followed.  If you can keep a reader engaged with your book, I think you'll find an audience regardless of your style or technique.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 18, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> This is part of my frustration with conversations like this.  I think every person who has replied to this thread has a different definition of what we're discussing.
> 
> I think there are a lot of authors whose success haven't had anything to do with either style or sound technique.  It's all about the ability to capture a reader's attention from the start and not let go.  Seems to me, the way to do that is to:
> 
> ...



I don't think that's true, really. I think the really successful writers have more going on that what you've said. There has been disagreement in the thread about exactly how you define it, but there has been broad agreement that it is there.

You could do items 1 through 4 in something that sounds like a newspaper article. That's not going to win you any readers. Have you ever read a book that does items 1 through 4 but just doesn't grab you? I have. I've heard that complaint plenty of times from other people as well. You finish the book, the characters were interesting and they were doing interesting things, but for whatever reason the book just didn't "grab" you. I'll finish that book. It's decent enough. I'll just never buy anything else by that author.

Elements 1 through 4 are simple to do. The authors who are really successful and build a loyal following are doing something more, and that comes down to style. The reason they have loyal fan bases is that readers don't just want 1 through 4, they want it in the way that particular author writes. She's not interchangeable with every other generic fiction writer who comes along trying to tell a story. There is something distinctive and engaging about her. 

If all you do is 1 through 4, in a generic style that could have been written by anyone, why should any reader eagerly await your next book as opposed to the next book by the dozen other authors doing the same thing in the same way? I think 1 through 4 is great, but it is not sufficient in and of itself to make me read an author's work.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 18, 2013)

> That's not going to win you any readers. Have you ever read a book that does items 1 through 4 but just doesn't grab you?



That's the thing, though.  There seems to be huge market for books that do just that.  Look at James Patterson.  Isn't that basically what he does?  His books don't grab me at all, but they have a huge audience.



> Elements 1 through 4 are simple to do.



Not as simple as you might think.  There are a lot of people self publishing right now who aren't even getting this part right.



> The authors who are really successful and build a loyal following are doing something more, and that comes down to style. The reason they have loyal fan bases is that readers don't just want 1 through 4, they want it in the way that particular author writes.



Again, there seems to be a huge market for light books that you simply can't put down.  Bestseller lists seem to be full of them.



> I think 1 through 4 is great, but it is not sufficient in and of itself to make me read an author's work.



I'm not saying that it's enough for everybody, but it seems to be good enough for a lot of the reading public.

Personally, I want to transcend simply doing this, but, if I can find a book that's fun to read, I'll look for other books by that author even if the book didn't resonate with me on any kind of deeper level.  Believe me, it's harder to find books that are engaging than you seem to think.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 18, 2013)

I agree with Brian, as far as the importance of his four points, and that a writer can find success employing them without having a distinct voice. 

However, there's a difference, in my view, between those authors that can find some level of success and those that are so unique & sound so different from their contemporaries. While at the same time espousing the other fundamentals they are, as a result, catapulted to status & success above other more common writers. That is the power of voice. 

Look at star singers... There's plenty of good singers in the world that spend their careers as back up vocalists, never stepping forward to the front of the stage. Why? Often, it's a matter of tone & style. A good singing voice and an understanding of principles isn't enough. They lack a unique tone or other elements that make the superstars distinct & recognizable.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Aug 18, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I agree with Brian, as far as the importance of his four points, and that a writer can find success employing them without having a distinct voice.
> 
> However, there's a difference, in my view, between those authors that can find some level of success and those that are so unique & sound so different from their contemporaries. While at the same time espousing the other fundamentals they are, as a result, catapulted to status & success above other more common writers. That is the power of voice.
> 
> Look at star singers... There's plenty of good singers in the world that spend their careers as back up vocalists, never stepping forward to the front of the stage. Why? Often, it's a matter of tone & style. A good singing voice and an understanding of principles isn't enough. They lack a unique tone or other elements that make the superstars distinct & recognizable.



Would you say that Justin Bieber has a unique tone that makes him distinct and recognizable? If so, would you say that positively? Or would you say his music is _relatable_ to a certain market?


----------



## Philip Overby (Aug 18, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> That's the thing, though.  There seems to be huge market for books that do just that.  Look at James Patterson.  Isn't that basically what he does?  His books don't grab me at all, but they have a huge audience.



I've never read James Patterson, but despite the fact that his books don't grab you, they grab other people. The same can be said of awesome fantasy writers. You mentioned before that Steven Erikson didn't do anything for you. But for many he's on some of the top fantasy writer lists of all time. And he definitely isn't just following steps 1-4. He's got a flair to his storytelling that grabs you (well, in this case, not you, but you get what I mean  )

There are some that can't get through a single Tolkien book. Does this make him any less engaging? Is he not doing steps 1-4 right? I think these issues come down to preference a lot times. For me, Tolkien has a strong voice. As does Erikson. As does James Patterson for some people. If these writers were just following a pattern of storytelling, then they wouldn't be, have been, as successful. 

Some readers, and writers for that matter, are hard to impress. This doesn't always mean a writer is doing something wrong. It just means something's not clicking with the reader. I think a writer's job is try to connect with readers whichever way works for them. Writing is, at the end of the day, a form of communication. Whether you're communicating something interesting is really in the eye of the beholder. Some people may be engaged by YA supernatural romance. However, they may think George R.R. Martin is horrible. 

The general reading public doesn't analyze these issues as much as we do. They like what they like. Same as people go in droves to see Grown Ups 2,some  people will buy something familiar and easy to digest. It's what they like. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 18, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> Would you say that Justin Bieber has a unique tone that makes him distinct and recognizable? If so, would you say that positively? Or would you say his music is relatable to a certain market?



I'm not qualified to answer that question. I'm not a teenage girl & I'm well past the age to appreciate that type of music.

However, you'll notice in the above post I wrote "and other elements." I'd say there is probably some "it factor" or style to the kid that is a large part of his stardom. And yes, he is a star to a certain demographic. I see no difference there for any artist. A writer is going to appeal to certain people while remaining no more than a name to others.

I don't know any Bieber songs but I know the name. I'm sure there are fans of his who know the name Tolkein but never read his books.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 19, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> I've never read James Patterson, but despite the fact that his books don't grab you, they grab other people. The same can be said of awesome fantasy writers. You mentioned before that Steven Erikson didn't do anything for you. But for many he's on some of the top fantasy writer lists of all time. And he definitely isn't just following steps 1-4. He's got a flair to his storytelling that grabs you (well, in this case, not you, but you get what I mean  )
> 
> There are some that can't get through a single Tolkien book. Does this make him any less engaging? Is he not doing steps 1-4 right? I think these issues come down to preference a lot times. For me, Tolkien has a strong voice. As does Erikson. As does James Patterson for some people. If these writers were just following a pattern of storytelling, then they wouldn't be, have been, as successful.
> 
> ...



Phil,

The point was that "voice" isn't the crucial element to success that posters on this thread seem to be making it out to be.  How can anyone say that James Patterson has a unique voice when it's widely acknowledged that he employs a lot of authors to "cowrite" with him?  He's successful purely due to writing thrillers that make his readers want to see what happens on the next page.

Again, not what I'm trying to achieve, but there's nothing wrong with that.  More power to him!

I don't think there's one characteristic of writing that guarantees success.  My advice is to figure out what you want to accomplish and do that well.  If you do can master what you want to accomplish, I think you'll be able to find your audience.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Aug 19, 2013)

I read the blog post and liked it. I guess what it amounts to is that getting it right is more than just doing it correctly.
I'll try not to get into the debate about voice, but I'll admit that I like the idea of voice being important.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 19, 2013)

I don't agree regarding Patterson.

I know quite a few James Patterson fans, and the one thing they seem to agree on is that the quality of his work has gone downhill (though most of them still buy his books). By the time Patterson started writing by committee he was already successful, already had a following, and was already a brand unto himself. I don't think you can look at that and draw the conclusions that are being drawn. I don't think an unknown writer would be likely to do it and have it work for them. 

If you look at Patterson's early work, which is what made him famous to begin with, he certainly has a distinctive style and voice. Once his name became a brand, he could do what he wanted and still sell a lot of books.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 19, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I don't agree regarding Patterson.
> 
> I know quite a few James Patterson fans, and the one thing they seem to agree on is that the quality of his work has gone downhill (though most of them still buy his books). By the time Patterson started writing by committee he was already successful, already had a following, and was already a brand unto himself. I don't think you can look at that and draw the conclusions that are being drawn. I don't think an unknown writer would be likely to do it and have it work for them.
> 
> If you look at Patterson's early work, which is what made him famous to begin with, he certainly has a distinctive style and voice. Once his name became a brand, he could do what he wanted and still sell a lot of books.



This conversation is growing a bit pointless.  "Voice" is so nebulously defined that I can pull out any example I want, and you can simply say, "He's got a great voice.  That's the reason for his success."


----------



## Svrtnsse (Aug 19, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> This conversation is growing a bit pointless.



It does feel a bit like you're going in circles.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 19, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> This conversation is growing a bit pointless.  "Voice" is so nebulously defined that I can pull out any example I want, and you can simply say, "He's got a great voice.  That's the reason for his success."



No, you said it couldn't be his voice because he's writing by committee. I'm just pointing out that he was famous before he started doing that and that his older books do have a style and voice. I didn't say it was the reason for his success, I'm just saying the point you made about him being famous without a distinctive voice doesn't hold up. I don't know why you're opposed to the idea that narrative voice matters. How else do you think an author is going to stand out from the mass of other authors, particularly in self-publishing? If there are 1000 writers of generic fiction all doing the same thing, you've got to have something that distinguishes you, in my opinion, unless you're planning to rely on luck alone.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 19, 2013)

> I don't know why you're opposed to the idea that narrative voice matters.



Because it doesn't to me.  I've never read a single book where afterward I said, "Wow, that book was awesome.  The author had a great voice."

Instead, I say, "Wow, I couldn't put the book down because the tension keep me so engaged.  I loved rooting for the characters and wanted to find out what happened to them."

Obviously, for you, voice is an important aspect.  That's fine.  There's a wide variety of literature available for that reason.  I just don't feel you can say, "For writing to be objectively good, it has to have a good authorial voice."

In my highly subjective opinion, that's just not the case.  It's a feature that literally doesn't matter to me in the slightest as a reader.  As a writer, I want each of my characters to have a distinct voice because I think it enhances the deep POV that I wish to achieve, but even that is a subjective goal of mine, not a universal necessity.



> How else do you think an author is going to stand out from the mass of other authors, particularly in self-publishing? If there are 1000 writers of generic fiction all doing the same thing, you've got to have something that distinguishes you,



I think that each of us needs to figure out exactly what makes writing come alive for us and learn how to create that effect.  For me, it's writing that makes me care about the characters and compels me to turn the pages.  For you, it's apparently "voice."


----------



## Philip Overby (Aug 19, 2013)

This may be taking the discussion a little off track, but I think it's worth noting in today's age of writing and publishing. It seems more and more that writers rely on social media, interviews, and word of mouth to sell books. It's not just "Oh, that sounds like a good book" anymore. There are hundreds if not thousands of good books, some by more established authors or even by deceased authors in some cases. "Voice," however nebulously defined, is what got me interested in Chuck Wendig's fiction. I thought, "If this guy is this funny, then his books must be awesome." I'm not wrong. That's one of his selling points as a writer. He connects with people as an author and thus _gets_ people reading his books. From there, they can become engaged in his characters, his world, etc. If you follow almost any currently relevant writer in the genre now, they're using Twitter in a way to show what they're about. To give you hints, snippets, reviews, or whatever they can do to connect with readers. 

A big part of that comes down to voice. A writer's voice inevitably carries over to his or her fiction in some ways. Unless you're Cormac McCarthy you can't afford to not put yourself out there in some way. Sadly, there are some awesome authors out there that I'll probably never read because the days of me going into a bookstore and saying "Oh, this looks good" are pretty much over. I almost always buy something if either:

a. I like the author
b. I like something the author previously wrote
c. Someone (a friend or writer I like) recommended it

Writing doesn't always speak for itself anymore. You've got to "get people in the door" so to speak. A strong, distinctive presence can do you a lot of favors.

All that said, I agree with BW that having strong, distinctive characters that resonate is very important. However, I've read dozens of stories that I couldn't tell you who wrote them because they didn't have a distinctive style or flair. I may have read them and said "That was decent" but I'm probably not going to seek that author out again unless something really struck me. 

Going into the world of movies for a moment, my belief is that Quentin Tarrantino is one of the greatest film makers of all time. That said, there have been dozens if not hundreds of movies made about WWII. If you told me "There's a new WWII movie out" I'd probably say "Oh, OK." But if you told me "Quentin Tarrantino made a WWII movie" I'd say "Oh, wow, I need to see that." That's the same in fiction if you say "There's a new YA book out" or "Joe Abercrombie has a new YA book out." 99 percent of the time I'd pick the Abercrombie book because I'm sold on his voice, style, approach, everything. 

I need a potent fiction concoction. And that's almost always a combination of voice, strong characters, an interesting setting, and a solid, cohesive plot. Having one of these things is not enough for me anymore. I need it all!


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Aug 19, 2013)

I've followed this thread carefully, and numerous other threads on the same subject, and read dozens of blogposts about it, and I still don't really understand what you guys mean by 'authorial voice'. It seems to be no more than a distinctive writing style, but maybe I'm wrong about that. 

But whatever it is, I don't see that many people base their reading choices on it. Writers might, because they read in a different way, but ordinary punters buy a book because the premise sounds good, or they've enjoyed other books by that author, or they've seen the movie, or their best mate told them it was awesome, or they just like the cover. IMO, of course.

I've found that if an author has a distinctive writing style, it tends to get in the way of the story. It becomes a distraction. Very few authors have the power to dazzle purely by writing style - the likes of Patrick Rothfuss, maybe, but even then a lot of readers dismiss his work as pretentious twaddle.

Now a writer like Michael J Sullivan has a very plain, down-to-earth way of writing that no one will ever write eulogies about. But what he does astonishingly well is Brian's four-point list: terrific characters, then the trouble/resolve, trouble/resolve cycle that ramps up the tension all the way through. I'm reading his sci-fi work 'Hollow World' at the moment, and there are points where I literally had to put the book down for a second to remind myself to breathe. Great stuff, and the writing style is completely transparent (to me, anyway).

But maybe I see it this way because I don't understand voice.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 19, 2013)

@BWFoster, I think we'll just disagree on this  Even in the types of books you cite, I think it is the author's voice, whether recognized by the reader or not, that is a significant factor in the success of the book. I read a lot in the thriller and mystery genres, where authors are very good at doing this sort of thing and keeping readers turning the page, and I see voice as significant there.

A good example might be Michael Connelly. The guy is at the top of his genre, and he's been writing about the same LAPD homicide detective since somewhere around 1991. His characters are regular people. They're good at what they do, but nothing spectacular in terms of fictional characters. There are a lot of characters I think are more relatable than his protagonist. His plots are good. They vary in scope, but most of them are modestly focused around the L.A. area. The sorts of things that might happen to a homicide detective. 

Year in and year out, Connelly puts out exactly the kinds of books you're talking about and they always sell well. There are dozens of authors writing the same sort of thing, who are just (if not better) at creating characters, and just as good at plotting, and they're stuck on the mid-lists and the authors probably can't even quit their day jobs. The reason, in my opinion, is that the way in which Michael Connelly tells the story, in large part his narrative voice, is just so much better than those other guys. If you made Connelly and one of those other authors switch plots and characters for their next novel, the Connelly book would still be compelling to readers while the other guy would still manage only another mediocre offering.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 19, 2013)

Pauline: I think style and voice are two different things, though they influence each other or overlap. And while the average reader may not consciously consider voice when they are reading a book, just like they don't consciously consider any number of of others things writers think about, I think it is a significant factor in the enjoyment of the story.

As for Michael J Sullivan, I disagree. I think he's got a pretty strong narrative voice, which is one reason I enjoyed his books as much as I did.

I think it was Margaret Atwood, whom I'm not actually a big fan of but who is a successful writer, who recommended starting with voice. I don't always do that, though I have, but I think she's right in ascribing a high level of importance to it.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Aug 19, 2013)

So, Brian, are you saying it isn't possible, that even if you weren't "searching for it", those favorite books of yours didn't have a great narrator voice? And that it didn't subconsciously lead to your greater enjoyment of the books?

I'm not trying to argue, but I know that when I looked back at some of my favorite books, I noticed things that years ago, I couldn't have even comprehended.  In fact, I recently mentioned doing so and noticing that one of my very favorites of all time was written in FIRST PERSON!  Something I thought I hated!

  I bet you twenty dollars here and now, if you crack open a few of those books and look at them again, you will not only find those elements you already mentioned (engaging characters, great action sequences, probably strong antagonists and plenty of tension).  But, you will also find deep POV utilized, to really draw us into the character and his predicament, and voice.  Voice is to me, those little comments that works in tandem with deep POV.  While deep POV is the omission of the narrator, voice is the thing that connects the reader to that POV.

It's in every description, every internal thought, and my favorite, every analogy.  I just got a piece judged and got compliments on "voice".  I highlighted all the "voice" choices I made in red.  At least as far as  I understand the concept.  I hope I'm not terribly lost in my thinking.   I notice, a lot of times people talk theory here on the forums, but  usually we don't dare risk looking like idiots by trying to enact our  theories for the world to see.  Well, I'll risk looking like that idiot.   If I'm misunderstanding the concept or "voice" and deep POV, please  let me know.  here it is:




Spoiler: the beginning of the story






> They call it the Eternal Palace, sitting high above the river Dranz, overlooking the sea.  It appears very different to me, from the northern spire, ivory bars on my windows and a thick rope latch binding my door. I chose not to use flowery descriptions.  It wouldn't fit the character, and it was more important to "see" the bars and latch from her POV than it was to tell the reader more about them.  I tend to feel "static" descriptions are the indicator of a lacking voice, but equally bad are consistently overdone descriptions.
> 
> They say it’s for my own protection, but I know better.  It’s for theirs.  I took a bone comb from my hair and raked my fingers through.  It was almost dinnertime.  Footsteps sounded in the hall.
> 
> ...






I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the books we love, whether we know all the reasons and nuances why or not, has a lot to do with voice.  In a good voice, I'm more likely to be forgiving of pacing and grammar, but it's almost a moot point, because of those things, voice is the hardest to master.

  So let me know if I owe you a twenty.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 19, 2013)

> Voice is to me, those little comments that works in tandem with deep POV. While deep POV is the omission of the narrator, voice is the thing that connects the reader to that POV.



Let's take another tack at this.  Every writer who has ever written anything puts his personal touch on the work, even if it's a little as using "from" instead of "out of."  We all have a particular syntax, cadence, etc.

I contend that these elements simply aren't that important.  Here's how I'm reading your definition:

Voice is defined as that which makes writing good (by, in your case, connecting the reader to the POV).  Therefore, all great books have a great voice.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Aug 19, 2013)

i just wanted to say one more thing about "engaging characters".  It isn't by learning he's an outlaw  on the run with a dead father haunting him in his dreams that we relate to him... it's in the author's way of showing us that, and most often, that's done through voice.


I could simply write: 

 "The ghost of his father appeared before him as he was unrolling his bedroll for the night.  Shimmery translucence obscured the face, but still he recognized his father, a man of dignity and regal bearing."

OR:

He swept a palm over the bedroll, smoothing wrinkles.  Around the camp's periphery, mist gathered.  He stood from his bed, thinking it an unusual phenomenon, so far from a bog.  Smoky tendrils wound together, growing, taking shape, until they appeared as a man, standing before him.  His father.  Despite the specter's obscured features, his bearing gave away his identity.  A puffed chest and chin held aloft indicated a man who died as proudly as he lived.  


Okay... the first one I would say has little voice in it.  It's static, bland, and gets the job done, if the job is to convey information.

The second, you get a lot clearer picture of the character and I just can't see a reason for choosing the first over the second.  The second is not overly long or flowery, but it gives a better POV.  I know you're working on deep POV.  Don't you think it goes hand in hand with voice?


----------



## Caged Maiden (Aug 19, 2013)

I sent that last without seeing your question.  One sec.

Okay, I think the last post still stands, but I'll try to elaborate (what I understand).  

Okay, do all great books have a great voice?  No.  I've read stories (not novels) that had annoying voices. However... the thing it, the overall enjoyment of the piece would have been lessened without the voice.  Unless it was so annoying I put it down.  I think a really obscure voice can certainly put people off.


Take "Flowers for Algernon".  That has a distinct voice.  It comes through in journal entries written by Charlie who's barely literate at first, and then gets super intelligent.  WHat would you call that?  POV alone?  I think it's a marriage of voice and POV that make that one of the most wonderful examples of voice I've ever read.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 19, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Voice is defined as that which makes writing good (by, in your case, connecting the reader to the POV).  Therefore, all great books have a great voice.



I think that's a convenient mis-reading of what is being said that is intended to support your own viewpoint


----------



## Caged Maiden (Aug 19, 2013)

I do not believe in one concept making the adverse true merely by flipping the conclusion.  So, if you read a great book, it MOST LIKELY had a good voice that you either didn't notice consciously, or weren't looking for until recently.  You THINK you were wowed by characters who were so easy to connect to, but what about them made them easy to connect to?  Was it their riveting background story?  Or was it the way it was presented?  I'm putting forth that the WAY an author makes those characters so memorable, is by using deep POV, which relies heavily on "voice".  Those little things like analogies, how your character perceives a dragon the first time he sees one, etc.  Does an author have a voice if he merely says the character sees a dragon with "burning eyes and seventy feet from nose to tail.  Two great wings jutting from its back and scales like spun copper"?  Or is it better to actually use the moment to define the character? Stay in his head and use voice and POV to give the reader more?


----------



## Feo Takahari (Aug 19, 2013)

PaulineMRoss said:


> I've found that if an author has a distinctive writing style, it tends to get in the way of the story. It becomes a distraction. Very few authors have the power to dazzle purely by writing style - the likes of Patrick Rothfuss, maybe, but even then a lot of readers dismiss his work as pretentious twaddle.



This right here is why I prefer Christopher Paolini to Guy Gavriel Kay--






Seriously, Paolini has an actively _bad_ voice, sometimes drawing me out of the story, but he's at least short-winded. Kay seems to be in love with his own voice, allowing it free reign even when this gets in the way of the story's progression. I'd definitely pick Paolini as the more interesting read.

Edit: Caged Maiden, are you sure you don't agree with BW Foster? You seem to be saying he should do the same thing he says he'd rather do than what Steerpike's saying should be done.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 19, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I think that's a convenient mis-reading of what is being said that is intended to support your own viewpoint



No, I think it's a problem trying to argue something so nebulously defined.

For example, Caged Maiden, as far as I read, feels that Deep POV and voice go hand and hand.  That would imply that "good writing" requires a Deep POV.

I know Steerpike, who is on the same side of the good writing required a voice argument, however, to feel that Deep POV is not required for good writing.

I truly see each of you as taking "voice" to be this "quality" that brings excellence to writing.  I don't feel that either of you necessarily mean the same thing when discussing it, however.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Aug 19, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Let's take another tack at this.  Every writer who has ever written anything puts his personal touch on the work, even if it's a little as using "from" instead of "out of."  We all have a particular syntax, cadence, etc.
> 
> I contend that these elements simply aren't that important.



This is something I don't agree with. I believe these little things actually do matter. They don't matter much in and of themselves, but over the course of a story I believe little details like that does have an impact. It's an intangible thing that's hard to put a finger on. 
I think this is one of those cases where the saying "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" applies.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 19, 2013)

Part of the problem here, and it's been raised in this thread a ton, is the difficulty of defining voice. There are a lot of aspects and variables that go into one's opinion on what constitutes voice. On top of that, it's rather subjective.

Still, to me voice is the way a particular author tells stories. There are commonalities within story telling like characters, conflict & resolution, POV choices, things we've already mentioned. Yet storytelling methods vary from writer to writer, beyond those fundamentals.

I guarantee that if we took a set of well-defined characters (sketched out to the hilt), a common and detailed setting, and identical plots, then assigned everyone in this thread to tell that story (adhering to the above), the stories would read vastly different. That is voice. It's you're own unique storytelling method. While they may share similarities with other writers, they aren't identical. 

I also believe this is the reason it takes so long to develop voice. It takes a lot of writing before we fall into the story telling patterns that are truly ours. Often new writers emulate the authors of stories they love, eventually (with enough creative writing & experimentation) they break into their own processes of telling stories.

EDIT: Looks like I got ninja'd by another entire thread...lol


----------



## Caged Maiden (Aug 19, 2013)

I think I'm done here.  I just spent two hours writing posts to try to define something that I think is exceptionally important for story-telling.  I did it to help you, and you are arguing because I haven't defined something the exact same way as Steerpike.  Okay... if you believe after reading my posts, that my examples, definitions, and opinions have no validity, then maybe I'm just an idiot.  Or maybe I'm an idiot for spending my time posting rather than writing.

If you cannot accept an idea until it has become an undeniable theory, then I encourage you to try it both ways and run a double-blind study and let the results speak for themselves. To continue to debate semantics is a waste of time, for all of us.  If Steerpike doesn't like deep POV (which he writes, so I don't know why he would DISLIKE it), then I can't argue that.  I however, know his style is both captivating, has a voice, and has deep POV.  So I'm not sure what you meant.  THat the two can't be mutually exclusive?  I'm sure there's ways.  For example, the newspaper one he wrote.  It certainly had a voice, but lacked a POV, because it was set up as an article.  BUT actually, I'd say it had a POV too, in the writer of the article.  I'm not sure what you quoted Steerpike as saying, but I'd say everything I know about him suggests we see eye to eye on this and are speaking different words.  

Fair enough, disagree.  It won't hurt me, I promise.  I'll continue to do what I do, and I'm almost certain Steerpike will too.  I hope other people have derived some understanding of how to create or define a "voice" from reading this thread.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 19, 2013)

> I think I'm done here. I just spent two hours writing posts to try to define something that I think is exceptionally important for story-telling. I did it to help you, and you are arguing because I haven't defined something the exact same way as Steerpike.



I was simply trying to say, for the past several posts, that the conversation is kinda pointless because everyone is defining voice differently.

You feel the Deep POV is extremely important to good writing and that "voice" is crucial in developing that Deep POV.

Steerpike feels that Deep POV isn't important to good writing but that "voice" is.

You are both, presumably arguing for the same thing, that voice is crucial for good writing, but your viewpoints about what it is and what make it important are opposed.



> If Steerpike doesn't like deep POV (which he writes, so I don't know why he would DISLIKE it), then I can't argue that.



I never said that he didn't like it.  I said that he believes it isn't crucial for good writing.



> To continue to debate semantics is a waste of time, for all of us.



I agree completely.  That's why I was advocating that an agreement be reached on exactly what "voice" is.  As it was, it seemed to be defined as a magical quality that makes writing good.



> I hope other people have derived some understanding of how to create or define a "voice" from reading this thread.



It's hard to imagine how.  I still think each poster on this thread has a different opinion of what voice is and why it might be important.  I can't see how anyone would reasonable get from that point to learning how to create a voice of their own.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Aug 19, 2013)

Caged Maiden said:


> It's in every description, every internal thought, and my favorite, every analogy.  I just got a piece judged and got compliments on "voice".  I highlighted all the "voice" choices I made in red.  At least as far as  I understand the concept.  I hope I'm not terribly lost in my thinking.   I notice, a lot of times people talk theory here on the forums, but  usually we don't dare risk looking like idiots by trying to enact our  theories for the world to see.  Well, I'll risk looking like that idiot.   If I'm misunderstanding the concept or "voice" and deep POV, please  let me know.  here it is:



This thread has rampaged way past this post, but I don't want to let it go without a couple of comments.

Firstly, thank you so much for taking the time to *show* what you mean by voice, rather than *telling* ;-) An example is many times more useful to me than abstract discussion. I've crawled over your sample every which way, and I have to confess I still don't see the distinction between voice and deep POV that is so clear to you. For instance, the word 'endured', which you describe as a voice decision, seems to me exactly the sort of word the character would choose, making it a POV decision. 

So I'm going to accept that you and many others here see something that is completely invisible to me (just as trained musicians 'hear' music differently and artists see layers in a work of art that I don't). 

Regardless of what you call it, I loved your sample, and look forward to reading your published work in the future.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Aug 19, 2013)

Thanks Pauline. I actually detailed exactly what you are asking in the "defining voice' thread.  I hope that clarifies it for you, where I again wrote a little passage and pointed it out clearer.  I think the way you see it is exactly how I do.  It's a point of view choice, for the most part, but also the ability to impart your narrator with that same voice.  Please look at the other post, I think it will clarify.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Aug 19, 2013)

Okay, my definition:  "Voice" is the way an author writes a narrator POV in harmony with a character POV, to facilitate deep POV.  I feel a bland narrator lacks voice.  And while a POV character is great, if all narrative comes through as a dissemination of static information, it makes for a bland story, no matter how interesting the character is.  My former example was kinda cheaty because it's first person and lacks a narrator other than the character.  Sorry for the confusion.  I posted it because it was complimented for "voice".  

Personally, I feel voice also carries through to the construction of descriptions.  the way characters notice things at times, and how a narrator describes at others.  And probably even how they structure the description.   And in dialogues.  Where to put dialogue tags, descriptions, and beats and which to use.

So for me, a writer can either use a bland, monotonous sort of way to do those things, or they can convey many more things within the same text, without resorting to info dumps or long narratives, but using a unique tone of voice to convey more about the character or situation.  Even if we're not technically within the character's POV.

I'd even imagine that "voice" begins with the concept.  For example, an epic battle between orcs and elves might require a certain voice, while a journey following a thief, running for his life from the law, might require another.  Hmm... what would that second one sound like, narrated by Gandalf?  haha okay I didn't really mean that.  But I think concept forms a voice too.  and you know what?  People who have read for me a lot, can pick my work out of a pile.  What is that if not voice?  It certainly isn't me reusing the same material.  It's phrases I like to use to convey certain things and probably the general meter I prefer to use.  Devor wrote a bunch of short sentences to convey a voice, and I think it worked well as that example.


----------



## The Dark One (Aug 20, 2013)

Caged Maiden said:


> People who have read for me a lot, can pick my work out of a pile.  What is that if not voice?



That is the quintessence of voice.


----------

