# How much does voice matter to you?



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2018)

This is something I've been mulling over quite a bit recently, as I've reflected on my own reading habits. Over the past few years, with a couple notable exceptions, I've migrated away from books where the author doesn't have a discernible voice. In other words, books where the 'voice' seems generic and interchangeable with any number of other books. 

My favorite books are by authors with strong voices--Gormenghast, the works of Dorothy Dunnett, Melville, and the like. Growing up, I was into the likes of Moorcock, Vance, Lovecraft, and the like, all of whom have fairly strong voices. More recent authors like P.C. Hodgell, China Mieville, Kage Baker--good voices. I must have always been this way, because as a kid one of my favorite things about Alice in Wonderland was the author's voice.

As I write, I go back and forth on how distinctive (and apparent) a presence in the narrative I want to have as an author. Does the reading public at large prefer the author to be more invisible? Does it matter if one is writing for adults or children?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 13, 2018)

Oh, the invisible writer theory... one of my most hated, heh heh. I swear, people in the industry clamor for “voice” while demanding McDonalds.

I am picky as hell these days. I can’t even say specifically what will keep me reading a book. To me it’s a combo, voice and story. Great voice alone isn’t going to get me to read a book, and I’ll never know if the story is great if the voice irritates me. The really strange part is that some people can write in a generic voice and it works, but there’s also “bad” generic voice. Some goes with the genre... legal thriller type stuff. Unfortunately, I think the educational system, pop culture, and the industry itself has done its best to dumb down readers, LOL. More like, trained their expectations down.

One of my proudest moments was when my editor, who has been in publishing most of her adult life in one manner or another, told me she usually rewrote sentences for authors, but she wasn’t going to even to try it with the way I write.


----------



## Peat (Dec 14, 2018)

To me, its huge. I'm not looking for the voice to be unique, but whether or not I like the voice is the first question as to whether I'm going to read a book or not. Sometimes I ignore the "No" and invariably that results in a 3 star or less rating on GR, assuming I finish at all. Voice, for me at least, is the best quick guide as to whether I'm going to share a sense of what's funny and interesting with the author. If we disagree on that, there's pretty much no way I'm making it through a 100k of their words.

And if I really, really like the voice in a book, it basically has nigh infinite licence to do whatever it wants. The more I'm just enjoying the way the author says things, the less I'll notice other flaws.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Dec 14, 2018)

Voice is something that fascinates me. I've had a bit of a draught in my reading the last few years, but I'm trying to pick it up again.
I don't think a good voice will make me keep readin a story I don't enjoy, but on the flipside I think I'd have a hard time getting into a story with a voice I don't like - regardless of how promising the story might seem from the blurb and reviews.

I also think that if an author has an intriguing voice, I'm likely to check out more of their stories - including stories I might not otherwise have thought would appeal to me.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 14, 2018)

I think I have to separate voice and writing... bad writing is a no go for me, but if the writing is good, sometimes, the voice will take several chapters to catch me. A truly unique voice can take time to get used to. It’s a bit like story... first impressions aren’t always right. But, if my inner editor is going off too often, there’s just no shot at reading the story... although I give indie and unpublished WIPs works more leash.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Dec 15, 2018)

For me it's a combination of plot and voice that makes the best reads for me.


----------



## Penpilot (Dec 15, 2018)

For me, it matters and it doesn't at the same time. I think my favorite books tend to have a distinct voice and style to them, but I won't dismiss a book if those things aren't apparent right away. I kind of look at it like fine dinning vs fast food. Both can be enjoyed. Both are good in their own way. It all depends on what I'm in the mood for.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 15, 2018)

I'd say that most readers don't know that they notice. They know if they "like" a book or don't like it, and that's about it. They may say they found the plot "exciting" or the characters "memorable," which in many Amazon reviews passes for insightful. Only a fraction of readers (according to a scientific survey of my own opinion) would be able to identify an authorial voice across multiple novels and know how that factor influenced their enjoyment of the book. 

This comes up more often in this sort of forum because we're mostly writers. We care about this stuff. The OP might turn the question on its head and ask to what degree authorial voice matters *to the author*.  Is it necessary to know I have one? Is it like my speaking voice in that it's more or less impossible for me to change it? Or should I be like the actor who can do different voices for different roles? It's worth exploring, as an author.

As for the readers, though, you're never going to know. And anything you think you do know, is going to be wrong for at least a portion of your readers. Don't sweat it.


----------



## Chessie2 (Dec 16, 2018)

I love it when an author commands respect from the first page. Some of the greats are these authors to me. One modern example is Charlotte E. English who does more fae related stories. Her voice is amazing. I am hooked on her. For me, voice is the most important thing because it = the driver's seat.


----------



## Chessie2 (Dec 16, 2018)

skip.knox said:


> I'd say that most readers don't know that they notice. They know if they "like" a book or don't like it, and that's about it. They may say they found the plot "exciting" or the characters "memorable," which in many Amazon reviews passes for insightful. Only a fraction of readers (according to a scientific survey of my own opinion) would be able to identify an authorial voice across multiple novels and know how that factor influenced their enjoyment of the book.
> 
> This comes up more often in this sort of forum because we're mostly writers. We care about this stuff. The OP might turn the question on its head and ask to what degree authorial voice matters *to the author*.  Is it necessary to know I have one? Is it like my speaking voice in that it's more or less impossible for me to change it? Or should I be like the actor who can do different voices for different roles? It's worth exploring, as an author.
> 
> As for the readers, though, you're never going to know. And anything you think you do know, is going to be wrong for at least a portion of your readers. Don't sweat it.


To an extent, I agree.

Voice could very well be the 'thing' a reader cannot pinpoint that they love about an author. Us on this forum will have a different perspective on this topic because we write books, yes.  But author voice exists regardless of a writer's skill--it is just more honed with someone who has been writing for longer. Someone who doesn't write will not understand the concept of author voice or even know it is a thing, but it (voice) is still present in the books they read. 

All of a sudden I have no idea where I'm going with this. Anyway, sorry about the double post.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 16, 2018)

Eeyeah, I think there are a lot of "educated" readers out there, I've had plenty of comments from readers on voice (mostly positive). They don't always use the same term, and I doubt they all mean the exact same thing... which is the issue, voice is a highly personal thing with varying aspects being more important to an individual. The definition of is vague. Having a voice is damned near a given, knowing what it is, is another. Whether readers will consciously  care is another. 

And, some readers are trained to enjoy restaurant chains (James Patterson, who seems to literally franchise), others are food snobs (the literary only crowd), and most exist somewhere in between, LOL. And personally, any unique voice I find I try to give at least a hundred pages of reading in order to "get into" its rhythm and personal quirks. Any Faulkner book, or hell, Clockwork Orange! It takes a bit to get with the flow. 

_Walk into Eternity, Craven Raven, with a thousand-thousand eyes, no two agreeing._


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 16, 2018)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Oh, the invisible writer theory... one of my most hated, heh heh. I swear, people in the industry clamor for “voice” while demanding McDonalds.
> 
> I am picky as hell these days. I can’t even say specifically what will keep me reading a book. To me it’s a combo, voice and story. Great voice alone isn’t going to get me to read a book, and I’ll never know if the story is great if the voice irritates me. The really strange part is that some people can write in a generic voice and it works, but there’s also “bad” generic voice. Some goes with the genre... legal thriller type stuff. Unfortunately, I think the educational system, pop culture, and the industry itself has done its best to dumb down readers, LOL. More like, trained their expectations down.
> 
> One of my proudest moments was when my editor, who has been in publishing most of her adult life in one manner or another, told me she usually rewrote sentences for authors, but she wasn’t going to even to try it with the way I write.



I do think the industry sometimes gravitates to more of the same. Or at least it feels that way. In any business, I suppose it is always a battle to get people to take a risk as opposed to going the more safe route. I, too, have seen authors who do a good job of writing without a discernible voice, mostly in thrillers, where it makes sense.

Congrats on the comment from the editor. That's great.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 16, 2018)

Peat said:


> To me, its huge. I'm not looking for the voice to be unique, but whether or not I like the voice is the first question as to whether I'm going to read a book or not. Sometimes I ignore the "No" and invariably that results in a 3 star or less rating on GR, assuming I finish at all. Voice, for me at least, is the best quick guide as to whether I'm going to share a sense of what's funny and interesting with the author. If we disagree on that, there's pretty much no way I'm making it through a 100k of their words.
> 
> And if I really, really like the voice in a book, it basically has nigh infinite licence to do whatever it wants. The more I'm just enjoying the way the author says things, the less I'll notice other flaws.



Same here. If an author has a strong and engaging voice, I'm more likely to stick around when I might have put another book down.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 16, 2018)

TWErvin2 said:


> For me it's a combination of plot and voice that makes the best reads for me.



Books that do both well are certainly great finds. Throw in characterization, and you have the trifecta.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 16, 2018)

skip.knox said:


> I'd say that most readers don't know that they notice. They know if they "like" a book or don't like it, and that's about it. They may say they found the plot "exciting" or the characters "memorable," which in many Amazon reviews passes for insightful. Only a fraction of readers (according to a scientific survey of my own opinion) would be able to identify an authorial voice across multiple novels and know how that factor influenced their enjoyment of the book.
> 
> This comes up more often in this sort of forum because we're mostly writers.



I don't agree. Readers tend to be fairly discerning. Even if they don't know the name for it, I doubt they fail to notice a strong voice. It's not easy to miss. I don't know that it necessarily allows a reader to identify an author across novels, though. That would mean an author's voice is unchanging. That's not true--authors may vary their voice from work to work, depending on what they're writing and what they feel works best in each instance.


----------



## Peat (Dec 18, 2018)

Steerpike said:


> I don't agree. Readers tend to be fairly discerning. Even if they don't know the name for it, I doubt they fail to notice a strong voice. It's not easy to miss. I don't know that it necessarily allows a reader to identify an author across novels, though. That would mean an author's voice is unchanging. *That's not true--authors may vary their voice from work to work, depending on what they're writing and what they feel works best in each instance.*



The most remarkable instance I saw of this recently was RJ Barker. In Age of Assassins, the MC Girton is a young man who's had a challenging but good life. His voice is wry and philosophical. In the sequel, Blood of Assassins, Girton is four years older and has seen a lot more miserable stuff. His voice is more angry and sullen. I think its very good writing to do that...

... although it did have the notable downside that I liked the second book a fair deal less because I liked the voice a fair deal less.



Steerpike said:


> Books that do both well are certainly great finds. Throw in characterization, and you have the trifecta.



I think the important thing about Voice in this trifecta is that you only really get a feel for the plot at about halfway through; characters might take a few chapters to make themselves loved; but a reader can judge the Voice within pages. Within seconds.

To use a bad metaphor - its like you're a restaurant where the diner can decide to start ordering for a menu other than yours any moment they want. The plot is the dessert; it'll play a big part in how they remember the meal and in what mood they finish, but you've got to get them through the other courses first. The characters are the main course - the bulk of it, where failure will leave them most dissatisfied. And the voice is the starter. It may not seem that important at the end of the meal, but if you don't get it right, they're not eating from your menu.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 20, 2018)

Personally, I try not to judge voice quickly. Much of human taste is based on what we're used to... so, encountering something different or unique can take time to get used to, for me. That's different from bad grammar and hideous writing, that can be immediate. And maybe terrible voice can be judged instantly, heh heh. Most books I encounter are relatively "voiceless" or more accurately, just bland voiced. This goes for big pub best sellers as well as the indie-author work out there. Heck, some days I might take reading bad voice over the vanilla out there, LOL. 

Of course, anything can be judged instantly, the judgement just might be wrong.

For instance, I will not name the book... but the writing felt ordinary, good enough, maybe... but the opening was an orc in a whorehouse. Judgment made! I'm done. LOL. It could be a good book! But the odds of it being for me felt real slim.



Peat said:


> The most remarkable instance I saw of this recently was RJ Barker. In Age of Assassins, the MC Girton is a young man who's had a challenging but good life. His voice is wry and philosophical. In the sequel, Blood of Assassins, Girton is four years older and has seen a lot more miserable stuff. His voice is more angry and sullen. I think its very good writing to do that...
> 
> ... although it did have the notable downside that I liked the second book a fair deal less because I liked the voice a fair deal less.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 20, 2018)

Peat said:


> I think the important thing about Voice in this trifecta is that you only really get a feel for the plot at about halfway through; characters might take a few chapters to make themselves loved; but a reader can judge the Voice within pages. Within seconds.



Yes, an author's voice can be a hook in and of itself, encouraging one to read on.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 20, 2018)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Personally, I try not to judge voice quickly.



I don't judge too quickly whether I think it is a "good" voice or not. I do enjoy seeing a strong voice from the start. If I like it right away, it's like a hook for me. But even if it doesn't grab me right away there's a good chance I'll read further to see how the author maintains it.


----------



## Firefly (Dec 20, 2018)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Most books I encounter are relatively "voiceless" or more accurately, just bland voiced.



To true. I feel sometimes like I have a terrible education in voice, because it's almost non-existent in most of the books I read. I sometimes think it's actually me and I just have a terrible time recognizing and understanding what voice even is, but then there's the rare author that does feel different, even if I can't quite pinpoint why.
The whole thing stresses me out a little, because voice is one of those things people say will just happen on its own, but that doesn't seem to be the case for most of the writers I'm reading.
Oh well. I'm not sure more examples would even help that much, since voice is supposed to be different for every single writer. But I still wish there were more out there, if only so I could get a better picture of what it even is.


----------



## Malik (Dec 20, 2018)

Firefly said:


> To true. I feel sometimes like I have a terrible education in voice, because it's almost non-existent in most of the books I read. I sometimes think it's actually me and I just have a terrible time recognizing and understanding what voice even is, but then there's the rare author that does feel different, even if I can't quite pinpoint why.



Done well, voice is invisible, which makes it one of the hardest things to learn and pretty much the last thing that any author masters. The best way to grok voice is to read voraciously, hundreds if not thousands of books over years and years, while looking for it. It helps if you have a formal education in writing; it's not remotely necessary, but it will speed things up a little.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 21, 2018)

Authorial voice is impossible to remove, although depending on the writing it can be more or less obvious to a reader. (In both, good and bad varieties.)

For me the question is whether writers should consciously develop habits that will produce a particular authorial voice. Do I put on a "face," and which face do I choose? These questions aren't so easily answered, at least not for me.


----------



## Peat (Dec 21, 2018)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Personally, I try not to judge voice quickly. Much of human taste is based on what we're used to... so, encountering something different or unique can take time to get used to, for me. That's different from bad grammar and hideous writing, that can be immediate. And maybe terrible voice can be judged instantly, heh heh. Most books I encounter are relatively "voiceless" or more accurately, just bland voiced. This goes for big pub best sellers as well as the indie-author work out there. Heck, some days I might take reading bad voice over the vanilla out there, LOL.
> 
> Of course, anything can be judged instantly, the judgement just might be wrong.
> 
> For instance, I will not name the book... but the writing felt ordinary, good enough, maybe... but the opening was an orc in a whorehouse. Judgment made! I'm done. LOL. It could be a good book! But the odds of it being for me felt real slim.



How often would you say your initial thoughts on the voice of a book and what it would mean for your enjoyment are wrong?


----------



## Malik (Dec 21, 2018)

FifthView said:


> Authorial voice is impossible to remove, although depending on the writing it can be more or less obvious to a reader. (In both, good and bad varieties.)
> 
> For me the question is whether writers should consciously develop habits that will produce a particular authorial voice. Do I put on a "face," and which face do I choose? These questions aren't so easily answered, at least not for me.



In close third, you're putting on the face of a different character in each scene. This is where a lot of fledgling authors fall flat; a sure sign that a writer doesn't have the chops yet is when there's no delineation in character voice in close third. The reader should be able to tell whose POV a scene is written from just by word choice, rhythm, and observations. 

If you're writing in omniscient third, then you have to put on a different face, that of your narrator. Your narrator is an additional character, who knows the story and is telling it to the reader. When writing in omniscient, narrative voice is often what makes or breaks a book for the reader. The reader has to like the narrator enough to spend several hours listening to them.


----------



## Wiglaf (Dec 21, 2018)

Well, many thanks to ol’Steerpike for throwing out this little nugget. I’ve been mulling over the question of writers and voices for much of the last week now, and at the risk of p*****g everyone off, my personal conclusion appears to be that, though there are areas of fiction where a strong, distinctive voice is clearly a positive advantage, when it comes to fantasy and sci-fi, it’s not something I’m particularly bothered about.

That’s not to say there aren’t writers in our genres whose work isn’t clearly recognisable. Pretty much any random paragraph of William Gibson or Terry Pratchett immediately identifies the author by the way those guys use language. But many of my favourite genre writers (and please ignore the pun here) seem fairly generic in comparison: Ursula K. le Guin, David Zindell, even the great Michael Moorcock, and J.R.R.T. himself … though they are (or were) fantastic, world-building storytellers, I wouldn’t say the most strikingly individual thing about any of their works was ‘voice.’

Stepping away from fantasy and sci-fi for a (not so comfortable) moment, the idea of ‘voice’ sets me off thinking about writers like Irving Welsh, Roddy Doyle or Kurt Vonnegut. They all have really clear, and very individual writing voices, but though Vonnegut was something of a crossover character, they’re not best known as ‘genre’ writers. They fit more comfortably into the ‘literary fiction’ bracket. And that’s where, for me, ‘voice’ seems really important.

If, as a writer, one of your principal concerns is to create a world as close to the inconstant, smelly, humdrum wonder of daily life as possible, then it helps if the voice painting the picture is an authentic part of that world. In Trainspotting, when Renton says, “Choose a life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a f*****g big television …” to my mind, the use of those short, jabbing sentences, and the totally gratuitous f-word draw us in as much as anything in the story – it’s great writing!

But could Irving Welsh write _The Dancers at the End of Time, _or _Neverness?_

I think he’d struggle.

In Moorcock and Zindell’s work, it’s not the voice I’m interested in. I don’t want to be pulled down to gritty, smelly reality when I read their books. I want to soar off to incredible worlds, far from the mundane banality of everyday life. And for that, I don’t think you need a particularly distinctive voice. You need style and technique, sure, all the things that come up in those ‘Top Tips for Writers’ - a good plot; snappy dialogue; a great opening paragraph … you know the stuff. But it seems to me you can do all that without fretting too much about ‘voice.’

I don’t think a writer is ever completely invisible in any piece of work. But there are some who push themselves to the fore (and that’s fine), whilst others remind me more of the drums and bass in old bands like AC/DC. They sit back, holding it all together, not drawing too much attention to themselves, just giving the story what it needs to be sure everyone has a good time.

At the moment I’m reading Patrick Rothfuss’ _The name of the Wind_, and it’s FAB! Great world-building, perfect pace, gripping story - best bit of new fantasy I’ve read in a good while. A lot of it’s written in the first person, but instead of a third party narrator, it’s one of the main characters that’s speaking, and that works a treat. It’s like Rothfuss is playing the part of Kvoth the innkeeper - as much an actor as a writer. I’m really impressed. Am I hearing his voice in the text? I don’t know. And I don’t care either. As long as Kvoth’s voice is clear  and stays true to the role right through to the end, I’ll be happy with that.

So, when it comes to my own writing, if I want things to be prosaic and down-to-earth (maybe a bit smelly), I’ll put a lot of work into ‘voice.’ But if I want to take readers off to the Days of Darkness in old Darinor to tell the tale of Shanor’s near-death struggle at the Battle of Ankharam … it’s not something I’m going to get too wound up about.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 21, 2018)

I tend to get “used” to a different voice in about 100 pages, but there is no real way to quantify this as a percentage of when I’m wrong. It’s difficult enough to quantify what voice is, LOL. My most obvious example of first impressions being wrong is McCarthy. If I’d walked into store and randomly grabbed one of his books, I’d probably have set it down and moved on. But since a friend gave me a copy, I read enough to get used to his style and voice.



Peat said:


> How often would you say your initial thoughts on the voice of a book and what it would mean for your enjoyment are wrong?


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 21, 2018)

FifthView said:


> For me the question is whether writers should consciously develop habits that will produce a particular authorial voice. Do I put on a "face," and which face do I choose? These questions aren't so easily answered, at least not for me.



Some writers certainly make a deliberate change from work to work. See Dan Simmons, for example.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 21, 2018)

Malik said:


> In close third, you're putting on the face of a different character in each scene. This is where a lot of fledgling authors fall flat; a sure sign that a writer doesn't have the chops yet is when there's no delineation in character voice in close third. The reader should be able to tell whose POV a scene is written from just by word choice, rhythm, and observations.
> 
> If you're writing in omniscient third, then you have to put on a different face, that of your narrator. Your narrator is an additional character, who knows the story and is telling it to the reader. When writing in omniscient, narrative voice is often what makes or breaks a book for the reader. The reader has to like the narrator enough to spend several hours listening to them.



I distinguish between character voice, narrator voice, and author voice. My comment was directed toward the issue of author voice, not the other two.

Incidentally, my habit is to think of the narrator as a character; this is true whether the narrative is close third, omniscient third, or first person. So I tend to see one as a subset of the other. It's just that the narrator is a different kind of character.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 21, 2018)

Malik said:


> Done well, voice is invisible, which makes it one of the hardest things to learn and pretty much the last thing that any author masters.



I don't agree. Many of my favorites, voice is distinctive and recognizable, and one of the things I love best about the work. Assuming we're talking about the same thing.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 21, 2018)

FifthView said:


> I distinguish between character voice, narrator voice, and author voice. My comment was directed toward the issue of author voice, not the other two.



I think they can be three different things, though depending on the work I think two or more of these can merge. For example, in a first person narrative the POV character voice and narrator voice merge.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 21, 2018)

Professional writer voice could be another description of what is seen so often. Too many people see this as the end goal of writing voice, rather than a stage, heh heh.

I think one way to study voice as an author is to study dialogue in screenwriting, if you study voice at the micro level, it might help at the macro.

It’s kind of fascinating really when looking at my own stuff, seeing as I know it best. I started a 1960’s gangster novel set in the midwest, utilizing some little known history around Omaha, NE. I distinctly use some different writing style, and language patterns, just like I did when writing a western in a screenplay... is that voice, or are the deeper underlying patterns that are still recognizable as “me” my voice? Or both?

In writing Eve of Snows, I had a chapter written from a young girl’s POV and when my editor hit that chapter I got an email... “What the hell are you doing here?” I was changing the narrative intimate 3rd voice to mirror the girl, and my editor nixed that. How much I changed jarred her from the narrative, and she convinced me quickly not to do that, LOL. 



Firefly said:


> To true. I feel sometimes like I have a terrible education in voice, because it's almost non-existent in most of the books I read. I sometimes think it's actually me and I just have a terrible time recognizing and understanding what voice even is, but then there's the rare author that does feel different, even if I can't quite pinpoint why.
> The whole thing stresses me out a little, because voice is one of those things people say will just happen on its own, but that doesn't seem to be the case for most of the writers I'm reading.
> Oh well. I'm not sure more examples would even help that much, since voice is supposed to be different for every single writer. But I still wish there were more out there, if only so I could get a better picture of what it even is.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 21, 2018)

Voice being invisible would need defined. 

Voice shouldn’t jar the reader from their experience, just like the grammar, sentence structure, etc, shouldn’t. Is that being invisible?

Writing in generic pro writing voice can alsl be invisible, is that invisible voice?

Is being invisible when the reader is sucked into the voice and reads along with the unique rhythms and word choices? That’s the invisible I want, but it’s not actually invisible.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 21, 2018)

Intimate third is a blend between character and narrative voice, heavy on the narrative. I discovered quickly in edit that when I changed voice too much toward character, it fiddled with peple’s heads... in particular my editor’s. I don’t think word choice and rhythm are the key here, it’s the mind set and observations, a clear persepctive shift, what they know and don’t know, and how they react. Consistent perepective is also key, and that is where a lot of intimate 3rd falls apart. If you went too far into character voice, you’d get too damned close to a multi-first-person POV novel, which is going to be a mess once beyond two POV.

If we look at ASoIaF, and we accept up front that Martin has the chops for multi-POV in close/intimate third, how much does he really change? I think there’s a clue right up front: Every chapter leads with the name of the POV character. Right off the bat he’s seeding reader expectation. And what is recommended  in multi-POV books? Using the POV character’s name up front, almost always in the first paragraph, to make sure people know who they’re reading. Throughout Game of Thrones, Martin’s voice is Martin’s voice. What differentiates the character’s is their perspective: Their hopes and fears, their emotional reactions to events, these are what define the characters, not so much any word choice or rhythm to the writing. Not to say there aren’t subtle shifts, but if I grabbed random bits of narrative from several places without names, I don’t think the writer’s voice alone would tell you whose perspective its written from.

Silence of the Lambs is another good one for characters. When going into Buffalo Bill’s head, it isn’t so much Harris’ voice that changes, it’s the twisted perspective that lends a chill to the reader’s spine. Harris’ voice is still Harris’ voice. Harris does have an advtange over GRRM here, in that he’s dealing with way fewer POVs to delineate, heh heh.



Malik said:


> In close third, you're putting on the face of a different character in each scene. This is where a lot of fledgling authors fall flat; a sure sign that a writer doesn't have the chops yet is when there's no delineation in character voice in close third. The reader should be able to tell whose POV a scene is written from just by word choice, rhythm, and observations.
> 
> If you're writing in omniscient third, then you have to put on a different face, that of your narrator. Your narrator is an additional character, who knows the story and is telling it to the reader. When writing in omniscient, narrative voice is often what makes or breaks a book for the reader. The reader has to like the narrator enough to spend several hours listening to them.


----------



## Chessie2 (Dec 22, 2018)

An author can be grammatically correct but still lack voice. How do you then help this author? I have no idea. Voice is probably the last skill we develop fully as writers. It'll continue to grow throughout the course of our writing lives. To me, there is nothing sadder than reading a book without voice. Perfect grammar. Everything tidy. No soul. Eff that.


----------



## Chessie2 (Dec 22, 2018)

Malik said:


> Done well, voice is invisible, which makes it one of the hardest things to learn and pretty much the last thing that any author masters. The best way to grok voice is to read voraciously, hundreds if not thousands of books over years and years, while looking for it. It helps if you have a formal education in writing; it's not remotely necessary, but it will speed things up a little.


I respect your vp Malik, but disagree that voice should be invisible. I think it should be loud and clear, well honed, and recognizable. Voice = the walls that hold the house of story together. It's strength in craft and commands respect. Voice aids in immersion for the reader. If it's invisible then writing rules are speaking, not the author. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 22, 2018)

It's always funny how people are different, I can't stand Name of the Wind. It bores me to death and his framing of the narrative assists in making my eyes roll back into my head for a good nap. My reaction is bad enough I won't touch another Rothfuss book. I would also say Tolkien has a distinctive voice. It's a classic 3rd omniscient narrator, but with story-teller ticks that make him different than most everything out there. But he has been so copied over the years that it might not seem as distinctive. But, there is nothing "pro writer voice" about Tolkien, he is pure storyteller.

To be blunt, there are damned near zero authors I would recognize purely by their voice. I'd be guessing if not for content, I suspect. Other people certainly can... because I've experienced it. I submitted a chapter to a critique site many years ago, then as the story moved on over the next several years, I submitted another unrelated chapter after not being there for those years, and some lady who didn't remember my name or anything else, pegged that I had written this other piece years earlier. That blew my mind. My brain doesn't work that way, LOL. In one eye, out the other, I guess.



Wiglaf said:


> Well, many thanks to ol’Steerpike for throwing out this little nugget. I’ve been mulling over the question of writers and voices for much of the last week now, and at the risk of p*****g everyone off, my personal conclusion appears to be that, though there are areas of fiction where a strong, distinctive voice is clearly a positive advantage, when it comes to fantasy and sci-fi, it’s not something I’m particularly bothered about.
> 
> That’s not to say there aren’t writers in our genres whose work isn’t clearly recognisable. Pretty much any random paragraph of William Gibson or Terry Pratchett immediately identifies the author by the way those guys use language. But many of my favourite genre writers (and please ignore the pun here) seem fairly generic in comparison: Ursula K. le Guin, David Zindell, even the great Michael Moorcock, and J.R.R.T. himself … though they are (or were) fantastic, world-building storytellers, I wouldn’t say the most strikingly individual thing about any of their works was ‘voice.’
> 
> ...


----------



## FifthView (Dec 22, 2018)

I like the old Writing Excuses episode that explored the issue of author voice: Writing Excuses Episode 35: Voice, Tone and Style

It's not comprehensive, but it points at something I find to be important. Author voice, unlike character or narrator voice, can seem rather subtle to a reader, might even be "invisible" — but, _not_ invisible, heh. Too many different variables play into author voice, everything from grammar usage to various ratios like sentence lengths, paragraph lengths, description-to-dialogue ratios...and more, plus habits of word choice, methods of structuring everything from sentences to chapters to the overall plot...on and on the list of factors goes. Recurring themes, a habit of focus that notices, say, food but not flora and fauna, etc.

These things might carry over from book to book even when the character voices and omniscient storyteller voices are different from book to book for any given author. I do find I am drawn to certain things more than other things, vis-a-vis author voice, and am likely to stick with an author I enjoy even when the cast of characters and plots are different.

Even the methods of showing character voices in intimate third approaches, or the methods of developing the storyteller voices, might be mostly the same even if those character and narrator voices come across as very different people from book to book. Author voice can still "show through."

I understand the idea of making the author appear invisible. To some extent, this author "voice" is not like those other types of voice. In an essay form of writing, the author might show through very well; the author's personality, history, perspective.  Nietzsche, Emerson, Montaigne, Auden are some of my favorites. But in narrative fiction, this is rare—not that it never happens. Still, aspects of the author leak through, even if they aren't identified by the reader.

The podcasters of Writing Excuses say it's generally best not to worry overmuch about developing author voice; it'll happen naturally. But on the other hand, these early decisions about how to write a scene, a paragraph, a sentence, etc., really do present issues for the beginning author. They're the fundamental aspects of writing a story, so coming to terms with them seems to me to be an important step in the process of becoming a writer of fiction.


----------



## Peat (Dec 23, 2018)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I tend to get “used” to a different voice in about 100 pages, but there is no real way to quantify this as a percentage of when I’m wrong. It’s difficult enough to quantify what voice is, LOL. My most obvious example of first impressions being wrong is McCarthy. If I’d walked into store and randomly grabbed one of his books, I’d probably have set it down and moved on. But since a friend gave me a copy, I read enough to get used to his style and voice.



Yeah, I'd say 100 pages - well, somewhere between 50 and 100 - is where I settle into a voice I don't like. But the thing is, even when the voice stops annoying me, I rarely like the book anyway. Maybe if I tried pushing through more voices I don't like to begin with that'd changed... maybe I'd hate more books!

But then,I have a very all encompassing definition of voice. I notice a lot of different definitions here but for me, it's basically everything about how the author chooses to write the story. You talk about the mind set and the observations and I think that's key to how I see it. Its very hard to enjoy a story when the other guy has a very different sense of what's cool to you. Sure, some people have what feels like a very stilted sense of describing things to me and that kills my interest in a book... but nothing like the cool.

And, personally, that can never be invisible, unless we mean by invisible that the reader is so engrossed that they never question the author's choices or decisions at all.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 23, 2018)

Here are two, very different examples of voice: highlG.K. Chesterton and James S.A. Corey.

Chesterton was a Catholic and an old-school British conservative. His Father Brown mysteries are masterpieces of the form. The narrative voice is always gentle, always matter-of-fact when dealing with grisly details, and never misses a chance to needle the liberals and the atheists. Father Brown always proves to be at least a shade more perceptive than they, and two shades more moral. 

The voice might simply be Chesterton the man. Having read other novels by him, and a bit of his non-fiction, I'd say there's an element of that. There's more to Father Brown's occasional remonstrance or homily than just a character taking a stance. Chesterton's true beliefs can be found on every page. That said, it's also clear that he adjusted his voice to the story, or at least to the genre (which he was helping to invent). IOW, with Chesterton I'd say that his voice is clear but he also was enough of a writer to know how to modulate it.

James S.A. Corey is the author of the series of books called _The Expanse_. I'm reading the first volume now and really enjoying it. Some of the best SF I've read in years, and the voice is very strong. It's old-school detective voice--weary, cynical, but with an unshakable moral core. It comes out in the quick wit, sarcasm, and small bits of near-poetry that reminds is there's more to life than the body count. The narrator's voice fits in perfectly with the dialog of the characters, though Corey is smart enough never to draw so far back that it's the narrator passing judgments. It's always the characters.

Except that he isn't smart enough because Corey isn't a he. Corey is a they.

Corey is a Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck collaboration. Obviously highly successful. If we take the common position that voice is in some way the expression of the author as a unique individual, what does a writing partnership do to this discussion of voice? Do we assume that Abraham and Franck are so alike that they just naturally express themselves in the same voice? That seems a stretch. I dunno, maybe one only does plotting while the other does all the actual writing, but there are other writing partnerships where both wrote.  But then I think about those goofy projects where different famous writers all try to tell a common story. This never works out and voice has a lot to do with that. Too many voices spoil the tale.

I offer all this by way of saying, voice does matter and I don't have a good grasp as to how or why.

There you go.


----------



## Wiglaf (Dec 23, 2018)

Demesnedenoir said:


> It's always funny how people are different, I can't stand Name of the Wind. It bores me to death and his framing of the narrative assists in making my eyes roll back into my head for a good nap. My reaction is bad enough I won't touch another Rothfuss book. I would also say Tolkien has a distinctive voice. It's a classic 3rd omniscient narrator, but with story-teller ticks that make him different than most everything out there. But he has been so copied over the years that it might not seem as distinctive. But, there is nothing "pro writer voice" about Tolkien, he is pure storyteller.
> 
> To be blunt, there are damned near zero authors I would recognize purely by their voice. I'd be guessing if not for content, I suspect. Other people certainly can... because I've experienced it. I submitted a chapter to a critique site many years ago, then as the story moved on over the next several years, I submitted another unrelated chapter after not being there for those years, and some lady who didn't remember my name or anything else, pegged that I had written this other piece years earlier. That blew my mind. My brain doesn't work that way, LOL. In one eye, out the other, I guess.


All points clearly made and understood, Demesnedenoir – it surely is funny how people are different! Shame The Name of the Wind didn’t do it for you. But hey – that’s OK. It’s a big world. We can’t all be into the same stuff, can we? And please don’t think I mean any disrespect to Tolkien. The influence that gentleman has had on my life over the past forty years has been HUGE. The word ‘fan’ goes nowhere near expressing the esteem I have for him as a creator, writer and all-round top-class bloke.

I dunno … I seem to be out of step with pretty much everyone else on this thread. But still, as far as I see it, narrative voice of one kind or another is an inevitable consequence of the writing process – everyone who writes develops one by default. It’s not something we’re all obliged to make a song and dance about. I don’t see anything wrong in working toward a neutral, or generic, storyteller’s tone and just writing a good tale for its own sake without worrying about how individual or revelatory of the author’s character the style may be.

What’s more important to our readers? The story, or insights into the personality of the writer? For me, in sci-fi and fantasy at least, the story comes first (most of the time).

Incidentally, if Rothfuss sends you to sleep, who are the contemporary fantasy writers you think are worth getting excited about?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 24, 2018)

I am pretty much unoffendable, heh heh.

Excited about? There isn’t one, to be blunt. But, I keep looking. The last time I started reading a fantasy book and said... ooh! Was when I stumbled on GRRM at a B&N back in ‘97 or thereabouts. Might’ve been ‘98, I think the hardcover of Clash of Kings might’ve just come out. Or might’ve bought GoT and had it sitting around unread until CoK came out, LOL. That’s probably why I really WANTED to love name of the Wind. I bought it in PB, then blamed my eyes for not reading it, and bought the digital, and kept trying to get into it. It didn’t work, sad to say. 

Neil Gaiman can write, so he is my short list of writers to get around to reading.

I tend to write exactly what I want to read, and how I want it written... so these days I end of reading/editing my work rather than other people’s. I also keep checking out indie authors, see if I can find something. There is plenty of good out there, but nothing that excites me.



Wiglaf said:


> All points clearly made and understood, Demesnedenoir – it surely is funny how people are different! Shame The Name of the Wind didn’t do it for you. But hey – that’s OK. It’s a big world. We can’t all be into the same stuff, can we? And please don’t think I mean any disrespect to Tolkien. The influence that gentleman has had on my life over the past forty years has been HUGE. The word ‘fan’ goes nowhere near expressing the esteem I have for him as a creator, writer and all-round top-class bloke.
> 
> I dunno … I seem to be out of step with pretty much everyone else on this thread. But still, as far as I see it, narrative voice of one kind or another is an inevitable consequence of the writing process – everyone who writes develops one by default. It’s not something we’re all obliged to make a song and dance about. I don’t see anything wrong in working toward a neutral, or generic, storyteller’s tone and just writing a good tale for its own sake without worrying about how individual or revelatory of the author’s character the style may be.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chessie2 (Dec 24, 2018)

Wiglaf said:


> All points clearly made and understood, Demesnedenoir – it surely is funny how people are different! Shame The Name of the Wind didn’t do it for you. But hey – that’s OK. It’s a big world. We can’t all be into the same stuff, can we? And please don’t think I mean any disrespect to Tolkien. The influence that gentleman has had on my life over the past forty years has been HUGE. The word ‘fan’ goes nowhere near expressing the esteem I have for him as a creator, writer and all-round top-class bloke.
> 
> I dunno … I seem to be out of step with pretty much everyone else on this thread. But still, as far as I see it, narrative voice of one kind or another is an inevitable consequence of the writing process – everyone who writes develops one by default. It’s not something we’re all obliged to make a song and dance about. I don’t see anything wrong in working toward a neutral, or generic, storyteller’s tone and just writing a good tale for its own sake without worrying about how individual or revelatory of the author’s character the style may be.
> 
> ...


Voice isn't a choice an author makes per say
 It's something that occurs naturally. If you have a generic author voice then that would be a not so good thing because it means your writing is boring.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 24, 2018)

This kind of goes into defining what voice is. There are both conscious and unconscious decisions. There are the conscious... I don’t open sentences with adverbial phrases/clauses very often. I can write in western, 60’s gangster, or epic voices and superfically they sound differnt, just like a person can mixup the voices of characters. BUT there is a recognizable pattern and attitude that is part of my writing which really doesn’t change.  I found this fact rather interesting when I had a wild hair and started writing a gangster story... now, if I got far enough into it, the patterns might change, but I doubt it.

Also, generic author voce doesn’t need to be boring... this depends on genre and what the reder is looking for. To me, people like Patterson are disturbingly generic and thin, but is he boring? Apparently not. Again, this goes into how you define voice.



Chessie2 said:


> Voice isn't a choice an author makes per say
> It's something that occurs naturally. If you have a generic author voice then that would be a not so good thing because it means your writing is boring.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 24, 2018)

>Voice isn't a choice an author makes per say
>It's something that occurs naturally.

This makes me repeat the question I raised earlier. If it's natural, intrinsic, then what are we to make of writing partnerships? Especially when the voice is so distinctive (as in the case with James S.A. Comey)? @A.E. Lowan, do you have any thoughts on this?

Also, and this is the historian in me, and I hope Chessie will forgive me but I keep seeing this mistake made and I've told my fingers to shut up and it's not important but here they go anyway.

It's _per se_, not per say. 

Latin. It means, more or less, the thing itself. Or, to use a more modern phrasing, in and of itself. There's no saying going on.

Now, fingers, aren't you embarrassed?

They say they're not embarrassed and have the nerve to add that the phrase should be italicized, being in a foreign language. Look at that. Over thirty years since the dissertation and I can still be pedantic. <grin> <grimace> <exit>


----------



## Peat (Dec 25, 2018)

I'd agree about there being conscious choices when it comes to voice, at least in terms of how I define it. Beyond trying to throw my voice for various characters (particularly when writing 1st PoV), there's also the fact that I consciously choose to use less commas and run on sentences in my prose than I do my every day writing. I just finished the first draft of a story where I deliberately altered sentence length and profanity use through the piece to try and convey the changing nature of the character. There's also word choice, which I do despite knowing pretty much nobody will notice (and half the time they do, they make wrong assumptions about it).


----------



## FifthView (Dec 25, 2018)

Of the various features that define author voice, some are more important to me than others.

Things like sentence length, sentence type (compound or simple, for instance), comma usage, paragraph lengths, etc., don't make much of an impression on me, themselves, unless they are really bad or lead to clutter. They _may_ affect the other things I find most important, so there's that.

I'm drawn most to habits of focus. What does the author seem to find most important for any given thing, from setting and world and event to characters and ideas? Where is the real estate—heh, how are the words being dedicated? This affects both structure and content, and things like a simple ratio of descriptive elements to, say, dialogue, might play a role; but beyond the computation (ahem), I'm usually more interested in the content, the focus. For instance, I like less a continuous focus on internal thoughts and feelings for a character—the character locked in introverted turmoil—when there's a lack of focus on the surroundings and world. Robin Hobb _almost_ goes there with Fitz in her Farseer trilogy, but thankfully she also does a very good job of describing the settings and world, so I give her a pass. (Although admittedly I finally couldn't finish her last Farseer trilogy.) An awful lot of independently published stuff on Amazon doesn't provide what I need, at least judging by the quick previews I sometimes skim. Regardless, simple calculus would miss the point for me, because length and quantity of description, for instance, wouldn't take into account the content, the focus, and there are some things I like reading about more than others.

Edit: I forgot to add word choice. This one will depend. I am drawn to writing that is fluid, non-generic, and not very repetitive. A facility with employing a large vocabulary, heh. This one's a little hard for me to discuss, simply because...what is it I'm describing? Beyond simply developments in the story, I can be captured by _developments in the sentence, in the paragraph. _Probably these relate to that old subject of microtension. Regardless, a skilled use of prose can draw me in very well.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 26, 2018)

I had an example of voice (depending on definition) today... I was glancing at one of my books' also boughts and saw a few books from a series, so I opened a sample. I made it about 4 (short) paragraphs... the writing at first was "meh" but I kept going until about 5 straight pieces of dialogue ended in exclamation marks.

The judgment call was made: not for me. I'm not sure whether to call it voice, or just writing I don't like... and it wasn't just the exclamation marks, those were just emphasized that this writer and I wouldn't see eye to eye on story telling, heh heh.


----------



## Helen (Jan 15, 2019)

Steerpike said:


> This is something I've been mulling over quite a bit recently, as I've reflected on my own reading habits. Over the past few years, with a couple notable exceptions, I've migrated away from books where the author doesn't have a discernible voice. In other words, books where the 'voice' seems generic and interchangeable with any number of other books.
> 
> My favorite books are by authors with strong voices--Gormenghast, the works of Dorothy Dunnett, Melville, and the like. Growing up, I was into the likes of Moorcock, Vance, Lovecraft, and the like, all of whom have fairly strong voices. More recent authors like P.C. Hodgell, China Mieville, Kage Baker--good voices. I must have always been this way, because as a kid one of my favorite things about Alice in Wonderland was the author's voice.
> 
> As I write, I go back and forth on how distinctive (and apparent) a presence in the narrative I want to have as an author. Does the reading public at large prefer the author to be more invisible? Does it matter if one is writing for adults or children?



I think it's pretty important. At the very least, it makes a work much, much stronger.


----------



## C. L. Larson (Jan 30, 2019)

Steerpike said:


> I don't agree. Readers tend to be fairly discerning. Even if they don't know the name for it, I doubt they fail to notice a strong voice. It's not easy to miss. I don't know that it necessarily allows a reader to identify an author across novels, though. That would mean an author's voice is unchanging. That's not true--authors may vary their voice from work to work, depending on what they're writing and what they feel works best in each instance.


I am a new writer and I have found my voice changes slightly with different character points of veiw. I try to become the character who's point of veiw I'm writing so the narrative, not just dialogue, changes slightly.

Is a change in voice within the same book a bad thing?


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jan 30, 2019)

C. L. Larson said:


> Is a change in voice within the same book a bad thing?


Not in and of itself. It all depends on how and why it happens.
If the voice changes depending on which PoV character you're writing from, then that's probably good. If it just changes randomly without any discernible reason, it's probably something to watch out for - but it all depends on too many things to say for sure.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jan 30, 2019)

C. L. Larson said:


> I am a new writer and I have found my voice changes slightly with different character points of veiw. I try to become the character who's point of veiw I'm writing so the narrative, not just dialogue, changes slightly.
> 
> Is a change in voice within the same book a bad thing?



If the change in voice is jarring? It's possible to go too far, at least so I was told when starting a new POV character late in book 1... which is also probably a no-no rule I broke, heh heh. I rounded the edges of the narrative voice, never heard a complaint about it sense. But like most rules, they're all breakable, if done well.


----------



## EMoon (Feb 5, 2019)

An aside to this conversation...I did not realize how often I vocalize or subvocalize while writing, mumbling along until something's "right" until I tried to use Dragon Naturally Speaking during an episode of hand pain.  If you haven't used Dragon...it does not like the writer/speaker to be expressive.  Says so even in the materials that come with it.  It likes a flat, monotone, non-expressive voice.  And I can't do that when I'm making Story.  I slow down, speed up, get louder or softer, emphasize words and minimize other words...that's what I'm "hearing" as I'm moving my fingers on the keyboard...and that's what I do when I'm telling a story.   I don't have a clue what that says about my "voice" in the writing itself, and I'm not sure I need to.  When a writer has a distinctive voice, I think it's because they're writing without looking in the mirror...without being aware of themselves, just the story, and so it's like a singer who's no longer self-conscious about the audience...the voice can come through without hindrance.  And as with singers' voices, it's a voice made up of everything that person is, everything they've experienced.


----------



## Xitra_Blud (Feb 8, 2019)

Voice doesn't have to be extremely poetic, but I can't stand bland, standard prose. There has to be some voice there.


----------

