Developing a distinct character voice?

[cydare]

Incidentally: Apologies to cydare for the highjacking of this thread.

It's a very interesting discussion, so no worries!

Personally, I've never had a preference as a reader when it came to first vs third, or close vs omniscient. Each serves a different purpose and immerses me into the story in a slightly different way. In terms of writing: If I have a group of important characters who often interact, I like the freedom of omniscient. Characters with separate storylines that converge near the end (or when I want to keep a sense of mystery for some reason or another) - I go with close. I use first person for characters who live more in their minds, or have a particularly interesting voice.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

This discussion has rapidly turned into "which pov is good and which pov stinks" and apparently there are very strong opinions on it. I stick to the idea that anything can be done well and anything can be done badly.

But, as for *personal preference...* I'm not saying third limited is bad, i'm saying that I like writing in first person better.

First person has more in common with third omniscient than third limited because, as Malik said, you have the storyteller voice shining through. They are both typically very personal narrative styles. Though, i'm sure it is quite possible to write in third omni in an impersonal, generic, straightjacketed way, so that deserves clarification... But, i like the narration to be personal. It connects me to the story. Writing in first person enables me to have more intimacy with the main characters and their viewpoints than would ordinarily be possible. Third limited usually removes some of that intimacy and personal dimension.

I have two main characters, both of whom narrate in the first person, and they narrate very differently. The narration is full of their individual personality and character. She's an introverted, philosophical person who fills paragraphs with her internal musings. She loves to describe, and waxes poetic and emo about her circumstances. He's much more succinct and chatty. His narration is more stream-of-consciousness. He swears like a sailor. He's far more self-aware than she is--he's able to break the fourth wall and talk to the reader directly, while she cannot. (I have no idea why, I didn't plan it this way, but that's the way it came out, so I ran with it.) They see things very differently and I love having both their perspectives.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Also, first person narration can add an entirely new dimension to developing your character's arc, because as they themselves change, their narration will also. It can reveal how their perspective is evolving.

 

[Chessie]

Also, first person narration can add an entirely new dimension to developing your character's arc, because as they themselves change, their narration will also. It can reveal how their perspective is evolving.

This should be happening regardless of the POV a writer chooses to use. And I don't think anyone here is saying one way of narrating is better than another. We're all voicing our preferences and stimulating mental discussion as to what works for us.

 

[Russ]

Also, first person narration can add an entirely new dimension to developing your character's arc, because as they themselves change, their narration will also. It can reveal how their perspective is evolving.

But should this not also occur in third person limited? And in third person limited is it not easier to how more characters (such as the antagonist) changing and developing as well?

I would respectfully disagree with your conclusion that third person limited usually removes more intimacy than third person omn.

I don't see why the differences between your two characters could not achieved just as effectively in third person limited as in two firsts.

Doing two firsts also risks confusion if not done really well. Although it can be done very effectively, as a friend of mine did in the amazing book Mindscan. Now that was a two first person challenge. But he wrote it that way because the nature of the plot made it an everest like challenge and he wanted to do that climb.

 

[Reaver]

Then again, those things can be achieved in third omniscient as well. I confess that one of my favorite aspects of Dune was the frequent delivery of direct character thoughts, in italics. In fact, I think that almost everything that third limited can do, third omniscient can also do. I suppose the question would be in whether and to what degree the narration is limited, and what effect this has.

Couldn't agree more. As anyone can tell simply by looking at my signature here, one of my favorite books of all time is Dune.

Third person omniscient does take skill to be done well but it's unquestionably my favorite way to write. My least favorite is second person.

 

[Malik]

I don't think anyone here is saying one way of narrating is better than another..

Nah, I'm pretty much saying exactly that.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

But should this not also occur in third person limited? And in third person limited is it not easier to how more characters (such as the antagonist) changing and developing as well?

I would respectfully disagree with your conclusion that third person limited usually removes more intimacy than third person omn.

I don't see why the differences between your two characters could not achieved just as effectively in third person limited as in two firsts.

Doing two firsts also risks confusion if not done really well. Although it can be done very effectively, as a friend of mine did in the amazing book Mindscan. Now that was a two first person challenge. But he wrote it that way because the nature of the plot made it an everest like challenge and he wanted to do that climb.

To each their own, I guess. But, first person *does* do different things, highlight different strengths, accomplish different goals...

If anything done in one POV can be done just as easily in any other, why is there any debate about which is best? Why do writers have preferences?

 

[Reaver]

Nah, I'm pretty much saying exactly that.

I'm doing the same. First is okay, third limited is better, third omniscient is best. Second person is awful. Remember those "Choose your own adventure" books from the 80's?


You find yourself in a small, dimly lit room. There are three wooden doors. One to your left, one to your right and one directly in front of you. Which door will you take?

If you choose the door to your left, turn to page 5.

If you choose the door to your right, turn to page 11.

If you choose the door directly in front of you, turn to page 26.

Ugh....

 

[Chessie]

Nah, I'm pretty much saying exactly that.

Holy shit. I'm trying to make a point here, make it easy for me please?

People have preferences and that's just the way it is. My husband loves to read military history and I think that's boring as whack. He calls the books I read "elf romance crap". His tastes are not better than mine and mine aren't better than his. First person isn't better than 3rd close or omn. It'st just another tool in the box.

Dragon, you're a very young writer still. Perhaps first is the right narration tool for you atm because you're still learning skills and maturing. It's easier for you to relate to your story and characters in this way. But in the future sometime, as an adult, you may see things differently. We evolve throughout our lives and one way isn't better than another. I wrote in first person at your age however since my 20s, I've been writing in 3rd. It provides me with more freedom to tell my stories whereas now I find first person difficult to engage with. YA is mainly written in first person & present because readers of that age group identify better with stories narrated in that way. Who knows why that is. What I'm saying is that discounting 3rd is only shooting yourself in the foot early on. Try new things, explore challenges in your writing, grow as an individual and be okay with looking at things differently someday down the road.

 

[Malik]

I'm doing the same. First is okay, third limited is better, third omniscient is best. Second person is awful. Remember those "Choose your own adventure" books from the 80's?

That is EXACTLY what I think of when I read second person.

I'm really not saying that any one style is better than any others. Just that . . . you know, forget I said anything.

I've been carrying the third omni + strong narrative torch for about 20 years, ever since it started to fade. And I'll say this again: 25 years ago, no writing professor ever told anyone that they HAD to write in one voice or another, unless it was for an exercise. In creative writing, we were never told NOT to head-hop. We were told, "Your POV shifts are clumsy," "Your character voices aren't sincere," "Your narrative voice is weak." If you did write in limited third, it was, "Huh. You wrote entirely in limited third. Interesting."

An expensive run-in with an editor earlier this year who wanted to **** up my whole thing and have me rewrite all hundred-thousand words in limited third pretty much cemented my hatred for the convention. I was already most of the way there after all the constant blathering on writing blogs that it's the only way to write fantasy and sci-fi, because that's crap. That goes for Chuck Wendig, too. Sorry. I love reading his blog and he's a great writer, but he's spreading misinformation and therefore part of the problem. It is not the only way. It's the most forgiving way, and arguably the best for beginning writers.

I love third omni. I do. It's how all of my favorite books were written. I still only use it sparingly, because it's intensely powerful. Most of my scenes are in limited third, but there's a time and a place to step up to the plate and TELL THE ****IN' STORY.

I'll pour you another drink and make more nachos. Tell me more about that thing you just said. He did what? What the hell was going through his head? What was the other guy thinking?

 

[Reaver]

I think that the main reason I like third omni is because I have a god complex when it comes to the worlds and characters I create. I want to show their thoughts, feelings and all the stuff "deep down in places they don't talk about at parties". (I had to use this quote because it's great and totally encapsulates how I feel about this.)

I believe doing this makes the characters three dimensional and worthy of emotional investment in their journey. A book that has transformed the way I develop my characters is Dr. Antonio Del Drago's "The Mythic Guide to Characters".

I recommend it to authors of all skill levels if they want to create more realistic characters.

 

[Penpilot]

25 years ago, no writing professor ever told anyone that they HAD to write in one voice or another, unless it was for an exercise. In creative writing, we were never told NOT to head-hop. We were told, "Your POV shifts are clumsy," "Your character voices aren't sincere," "Your narrative voice is weak." If you did write in limited third, it was, "Huh. You wrote entirely in limited third. Interesting."

In all the writing classes I've taken, and one editing class I took, I have never heard anyone say not to use omnipotent, or that you must write in limited. If I kept running into people like that, I'd probably tell them to f-off.

I think that the main reason I like third omni is because I have a god complex when it comes to the worlds and characters I create. I want to show their thoughts, feelings and all the stuff "deep down in places they don't talk about at parties". (I had to use this quote because it's great and totally encapsulates how I feel about this.)

Hmm... anyone with a god complex should not be writing third omni. Instead, they should write in first omni.

 

[Heliotrope]

I've been following this fascinating conversation and I have noticed that no one has touched on first person omni, so thanks to PenPilot for finally bringing it up!

I'm a HUGE fan of Kurt Vonnegut, who I think writes in first omni. He has a very strong narrative voice, writes in first, but also knows what every single character is thinking and feeling. This has never bothered me. I love it. Most of Galapagos is written in third omni:

There was no mystery a million years ago as to how a thirty-five-year-old American male named James Wait, who could not swim a stroke, intended to get from the South American continent to the Galapagos Islands. He certainly wasn't going to squat on a natural raft of vegetable matter and hope for the best...

But then he will shift to first and speak directly to the reader, even asking the reader questsions:

It's hard to believe nowadays that people could ever have been as brilliantly duplicitous as James Wait - until I remind myself that just about every adult human being back then had a brain weighing about three kilograms!...

So I raise the question, although there is nobody around to answer it: Can it be doubted that three-kilogram brains were once nearly fatal defects in the evolution of the human race?

He does a similar thing in Slaughter House Five:

All this happened, more or less. The war parts, anyway, are pretty much true. One guy I knew really was shot in Dresden for taking a teapot that wasn't his. Another guy I knew really did threaten to have his personal enemies killed by a hired gunman after the war. And so on. I've changed all the names.

But then he goes on to get totally into the heads of all the characters and 'head-hops' flawlessly.

Hemmingway also did first person omni beautifully:

Robert Cohn was once middleweight boxing champion of Princeton. Do not think I'm very much impressed by that as a boxing title, but it meant a lot to Cohn. He cared nothing for boxing, in fact, he disliked it, but he learned it painfully and thoroughly to counteract the feeling of inferiority and shyness he had felt on being treated as a Jew at Princeton.

So I would never consider first person to be "an amateur" style or purely YA style. And I don't think first Omni should be ignored in this conversation.

They are all useful tools that serve their purpose. They can all be used in fascinating ways, so long as the writer himself/herself is brave enough to do and say fascinating things.

*Edit: I think, my issue is not with any specific style, but the fact that not enough writers are willing to say and do fascinating things.

I think when voice is done badly it is just a sign of bad writing in general. Not a symptom of the voice itself.

 

[Heliotrope]

As far as the OP, you have chosen third limited, which is a perfectly acceptable choice.

So how to make your characters sound distinct:

- I typically try to make my characters as different from each other as possible, so I wouldn't have two female POV characters, instead I would have a male and a female. I would have one old or one young, or one a visible majority and one a visible minority. This changes their worldviews enough to be very distinct from each other so the reader knows exactly what POV they are reading.

- give them a "limp and an eyepatch". Give each character a defining characteristic that sets them apart. Make it something noticeable enough that it comes up from time to time, like an old war injury that makes it difficult to walk or climb stairs, or a glass eye that itches, or an old tattoo they are embarrassed about and try to keep hidden. When you bring this foible up now and again in the narrative it makes the character feel more "real" to the reader, as don't we all have little things about ourselves that bother us? A bad back, bad teeth, a scar?

- give them different goals, or if they have a similar goal, a different motivation. Obviously they will think about this motivation often, as it is what is driving them forward in the story. Give them different motivations to set them apart from each other.

A great exercise I ran into is:

Think of five of your fami,y members or friends and list them with a defining quality. One thing that sounds out to you as being distinctly "them":

Example:

My dad- needs to be in charge, micromanager
My old grandad- everyday is a good day
My husband- needs to be a funny guy/ never takes anything seriously
My mother- highly anxious
My sister - princess

Now lock all those people in an elevator. How would they respond?

My dad would be hatching a plan and telling everyone what to do. He'd be climbing up the elevator shaft trying to get help.

My grandad would be reassuring everyone that help was on its way and to be positive and he'd likely start singing.

My husband would say something along the lines of "who farted?" Or perhaps "good thing no ones pregnant."

My mother would be freaking out, screaming at my dad for being such an idiot and who the hell chose this stupid elevator anyway?

...

You get the idea.

 

[skip.knox]

If I am focused on the relative merits of third vs first, present vs past, and so on, I am focused on the wrong thing. I should be focused on my story. However I write it is how I write it and the only criterion is whether or not I do it well. Amen, Brother Malik.

Total up all the time you spent thinking and arguing over this point. Now wish you had spent that time writing.

 

[FifthView]

However I write it is how I write it and the only criterion is whether or not I do it well.

And yet, the approach you choose can make a large difference in the story you end up writing.

Are these choices irrelevant? Does the type of story you want to tell matter when choosing a narrative approach?

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I fall into the camp of any POV is good if it fits the story. Not every story fits every POV.

Song of Ice and Fire written like Dune? Uh, no thanks... although there could be some entertaining italic moments. Slaughterhouse Five written like Hunger Games? Nope. A Clockwork Orange like Fifty Shades? Oh wait, nothing should be written like Fifty Shades...

I'm also not a purist in one POV being more inherently difficult than another. I think 1st is a bit easier, but writing Moby Dick sure as hell wouldn't be easy without copying, heh heh. It is really easy to write any POV poorly, that's the truth.

 

[Heliotrope]

^^^^ see, this is interesting to me, because I feel like it does, but in the same vein the story often comes to me in a specific voice. My current wip comes to me in first person no matter how hard I try to force it to be third omni. I really want it to be third omni, which is where I'm most comfortable, but this particular story just feels better in first.

I think a lot has to do with tone and mood as well.

* edit: dem snuck in there while I was responding to fifthview... Sneaky dem

 

[skip.knox]

I don't buy it, though I cannot make a good case as to why. It doesn't *feel* like a choose a narrative approach. I just start telling the story and it happens as it happens. One happened to be first person. All others have been third. I confess I don't think much about whether it's omniscient or close or skewed. When I'm famous, my biographer can explain it to me.

Maybe I'm just not writerly enough, but for me, every story I write can only be told in the way I tell it. Someone else would tell it differently, I'm sure.