A couple questions/comments/thoughts on Author Voice

[BWFoster78]

I've seen lots of mentions of "author voice" on this forum, and, after a lot of consideration, I broke my thoughts into the following two concerns:

1. Is a distinct author voice a good thing?

When I hear the term, author voice, I think of a quality in the writing that allows the reader to identify the author. Perhaps I'm defining it wrong; if so, let me know.

If this is the case, I'm not sure this is a good thing.

My goal is to write in the voice of my character, not in my own voice. If Xan is the POV character, the writing should be cerebral, know-it-all, a bit long winded. Contrast that with Brant, who uses shorter words and is much more inclined to the physical over the mental. I want my reader to be able to pick a random paragraph from the middle of my book and know instantly who the POV character is by the voice used.

If I'm to do that, where is there room for an author voice? (Then again, looking back to my description of Xan's voice...)

To me, character voice is desirable. Author voice isn't.

Perhaps, however, most of us agree that we desire to write in the voice of the character. (History teaches me, though, that I'm a horrible judge of what most of us will agree upon.) In that case, perhaps the real perceived problem is a homogeniety of prose in which it feels like all authors, and all characters by all authors, sound the same.

I agree that's a serious issue. Ankari's general commanding Ragers shouldn't sound anything like my teenager heroine fighting supernatural monsters in modern day California.

That brings me to my second concern, though.

2. The culprit most often attributed on this forum to this perceived problem is... Rules.

I can get that, on a superficial level, it may appear that following certain rules leads to a single voice. My contention is, however, that this is, in fact, only an appearance.

To me, this is like saying: Wow, Brian and Ankari both eliminate "that" where unnecessary and only use "said" as speech tags. Their writing is completely the same.

I'll be completely honest. In my novelette, Abuse of Power, my voice differentiation between characters pretty much sucked. My editor pointed it out to me, and, even after trying to fix it, I didn't have much success.

This problem, however, had absolutely nothing to do with following rules and absolutely everything to do with my talent level at the time.

Writing is freaking hard. There is a lot to master, and I figure I'll still be working on getting better at something the day I die. For this issue, like any other, I:

1. Had the problem pointed out to me
2. Went through a denial stage where I said, "It's not really that important."
3. Accepted that, "Yes, it is that important."
4. Went to work trying to figure out how to fix the problem
5. After A LOT of work and study, got to a point where I'm happy with the results.

As to how to create a distinct character voice, rather than avoid the "rules," I came up with a new one. It's simple: Live inside your character's head. For every line from their POV, think of not how you would react and what you would see, but how that character would react, what that character would notice, what words that character would use.

That's it.

 

[Steerpike]

What you say under point one about writing in the voice of the character - that's good, if that's what you're trying to do in a given book. Not all books are written that way, with a tight POV in the voice of the character, nor should all books be written that way. If that's your goal, then it makes sense, but there's no reason it should be everyone's goal with any given book.

However, even if that's your goal, I think it is still important to develop a distinct voice. If you're writing in the "voice" of your character, maybe it is even more important, because if you don't do it then every character in every book you write is going to sound exactly the same. If you can't develop a distinct voice, I think you may actually better off pulling back out of the very tight POV in some ways, because a close POV that sounds generic and the same no matter who is speaking doesn't strike me as realistic in terms of character.

When it comes to rules, I don't think adhering to 'rules' (if you believe they exist) will inevitably produce this result, but I think a strict adherence tends to lead toward that result, especially for writers who are starting out and haven't developed a voice yet (or, alternatively, haven't developed the ability to give their characters distinct voices). I've seen it happen to pieces of writing during the editing process, where the author goes through the work with a fine-toothed comb of rules and strips all the life and character out of the work in the process.

It isn't the inevitable end result, but it certainly pushes the work in that direction, and the less adept a writer is at finding that distinctive voice the more likely this will be the result.

I should note that the genre you're writing in can impact how important this is. I like a fairly unique voice in anything I read, if I can find it. For your typical third-person limited epic fantasy, where the POV isn't always as tight as in other works, it may not be that important overall. If you're writing YA/Teen, it is very important (in fact, it is something editors look for specifically, because they know readers want it). If you're writing an ultra-lean, fast-moving thriller is may again be less important.

 

[brokethepoint]

I understand what you are saying and I agree about character voice, but. . .

The author voice is something I see as a little different. The author voice to me is about their style, how they describe things, are they verbose or concise. Are they plot driven or character driven. Will there be humor or will it be dark. There is that overarching how they write.

To me it is when you pick up a book by an author you know, you have these expectations.

Yes they can change it up, but even then there are those tendrils that are there that you will recognize.

Yes I agree on character voice, they shouldn't all be the same. The way each character talks and thinks and behaves should be different and that can be quite the challenge.

 

[BWFoster78]

that's good, if that's what you're trying to do in a given book. Not all books are written that way,

I get you. Though I tend to enjoy character driven with a tight POV, tastes vary. I have no issue with an author deciding he wants his voice to stand above the character, but I stand tall for the idea that emphasizing character voice is as valid a choice.

However, even if that's your goal, I think it is still important to develop a distinct voice.

I agree completely, though I fear we may disagree somewhat on the best methodology and perhaps on what constitutes a unique voice.

I think a strict adherence tends to lead toward that result, especially for writers who are starting out and haven't developed a voice yet (or, alternatively, haven't developed the ability to give their characters distinct voices).

This issue is probably where you and I disagree the most. To me, writing is a huge learning curve. Quite simply, all of us are going to screw something up, sometime. Probably, we're all going to screw a lot of stuff up a lot of time.

The best we can do is write, figure out our mistakes, learn from them, and write some more.

Making these kind of mistakes is a natural consequence of learning. I simply see no way to avoid it. Even if you get rid of this set of mistakes by telling people not to follow the rules, you add a much different set of mistakes to the equation.

I tend to think following the rules is the most efficient way to learn and proceed. However, I grant that not everyone learns in the same manner.

 

[BWFoster78]

I understand what you are saying and I agree about character voice, but. . .

The author voice is something I see as a little different. The author voice to me is about their style, how they describe things, are they verbose or concise. Are they plot driven or character driven. Will there be humor or will it be dark. There is that overarching how they write.

To me it is when you pick up a book by an author you know, you have these expectations.

Yes they can change it up, but even then there are those tendrils that are there that you will recognize.

I'm not sure that's the way the term has been used primarily on this site, however.

 

[brokethepoint]

I think that we should use the term correctly, using it incorrectly only breeds confusion and coming to wrong conclusions.

Wiki - not the end all be all but how they define it is like most others.

The writer's voice is the individual writing style of an author, a combination of idiotypical usage of syntax, diction, punctuation, character development, dialogue, etc., within a given body of text (or across several works). Voice can be thought of in terms of the uniqueness of a vocal voice machine. As a trumpet has a different voice than a tuba or a violin has a different voice than a cello, so the words of one author have a different sound than the words of another. One author may have a voice that is light and fast paced while another may have a dark voice.

In creative writing, students are often encouraged to experiment with different literary styles and techniques in order to help them better develop their "voice". This aspect varies with the individual author, but having this asset is considered positive and beneficial to both the writer and his or her audience.

 

[Steerpike]

I tend to think following the rules is the most efficient way to learn and proceed. However, I grant that not everyone learns in the same manner.

I think that's true, generally, so long as new writers are presented with the truth about the rules. I'm not opposed to providing the 'rules' to new writers. I just think they should be characterized as being guidelines, and new writers should be taught why they exist, what the benefits are, and when they might want to disregard them. Unfortunately, a lot of the time the rules are presented as absolutes, and new writers, not knowing better because they lack experience, that take to heart. A lot of damage can be done that way, and it can take a long time to undo it.

I think people have a natural voice, and it is likely to be present in new writers. Sure, they may not use it effectively, so maybe they've made a mess of it, but the underlying voice is there. It is a lot easier to destroy that voice than to build it up, and once it is destroyed it is a lot harder to get back than it was to lose it.

So, sure, give the 'rules' to new writers. But be up front about the fact that they're really guidelines, and let them know why then tend to be effective, and when they're not effective, and why an author might disregard them to achieve a certain effect (including stylistic effects or effects of voice).

 

[Scribble]

Great discussion

I'm still new to this writing fiction thing, but I have come to an awareness of a conflict I have between being in the character's head, in their mood, in their perspective, and being in my own. The difference is in trying to sound like them and simply being default... me.

When I write essays, my humor, love of words, and passion for the subject come through. That's me. That is the voice that my readers who like my writing have come to enjoy. I can't help some of that seeping into my fiction writing, even when I'm in the head of the character, it kind of seems like acting. What would he/she see, feel, think.

Of course, I have a kind of rhythm that feels natural to me, and that comes through the ways I put the words together. I cannot help but reveal certain incongruities, or expose aspects of relationships, or ambiguities... all the fuzzy bits that kind of make up my ... humor? My way of seeing the world?

I don't know if this is voice as everyone defines it, but I think "finding my voice", is about finding the right balance between these things that lets me be comfortable as myself at the same time as being competent at delivering my story. It seems to be comprised of elements of skill, experience, and confidence.

Forgive me if this is a bit of a meander... it is the first time I have given voice to sort out what "voice" means to me.

 

[Penpilot]

I tend to think following the rules is the most efficient way to learn and proceed. However, I grant that not everyone learns in the same manner.

To me learning to write was/is like going to school to get a degree in X. You start off with learning the basics as 'Rules', strictly adhering to them as you learn how to do this and that for simplicity sake, so as not to confuse you as a novice. But as you advance in your understanding, you will come to realize and teachers will start to tell you that the 'Rules' are just guidelines and most things are situational based on what you're trying to achieve.

BW, if I remember right you have a background in programming, no? To me writing is a lot like programming. In school you're taught the tenets of good programming, always document your code, choose meaningful variable names, etc. But in practice that doesn't always hold true does it? Sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for really bad reasons. But in the end as long as the customer is happy that the software does what they want it to do with an interface that's good enough and completed for the right price, they generally don't care if it's written strictly to the rules.

As for voice, I think a writer finds their voice once they become comfortable with who they are as a writer, when they stop worrying about applying the rules and just write. It doesn't mean they forget the rules, but rather it becomes secondary to telling a good story. They treat the rules like any tool in a tool box, sometimes it perfect for the job and sometimes not.

 

[Trick]

This is from Self-Editing for Fiction Writers

A strong, distinctive, authoritative writing voice is something
most fiction writers want—and something no editor
or teacher can impart. There are, after all, no rules for writing
like yourself. Voice is, however, something you can bring
out in yourself. The trick is to not concentrate on it ...
We recently worked with a novelist whose fiction featured
a lot of short, punchy sentences and partial sentences ... The result
was a distinctive, high-tension voice, one the writer had evidently
worked hard to develop and maintain. Unfortunately,
the voice was so distinctive that all of his characters sounded
alike. And the tension stayed at such a high pitch for so long
that the novel became exhausting to read. It was like hearing
"The Flight of the Bumblebee" expanded to concert length.

It seems to me that Voice is something we can all agree on or disagree on and that makes no difference because that's exactly how it should be. BwFosters voice will likely incorporate the distinct difference between his characters because that's what he focused on. Others on here will use bending the rules to their advantage and develop a unique voice that way. When it comes down to it, Voice cannot be taught and encompasses all of the rules, guidelines and even the cliches. Author's Voice is writing, the way you do it.

 

[BWFoster78]

To me learning to write was/is like going to school to get a degree in X. You start off with learning the basics as 'Rules', strictly adhering to them as you learn how to do this and that for simplicity sake, so as not to confuse you as a novice. But as you advance in your understanding, you will come to realize and teachers will start to tell you that the 'Rules' are just guidelines and most things are situational based on what you're trying to achieve.

I think it's exactly like this. Most people don't have the ability or time to learn everything about writing before actually doing it. The rules give you a quick shorthand to get started. You get to see immediate results. Later, you learn why the rules work and where and why you can break them.

But in the end as long as the customer is happy that the software does what they want it to do with an interface that's good enough and completed for the right price, they generally don't care if it's written strictly to the rules.

I've done a bit of programming, but not much as I'm a mechanical engineer. Still, I know enough to follow your thinking.

My response is:

Sometimes, you can get a pretty good program even if you don't follow the rules. Sometimes, though, not following the rules gets you into so much trouble that your code is crap. If you're a good enough programmer, you can do what you want. If you're not that good/experienced/naturally talented/whatever, you probably don't even realize the problems you're creating for yourself.

I don't think you should follow the rules just to follow the rules. I think you should follow the rules in order to keep you from producing crap. If you don't need the rules for that purpose, then I'm not really addressing you. Most of the people who read this board need the rules at this point. At the very least, I do. I put serious thought into it before breaking any of them because I realize they're there for a reason.

 

[Penpilot]

Most of the people who read this board need the rules at this point. At the very least, I do. I put serious thought into it before breaking any of them because I realize they're there for a reason.

To me, this is the most important thing about rules and in applying them. It's a speed bump to slow you down, so you can think about what you're doing and how you're doing it. Consciously making decisions about how your story is written leads to becoming better. Consciously making a wrong choice and realizing it leads to better understanding and not repeating a mistake.

 

[Scribble]

I think it's exactly like this. Most people don't have the ability or time to learn everything about writing before actually doing it. The rules give you a quick shorthand to get started. You get to see immediate results. Later, you learn why the rules work and where and why you can break them.



I've done a bit of programming, but not much as I'm a mechanical engineer. Still, I know enough to follow your thinking.

My response is:

Sometimes, you can get a pretty good program even if you don't follow the rules. Sometimes, though, not following the rules gets you into so much trouble that your code is crap. If you're a good enough programmer, you can do what you want. If you're not that good/experienced/naturally talented/whatever, you probably don't even realize the problems you're creating for yourself.

I don't think you should follow the rules just to follow the rules. I think you should follow the rules in order to keep you from producing crap. If you don't need the rules for that purpose, then I'm not really addressing you. Most of the people who read this board need the rules at this point. At the very least, I do. I put serious thought into it before breaking any of them because I realize they're there for a reason.

This is the lesson I take from programming. I've been a professional software developer for almost 17 years, and tinkering with code since I was a kid on my Atari 800. If people built houses the way most beginner software is built, there would be death and mayhem everywhere.

There are many methodologies for solid software construction, that lay out rules for how to implement the various layers of a system. There are also good reasons to break some of the rules, and good reasons to mix and match different methods for different kinds of systems. The trouble is that it takes at least ten years before you can acquire enough experience to know this.

The best way is to (I think) cleave to a particular methodology, the best one you think you can get, and work it. At least you will build something reasonable. Later, take what you learn to customize it for yourself.

 

[C Hollis]

I think that's true, generally, so long as new writers are presented with the truth about the rules. I'm not opposed to providing the 'rules' to new writers. I just think they should be characterized as being guidelines, and new writers should be taught why they exist, what the benefits are, and when they might want to disregard them. Unfortunately, a lot of the time the rules are presented as absolutes, and new writers, not knowing better because they lack experience, that take to heart. A lot of damage can be done that way, and it can take a long time to undo it.

Could not agree more with this statement.

Back to the topic...
To me, Voice is more about the diction and rhythm of the text. So, yes you can be telling the story in the character's voice while your voice remains evident. You may not be aware of this, but your readers are.
Basically, as a writer, I call it the way I write, a reader calls it Voice.

 

[skip.knox]

Honestly, I think authorial voice is overblown. If you tore the covers off the book, if you had only the text itself, how many authors do you think you could identify just by their voice? It would be a short list for me. Let's assume it's an undiscovered story by an author you've read.

I think I would recognize Bradbury. Hemingway. Tolstoy. Maybe Tolkien but I wouldn't bet on it. Especially, and I think this is the point, if Tolkien wrote a murder mystery. Would the "authorial voice" still come through? If Raymond Chandler wrote a historical romance, would I be on page 35 saying "oh, this is clearly Chandler"?

I don't think so.

I don't worry about developing a voice. I'm just damned happy that I manage to pound out a coherent story. I'll leave the rest for lit majors and critics.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

In my view, voice is a very real thing but it's not as much for the readers to identify an author as it is for the writer. Usually, writers start out by emulating the styes of their favorites. If they write enough, and continue to work on the craft, they'll pass through that emulation phase and settle on their own unique style.

There are too many variables to list off the components that add up to authorial voice. It encompasses everything in the writing from style and story telling through grammar use, from sentence structures & pacing to characterization & dialogue....and everything in between.

 

[brokethepoint]

Thought this was pretty cool.

The Sunday Times followed up its tip-off by asking language experts to compare the style of "The Cuckoo's Calling" to work by Rowling and leading crime writers. Patrick Juola, a computer science academic at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, used specialist style-comparison software to identify Rowling as the likely author.

Law firm admits leaking Rowling's alter ego

 

[Addison]

I am in the process of writing three stories. True one is getting more attention as it's closer to being done. But each one is in a different tone, as they're different stories with different elements. So I not only have a process to get into writing-mode, but also a process to get in the mood and tone for each story.

 

[Xaysai]

I've always struggled with where style ends and voice begins, which is something I put a great deal of thought into while stuck in the Cleveland airport a few weeks ago reading Railsea by China Mieville.

Here is an excerpt from the beginning of chapter 1:

This is the story of a bloodstained boy.

There he stands, swaying as utterly as any windblown sapling. He is quite, quite red. If only that were paint! Around each of his feet the red puddles; his clothes, whatever colour they were once, are now a thickening scarlet; his hair is stiff & drenched.

Only his eyes stand out. The white of each almost glows against the gore, lightbulbs in a dark room. He stares with great fervour at nothing.

The situation is not as macabre as it sounds. The boy isn’t the only bloody person there: he’s surrounded by others as red & sodden as he. & they are cheerfully singing.

The boy is lost. Nothing has been solved. He thought it might be. He had hoped that this moment might bring clarity. Yet his head is still full of nothing, or he knows not what.

We’re here too soon. Of course we can start anywhere: that’s the beauty of the tangle, that’s its very point. But where we do & don’t begin has its ramifications, & this right now is not best chosen. Into reverse: let this engine go back. Just to before the boy was bloodied, there to pause & go forward again to see how we got here, to red, to music, to chaos, to a big question mark in a young man’s head.

Now, first, I think this excerpt is fairly thick with the author's style but to me there is a quality that transcends the style and becomes very "Mieville-esque" to those who read him.

Also, and not to derail the thread, this was a book which I thought the writing was FANTASTIC, even with the excessive use of colons and ampersands (I don't think the word "and" actually appears in the entire book - but the gimmicky-ness of it ties into the story), the world was FANTASTIC, but I didn't enjoy the story, but kept reading anyway on the merit of the writing and world alone.

 

[Addison]

I believe Roald Dahl said it best, "I don't care if a reader hates my story so long as they finish it." The story, A-Z, is only part of what hooks the reader. Tone and Voice is the real taste and metal of the hook.