• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Character voice

Rorick

Scribe
I've written, re-written, edited and begun to polish a novel. It's written in first-person from the perspective of a thief and con-artist. During the course of his interactions with other characters, I've found his voice changes a lot. For example, when he's amongst other rogues, he replies in the sweary, swashbuckley patois of the underworld, all slang and profanity. When he's talking to gentry and those who consider themselves above his station, he almost puts on a more formal voice. He's more well-spoken, his vocabulary expands to match his station. At other points, he has a more natural way of speaking, somewhere in the middle.

Now, I guess this comes from me. I tend to do this myself, unconsciously, and I guess to an extent, most of us do. We tend to tailor the level of communication to the party we're conversing with.

I've done this in the story, but again, it's almost entirely subconsciously in the narrative too. My character isn't really aware he's doing it, as indeed, I'm not usually. Because of this, I haven't described it as a conscious choice in the narrative, he just slips into these modes silently.

The question is: is that too subtle? (I'm aware without the context of the story that's difficult) Or should I make the decision to do this more obvious with some internalisation? I personally think I shouldn't need to and my readers should pick up on the nuance. Is this too much to ask of an audience? Or is the mere thought that I doubt them patronising?

Any thoughts?
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
There's always a chance that you'll be making a mistake with one choice or the other. But since this is the way it came out of you naturally, I'd leave it alone for now. You're aware of the possible problem and that's good. Keep it on the list of possible problems and see what other people say about it without prompt. If you don't have beta readers to help you with this, that's fine. You can send it out and see what happens. You might even get some feedback from publishers and agents. But if you don't want to send it out, you can let the story rest for a bit. This will give you a chance to forget the story a little and come back to it with fresh eyes. You'll probably have a better idea then if the switches in voice are working or not.
 

Rorick

Scribe
Thanks, that's what I was erring on the side of. None of my beta readers picked up on it actually. I've only noticed it myself after leaving the story for three months. One big thing was the narrative voice was pretty inconsistent, but I think I've fixed that now.

Thank you
 

KC Trae Becker

Troubadour
My character isn't really aware he's doing it, as indeed, I'm not usually. Because of this, I haven't described it as a conscious choice in the narrative, he just slips into these modes silently.

If you character is a con artist, he most definitely does know he's doing it. That's Con Artistry 101. Consider your audience when you put on a persona to get what you want out of them. All people are targets for a scam.
 

Rorick

Scribe
I see your point, but still, would he consciously make that decision (and thus provoke some explicit narrative), or would it be so much part of him that it just is?
 
At least some thoughts would be conscious, like "okay, back with my own crew, gotta convince the reluctant ones I'm not going soft." You're right that some of it should be reflexive, both because that comes from you and because it makes the understated fact that he's a true chameleon. But, like KC said, being a con artist means deliberately seeing everyone as people to control.

And, with writing, it's good to err sometimes on the side of making things visible. Let reader see and appreciate what's going on, and most of all show it early on to head off any sense that it was just the writer letting things slip.
 

KC Trae Becker

Troubadour
Yes, many of the personas would be reflexive, especially if the situations are familiar. And the change could be shown in body language with or without internal dialog at least some of the time.
 

Helen

Inkling
The question is: is that too subtle? (I'm aware without the context of the story that's difficult) Or should I make the decision to do this more obvious with some internalisation? I personally think I shouldn't need to and my readers should pick up on the nuance. Is this too much to ask of an audience? Or is the mere thought that I doubt them patronising?

Obvious <---------> Subtle

I always start obvious and tone it down later, if indeed it is too obvious - early draft readers will point out if it is.

The problem with starting subtle is that the message may not be coming through and, if early draft readers miss it, then it's a harder problem to resolve.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
To me this is a significant thing but it's an easy thing to fix if you're too subtle. It's just a matter of adding a few obvious cues to the reader the first two or three times they do it.

But here's the thing, when dealing with subtle or obvious, most of the time I'm of the opinion of err on the side of clarity, but in this particular instance, I think erring on the side of subtle is the best strategy.

Here's why I think that.

First, none of your beta readers picked up on it. Second, it's they way the story came out instinctively, so it's a matter of trusting your instincts. (Not to say they're always going to be right, but this will be a nice test.) Third you don't have to do any immediate work until you're proven wrong. If you do the changes to err on clarity's side, and that turns out to be the wrong choice, you're going to have to undo those changes, which can be a nightmare. Better to wait until you're sure the work needs to be done before doing it. It'll save you time and effort.

Fourth, if you get this in front of an agent/editor, IMHO it will look better on you if you're too subtle on this detail than if you're too heavy handed. If you're too subtle, they'll probably assume you're consciously trying to finesse it and it's just not working. But if you're too heavy handed, they'll may think you're just a heavy handed writer, beating everyone over the head with the obvious.

Fifth, this detail is a really cool character detail that, from what you've described, doesn't seem to impact on the story much if at all, so it doesn't matter if people miss it or notice it. If they miss it, no harm done, but if they pick it up, it adds to the coolness of the character.

In this instance, I'd bank on the intelligence of your readers as opposed to assuming they're too dumb to pick up on what's going on if they notice.
 

Helen

Inkling
none of your beta readers picked up on it.

That's the thing. The writer can't be sure the readers spotted anything or "got it."

Mentioning it would be a good sign. Even a "that's not clear" or "what are you trying to do/say there" would be helpful.

if you get this in front of an agent/editor, IMHO it will look better on you if you're too subtle on this detail than if you're too heavy handed. If you're too subtle, they'll probably assume you're consciously trying to finesse it and it's just not working. But if you're too heavy handed, they'll may think you're just a heavy handed writer, beating everyone over the head with the obvious.

The problem should be solved waaay before it gets to the agent/editor.

I'd bank on the intelligence of your readers as opposed to assuming they're too dumb to pick up on what's going on if they notice.

You don't want to assume your readers are telepathic.
 
Last edited:

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
That's the thing. The writer can't be sure the readers spotted anything or "got it."

Mentioning it would be a good sign. Even a "that's not clear" or "what are you trying to do/say there" would be helpful.

If they didn't complain that it was distracting or that it kicked them out of the story, then it doesn't matter if they got it or not. Many stories have nuances that people don't pick up on in the first read. Also if they didn't mention it, then it's very possible that they did get it and didn't think it was worth bringing up.

The problem should be solved waaay before it gets to the agent/editor.

No story is ever perfect when submitted. That's why manuscripts go through a revision process. They don't take a manuscript as-is and sent it off to the presses. Sometimes the revisions are minor, other times major. From the limited info, I garner this is a minor revision. One of the things agents/editors take into account before taking a story on is how much work it will take to make a story publishable. If you're not sure which way to go with a minor revision, I say just leave it. You're just as likely to make the story worse. All any author can do is fix the story up to the best of their ability and let the chips fall. If anyone thinks they should only submit a perfect manuscript, then they'll never submit anything at all.

You don't want to assume your readers are telepathic.

Are you telling me that if you read a story where a con-artist's consistently speaks one way when talking with fellow rogues and then speaks another way when speaking with aristocrats, that a reader can't figure out what's going on? That they would need to be telepathic in order to figure out what the author's intent is?
 
Last edited:

Helen

Inkling
If they didn't complain that it was distracting or that it kicked them out of the story, then it doesn't matter if they got it or not. Many stories have nuances that people don't pick up on in the first read. Also if they didn't mention it, then it's very possible that they did get it and didn't think it was worth bringing up.

The point is you don't know whether they've got it.

The OP has flagged it as being important and in the gray area. So it sounds like they need to get it.

No story is ever perfect when submitted. That's why manuscripts go through a revision process. They don't take a manuscript as-is and sent it off to the presses. Sometimes the revisions are minor, other times major. From the limited info, I garner this is a minor revision. One of the things agents/editors take into account before taking a story on is how much work it will take to make a story publishable. If you're not sure which way to go with a minor revision, I say just leave it. You're just as likely to make the story worse. All any author can do is fix the story up to the best of their ability and let the chips fall. If anyone thinks they should only submit a perfect manuscript, then they'll never submit anything at all.

There's a revision process before it gets to the agent/editor. If this issue has been flagged early, which I think it has been, then it'll be fixed early.

Sure there will be notes and changes later, but you're not going to hand it in knowing that there are problems that haven't been fixed.

Are you telling me that if you read a story where a con-artist's consistently speaks one way when talking with fellow rogues and then speaks another way when speaking with aristocrats, that a reader can't figure out what's going on? That they would need to be telepathic in order to figure out what the author's intent is?

If the OP is wondering whether they'll get it or not, then maybe they won't.

If you make it more obvious, they'll likely get it.

There are ad infinitum occasions where the writer thinks something has been communicated when in fact it hasn't.
 

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
If the OP is wondering whether they'll get it or not, then maybe they won't. If you make it more obvious, they'll likely get it.
Personally, I'd rather not spoon-feed the reader anything. I'd much rather rely on the reader's intelligence to put pieces together and notice the details. In my opinion, the payoff for those that "get it", which comes with that type of story codependency, is worth the risk of some readers missing something.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
If the OP is wondering whether they'll get it or not, then maybe they won't.

If you make it more obvious, they'll likely get it.

There are ad infinitum occasions where the writer thinks something has been communicated when in fact it hasn't.

In this particular instance that the OP described, do you honestly think that the reader won't get it? And do you honestly think that it takes anything more than a few extra lines of text to make it obvious if needed?
 
Last edited:

Rorick

Scribe
Thanks everyone for the continued input, it's given me lots to think about.

The point is you don't know whether they've got it.

The OP has flagged it as being important and in the gray area. So it sounds like they need to get it.

(...)

If the OP is wondering whether they'll get it or not, then maybe they won't.

If you make it more obvious, they'll likely get it.

There are ad infinitum occasions where the writer thinks something has been communicated when in fact it hasn't.

As for whether they 'get it' or not, it's not really important that they do. It's not really a defining point for the character. My worry was just that someone might read through and say: "What the hell? This guy has some kind of multiple personality disorder"

Actually, on re-reading it myself, there are a couple of times when I do clarify it. Those times are when he's deliberately putting on a new persona. Other times are the difference between whether it's a salty sea captain, or pious old priest, etc. rather than a conscious attempt to deceive.

I broached the subject with the beta readers deliberately after this discussion. They assure me that they either didn't notice (which is good), or that they did and it sounded natural (which is awesome! But also somewhat skewed by confirmation bias).

I'll admit, my beta reader pool is a small sample set (5 or 6), but I think it bodes well. We shall see.

It's an interesting debate regardless I think. We all love the 'show don't tell' idiom, I guess this is related to that. Is showing sufficient, or do sometimes we just need to tell?
 

Helen

Inkling
Personally, I'd rather not spoon-feed the reader anything. I'd much rather rely on the reader's intelligence to put pieces together and notice the details. In my opinion, the payoff for those that "get it", which comes with that type of story codependency, is worth the risk of some readers missing something.

I wouldn't put it like that.

I'd say you want to lead the reader, not put obstacles in the way, allow their mind to focus on the deeper aspects of the story.

I disagree with this notional link between subtlety and intelligence. Quite often obviousness is the more intelligent option.

In this particular instance that the OP described, do you honestly think that the reader won't get it? And do you honestly think that it takes anything more than a few extra lines of text to make it obvious if needed?

I read a screenplay the other day with a very similar problem. The writer thought he was being subtle and nuanced but really there was hardly anything to tell on the page. The solution was to be more obvious.

I'm not saying it's difficult. In a screenplay you can emphasize using the parenthesis, caps, underlining, italics, whatever.

I do think it's remiss to blanket suggest subtlety. There are lots of advantages to being obvious, not least that the writer can figure out in their own mind what he or she is trying to communicate. You can always tone it down later if need be, but it's surprising how often it doesn't need to be.

Is showing sufficient, or do sometimes we just need to tell?

You have to look at it case by case. Sometimes telling is OK. Sometimes you need to emphasize.
 

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
I wouldn't put it like that.

I'd say you want to lead the reader, not put obstacles in the way, allow their mind to focus on the deeper aspects of the story.

I disagree with this notional link between subtlety and intelligence. Quite often obviousness is the more intelligent option.

I'm not talking about the author's intelligence. It's the reader's intelligence I'd prefer to rely upon. How much you overtly tell is situational & also a matter of stylistic choice. For my own writing though, realizing the reader can be a co-writer was a huge epiphany, & one I try to keep in the forefront of my mind while writing.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
I do think it's remiss to blanket suggest subtlety. There are lots of advantages to being obvious, not least that the writer can figure out in their own mind what he or she is trying to communicate. You can always tone it down later if need be, but it's surprising how often it doesn't need to be.

I'm not blanketing anything. Go and reread my posts. I've been very diligent in stating that what I'm saying is specific to the original poster's situation and what they're asking. Right at the the beginning of one of my post, I specifically state I generally err on the side of clarity. Given this fact, I'm not sure what you're arguing against.

From the OP's response, I feel that I've gauged the situation properly and what I've said falls in line with what they needed.
 

Fyle

Inkling
I've written, re-written, edited and begun to polish a novel. It's written in first-person from the perspective of a thief and con-artist. During the course of his interactions with other characters, I've found his voice changes a lot. For example, when he's amongst other rogues, he replies in the sweary, swashbuckley patois of the underworld, all slang and profanity. When he's talking to gentry and those who consider themselves above his station, he almost puts on a more formal voice. He's more well-spoken, his vocabulary expands to match his station. At other points, he has a more natural way of speaking, somewhere in the middle.

Now, I guess this comes from me. I tend to do this myself, unconsciously, and I guess to an extent, most of us do. We tend to tailor the level of communication to the party we're conversing with.

I've done this in the story, but again, it's almost entirely subconsciously in the narrative too. My character isn't really aware he's doing it, as indeed, I'm not usually. Because of this, I haven't described it as a conscious choice in the narrative, he just slips into these modes silently.

The question is: is that too subtle? (I'm aware without the context of the story that's difficult) Or should I make the decision to do this more obvious with some internalisation? I personally think I shouldn't need to and my readers should pick up on the nuance. Is this too much to ask of an audience? Or is the mere thought that I doubt them patronising?

Any thoughts?

This is a great question, as I am sure it is not that uncommon to some extent for this to be an issue. In my own WIP I have quite a few sea captains, thieves or just younger characters who speak in different terms to different recipients.

Now, the first question to you that comes to mind is : you say your character is a thief and a con-artist. I would assume he would be very aware of what he is doing (assuming he knows he is coning people)? I suppose we make subconscious habits and automatically speak to different people differently, but at the core, we know exactly what we are doing. I would imagine a con-artist thinks ahead a bit; even researches a phrase or two to say to someone of a certain group to make the con more believable.

Having gotten that out of the way, I have some real life experience in this (as Phil Overby might relate to since he has been in Japan for a decent sum of time as well).

I basically speak a few different ways here in Japan:

a) polite Japanese to elders, co-workers etc. (keigo)

b) normal Japanese to friends, family etc.

c) proper English to those who want to learn, students and people whose English level is low, or non-Japanese living in Japan who speak no Japanese and have poor English speaking skills.

d) regular English to native speakers.

e) then there is the faking I don't speak Japanese (which is fluent with 10+ years of study) to bill collectors, town hall people or ya know, whenever I wanna play dumb.

The fact for me is, no one can do this perfectly, words always get mixed up a bit, slip ups happen. Since you say your character doesn't know he is doing it - I guess you can't have him in thought mention he has slipped up. For me personally, I try to make it apparent in the reaction of the recipient, I try to make it clear by the characters around him that they use the same dialog. I think Helen gave the best advice though "I always start obvious and tone it down later."

Make it clear at first and then your readers should just know after a while. I have largely depended on my readers just knowing. If my character says to the king : "Yes, I shall do so my lord" and then says to his partner in crime after they have left the room, "aye, tha' fool ain't got a clue he be fat." I just assume readers know after that point (or after a few more clear examples) that the particular character modifies his speaking.
 
Last edited:
Top