Can You Help Me Identify and Understand This?

[DreamBliss]

In "Chapter After Chapter" the author talks about a student (if memory serves) and how he fell into writing using the voice she calls "The Great American Writer." Something like that.

Anyhow I realized, on reading this, that I have this same issue! Only I never set out to write the "Great American Novel." In my case the voice (for lack of a better word) is expository. I am aware of it now, I recognize when it is taking over. I figure the best thing to do for now is to continue to practice being aware of it.

Anyhow this voice has in the past caused me to start detailing the world of my story. It is most obvious in fantasy world. Lots of detail, lots of trying to explain things and make it realistic. More logical and mental. Not the voice you should write with.

You gotta write from your heart, your feelings, your gut. You allow a story through and then you feel your way through it. As I see and understand it, the proper voice to be listening to is not really logical at all. It isn't trying to explain how things work. It doesn't waste any time on rules. It doesn't care about reality.

I am probably not describing this very well. But have I explained it well enough that you can tell me what this voice that has derailed many of my stories, especially the fantasy ones, is actually called? I want to know my enemy better, I want to understand what this thing is and where it comes from. I would love to know if it can be used constructively at all, and if so, how to train it. But most of all I I don't want it slipping into my writing anymore. I want to stop it for now. How do I do that?

Thank you for reading! I appreciate your help.

 

[pmmg]

I tend to look at writing as a lot of exited energy getting into the story, the long slog in the middle, and all the cool stuff at the end.

Its that long slog in the middle between the energy that brought you and the cool stuff you want to get to that starts to tie it down. Though, really this is where all they stuff I start to care about happens, its not really what you started writing it for...and so....it leaves itself open to filler and details that stretch out, and a lot of not the exciting stuff.

For myself, I have cultivated a voice for my stories I have worked on for a long time. I know when I am in it and when I am not. And while it is has not always helped me, I have come to appreciate the aspect of the writers voice in a story more than many I encounter. The voice you describe, I have no accurate label for. I would just call it competent blah voice.

The best way I know to overcome it would be to become aware of it, and kill it in the rewrite. And over time develop your own voice, and drop it forever.

 

[Chasejxyz]

The "voice of the Great American Writer™", in my very mean opinion, is "well I HAVE to write this way to be a REAL WRITER!" It's like a photography student saying "well I HAVE to use black and white!" or a film student saying "well I HAVE to make a silent film with French dialogue cards and Jazz music!" It's doing something a certain way because you think, consciously or otherwise, that only REAL and GOOD X is done in this specific, pretentious way, so therefore you must do it, too, regardless of how well it fits the art you're trying to create. Midsommar is a great movie but it wouldn't be a great movie if it was grainy and in black and white and there was no audible dialogue. It takes full advantage of what's available in modern movie making, including using CG to show an altered, warped world like the pov character is seeing.

You see this in writing when people use purple prose or write Very Formally for no benefit of the story. It works in Lord of the Rings BECAUSE it is an older story, it is told like a grand epic. But you are not Tolkien, you are probably not writing a grand epic, you aren't trying to replicate the tone/vibe of Beowulf. So what is your story? What is the vibe you want to give off? Do you want your story to be fun? Dark? Easy to read? Slow and plodding? How does your main character speak and think? Why not have the style be closer to how they speak? To do this, you have to sorta picture how they speak/think and it's almost like they're writing the story (even if it's in third person). It takes practice to do this which you can do by writing things from other character's points of view (fanfiction would be a fun way to try this out).

 

[Rosemary Tea]

It sounds like you're doing two things here and mixing them up: using your logical voice to describe the world and your intuitive voice to tell the story.

Those are really two different things. I tend to do that, too. I find it works best if I separate them: keep the storytelling part just the story, and put the notes the logical voice dictated somewhere else. If I find upon a reread of a story piece that I've put too much logical voice into it, I cut the logical voice part and see if it still works.

I want the end result to be pretty seamless, with just enough logical voice worked into the story to keep the reader from getting confused. Most of the worldbuilding notes end up being just for my own reference: I know how this world works, but I'm not going to tell the reader every detail, just the details that I can't work in by showing them or having a character explain them, and that the reader really needs to know to understand the story.

 

[FifthView]

I'm not 100% sure what was meant by "The Great American Writer." (Or, whatever term was used.)

From your description of your own experience, it sounds like a couple or three things were happening.

• Third Person Omniscient voice
• Lots of Exposition, "telling," explanation, etc.
• Perhaps author intrusion, or author's voice seeping into the narrative.

These are basically distancing effects. The narrator and/or author is standing above things, looking down, giving an overview of the place, situations, characters, whatever.

So the meat of the story, all the exciting events and places and situations, will seem to be held at arm's length. If the narrator is a disembodied figure floating above all things, then all things can begin to seem disembodied themselves. Abstract. A reader experiencing the tale from such a distance will be forced to enjoy in an abstract way whatever is being told.

Some of us do tend toward the abstract, the intellectual enjoyment of things, but most people do not. Most readers will grow bored very fast. I count myself among those who enjoy abstractions, but I, also, can grow bored very fast if the abstractions aren't continuously shocking and thrilling, heh.

I believe that making abstraction "continuously shocking and thrilling" may be one of the hardest skills to learn as a writer. In any case, taking this route is like shooting yourself in the foot and expecting to win the marathon.

This distancing voice can be a disembodied third person omniscient narrator or in fact the author stepping into the narrative. Some will say it's always a disembodied narrator in third person omniscient, not the author, but that is semantics and as good as saying an author cannot ever write in her own real voice.

Am I using my own real voice here, in this comment? Ah, but am I trying to weave abstractions, hmmm?

I'd note that a lot of early writers took this sort of approach, i.e. allowed themselves to imbue their stories with their own personalities or at least with interesting albeit created personae in the form of omniscient narrators. Narration can become a performance art.

You gotta write from your heart, your feelings, your gut. You allow a story through and then you feel your way through it. As I see and understand it, the proper voice to be listening to is not really logical at all. It isn't trying to explain how things work. It doesn't waste any time on rules. It doesn't care about reality.

I think this means trying to create the closer, more intimate sort of voice that is today's standard for fiction. Third person limited or first person. This is writing from the vantage of being "in the midst of events." The narrator gives the impression of being on the ground and truly experiencing whatever is happening in the story. The reader, who is along for the ride, might then be able to enjoy the story as if being in the midst of it. Maintaining that situation means avoiding too many leaps into the stratosphere, i.e. too many instances of being above things seeing the whole picture all at once.

 

[DreamBliss]

Thank you everyone for your replies! I think Fifthview and Rosemary Tea are closest to helping me grock this. It looks like I am either writing from a logical voice, or I am, I guess, distancing myself from the story? Putting it at arm's length and spending my time detailing everything, instead of rolling up my sleeves, getting my feet on the ground and putting myself (and the reader) back into the story. One of the two or some strange combination.

I gotta say, now that I am reading what I just wrote, that I like the phrase "distancing myself from the story." That could be a form of resistance, a way for me to push the story away at some level outside my conscious awareness. If that is so, it makes sense. I will be sure to write these thoughts down in my journal.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I personally think you might be overthinking it a bit.

In his lecture on world building, Brandon Sanderson called what you're describing The Grand Skill of writing Science Fiction and Fantasy. Conveying a world with magic, or different settings or different rules of physics to a reader in a manner that is not boring but weaves it into the story is tough. It takes practice to get it right. It takes even more practice to get it right in a first draft. So, just write, go back to your work and see what you did right and wrong and edit and learn.

Also, there's two types of writers (actually, there's as many types of writers as there are writers, but let's simplify). You have over-writers and under-writers. And under-writer is someone who in his natural rythm tends to write not enough description. In it's extreme it leads to white-room syndrome, where you have two characters doing something in an empty, white space because the writer didn't describe anything. But even less extreme, some writers are sparse in their descriptions.

Over-writers are the other side, and from what I gather it's more common for beginning fantasy writers to over-write. These writers give too much description. They include the history of each little hill the protagonist comes across and adds encyclopedia entries in world building through the story. They might even start with a prologue giving the origin of the world.

The thing is, there is nothing wrong with either of these two. I'm an under-writer by nature. Part of writing my second draft is adding in descriptions and worldbuilding and smells and flavors. Same with over-writing. Just write, and edit stuff out later. In a way over-writing can even be a benefit. Readers like getting bonus content, and if you over-write you're bound to have lots of stuff which has been cut in editing.

As a side-note, I don't really believe in the idea of writing from the heart and feeling the story and all that. You write by sitting down behind a keyboard and typing. But that's just me I guess...

 

[DreamBliss]

I personally think you might be overthinking it a bit.

In his lecture on world building, Brandon Sanderson called what you're describing The Grand Skill of writing Science Fiction and Fantasy. Conveying a world with magic, or different settings or different rules of physics to a reader in a manner that is not boring but weaves it into the story is tough. It takes practice to get it right. It takes even more practice to get it right in a first draft. So, just write, go back to your work and see what you did right and wrong and edit and learn.

Also, there's two types of writers (actually, there's as many types of writers as there are writers, but let's simplify). You have over-writers and under-writers. And under-writer is someone who in his natural rythm tends to write not enough description. In it's extreme it leads to white-room syndrome, where you have two characters doing something in an empty, white space because the writer didn't describe anything. But even less extreme, some writers are sparse in their descriptions.

Over-writers are the other side, and from what I gather it's more common for beginning fantasy writers to over-write. These writers give too much description. They include the history of each little hill the protagonist comes across and adds encyclopedia entries in world building through the story. They might even start with a prologue giving the origin of the world.

The thing is, there is nothing wrong with either of these two. I'm an under-writer by nature. Part of writing my second draft is adding in descriptions and worldbuilding and smells and flavors. Same with over-writing. Just write, and edit stuff out later. In a way over-writing can even be a benefit. Readers like getting bonus content, and if you over-write you're bound to have lots of stuff which has been cut in editing.

As a side-note, I don't really believe in the idea of writing from the heart and feeling the story and all that. You write by sitting down behind a keyboard and typing. But that's just me I guess...

Could you direct me to where you have learned about over and under writers? I have not heard that mentioned before, but that may be the best fit yet. If so, then it is a gift - I either edit after writing or when that voice comes through identify and/or separate that material for use later. I just have to be aware of when the over-writer has taken over.

As far as ,"You write by sitting down behind a keyboard and typing". I have some questions... Do you feel nothing for your characters or story? How do you get involved in your characters if you don't care about them? How do you make the reader care about your characters or world when you don't?

Anyone can sit down and type. Few can sit down, type and produce something that draws the reader into the lives and worlds of the story.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Could you direct me to where you have learned about over and under writers?

I'm not sure where I've first come across it. It might have been in Stephen King's On Writing. But a simple google search on "overwriting vs underwriting" should give you plenty of resources.

If you want Sanderson's lecture on worldbuilding, you'll find it here: Lecture #6: Worldbuilding Part Two — Brandon Sanderson on Writing Science Fiction and Fantasy - YouTube

As far as ,"You write by sitting down behind a keyboard and typing". I have some questions... Do you feel nothing for your characters or story? How do you get involved in your characters if you don't care about them? How do you make the reader care about your characters or world when you don't?

Anyone can sit down and type. Few can sit down, type and produce something that draws the reader into the lives and worlds of the story.

I enjoy telling stories and I care about them. I try to put as much of myself into my writing as I can. But for me I've never had my characters take on a life of their own or turn around and refuse to do whatever or go their own way. It might be because I'm a plotter. I develop a story outline. Yes, that gets adapted as I go along, but in general I know who is going to do what and when, I know who lives and dies. Writing then is a bit like watching a movie for the second or third time. It's still enjoyable, but you're no longer surprised by the twist ending and you're less shocked or moved by the big emotional moments.

I make my reader care by writing the best story I can. But at the end of the day, writing a novel is just work, just like anything else (something you'll also find mentioned in Stephen King's On Writing). Showing up and putting in the work is far more important than almost anything else you can think of. The muse and excitement doesn't last long enough to finish a novel. It gets you through the first few chapters or the exciting bits. But after that you simply have to show up and type.

When I am writing, I have moments when I'm in the flow. Words just come gushing out onto the page, I achieve a high word count and everything seems amazing. There are also moments where everything seems horrible. I have to drag the words out, it's slow going, the writing feels terrible. It's a chore and I wonder if anything I write is worth reading. And the thing is, when I reread my writing a few weeks later, it is pretty much impossible to tell which piece of writing was which. And after 2 rounds of edits there is no difference between them. It's all just writing.

 

[skip.knox]

I agree with Rosemary Tea and will add a bit. When I'm early into a story, I don't know a whole boat load of things--everything from who lives there to how a certain character might behave to which magic spell to use. Tons of stuff. The first draft, the very first time through a story, is telling myself about the story. It's not a story I can tell to others. It's disorganized, and it does tend to have a bunch of digressions and descriptions that have no place in a finished tale. That includes information about characters. There might be scenes, even dialogue, but it's still me telling myself about this place.

Somewhere in there, I get a sense of the direction and tone of the story, and I start to care about one or more characters. Which brings me to your questions.
>Do you feel nothing for your characters or story?
Not at first. I haven't met them yet!

>How do you get involved in your characters if you don't care about them?
This is key, and I have no prescriptions. It just sort of happens. The best I've been able to do is to employ metaphors. I get down into the scene (not the story, mind, but specific scenes) with the character. I imagine feelings. Try to see through their eyes. There are a couple of practical things I do here. One, I get the scene blocked. I work through the logistics, maybe even write a draft. Get the bones of it down. There's a specific pass I make looking for emotion. I have a hard time getting the reactions right until I know the moments to which they're reacting. The other thing is to look across the story, across the scenes, for consistency and genuineness of emotion. It's easy to overwrite or underwrite. The emotion of the moment has to be appropriate to the moment, but also needs to be consistent for the character.

Other writers claim the characters *tell* them how they feel, what they want, etc. I've never experienced that, but others have and perhaps it will go that way with you.

Either way, though, you have to spend time with your characters, experience things with them, and genuinely feel some empathy with them. The only way I know to do that is to inhabit the story along with them, scene by scene.

>How do you make the reader care about your characters or world when you don't?
IMO, it can't be done. If you don't care, it's going to show, and the reader won't care either.

 

[DreamBliss]

thank you, skip.knox, for that reply.

Those last few questions I posted were directed at Prince of Spires. They had said, "As a side-note, I don't really believe in the idea of writing from the heart and feeling the story and all that. You write by sitting down behind a keyboard and typing. But that's just me I guess..." and I was challenging this statement. The questions were meant to show them that you have to feel something when you are writing. Just sitting down and typing isn't enough. At least as far as I know.

In their reply however I could see that I didn't quite understand what they were saying, but I think I got it now. So there is no need for anyone to continue answering those questions. I mean unless they really want to. I would like to return this thread back to its original focus.

I have read Stephen King's On Writing. I suppose I should get it again. I really want to find the originator of this underwriter/overwriter stuff.

 

[Mad Swede]

thank you, skip.knox, for that reply.

Those last few questions I posted were directed at Prince of Spires. They had said, "As a side-note, I don't really believe in the idea of writing from the heart and feeling the story and all that. You write by sitting down behind a keyboard and typing. But that's just me I guess..." and I was challenging this statement. The questions were meant to show them that you have to feel something when you are writing. Just sitting down and typing isn't enough. At least as far as I know.

In their reply however I could see that I didn't quite understand what they were saying, but I think I got it now. So there is no need for anyone to continue answering those questions. I mean unless they really want to. I would like to return this thread back to its original focus.

I have read Stephen King's On Writing. I suppose I should get it again. I really want to find the originator of this underwriter/overwriter stuff.

I wouldn't worry too much about over- and under-writing. It's very much a question of style and characterisation. Provided your story arc and characterisation are good you can get away with virtually no background description at all, especially in a play or short story. Probably the best example I've seen of this is Harold Pinter's play The Room.

My editor describes my writing, especially in my novels, as "sparsmakad", by which she means minimalistic verging on terse. That writing style has its origins in my dyslexia, and in the fact that I started by writing short stories. My editor likes my style but, as she points out, it only works at novel length because I have strong characterisation and good story/character arcs and because I put in just enough description to allow my readers to use their imaginations to fill in the rest. It is a fine balance, and there have been occaisions when I've got it wrong and had to go back to add details.