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

Defining Voice

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
So in another thread (Writing Beyond Good) there is some discussion on what exactly voice entails. I've always understood it to be connected to the narrative, that specific way an author tells a story. This can bleed over into the way they portray characters, setting, action, etc.

However, getting a clear definition of what voice is may be in order. So let's take a look at several other opinions about voice:

One thought about it from The Atlantic discusses both Vonnegut and Austen's voice.

What Makes Fiction Good? It's Mostly the Voice - Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

An excerpt:

This is a pretty entertaining section, and the entire book is a string of bizarre and absurdist incidents. It has none of the complicated, nuanced characters I claim to enjoy in narrative. But I did enjoy this narrative. I think it is because, in fiction, if you like the person telling you the story—which is to say the voice, not the author—you generally will let them tell you a story.

Pride and Prejudice, for me, is all about voice. I don't find Mr. Darcy gripping at all, except when the Austen's narrator is describing him. It is as though she is letting me on a secret. Ditto for Edith Wharton in The Age of Innocence. The voice belongs to society insider, one who believes in all of its trappings but also loves to gossip about its hypocrisies. It is as if the voice is saying to you—"If you don't have anything good to say, come sit by me." Same with Moby Dick and the vagabond intellectual Ishmael. Same with The Great Gatsby and its everyman, Nick Carraway.

So in this case, voice is tied to the narrative, or the way of telling the story.

Another example is an explanation of how style and voice differ.

Developing Style and Voice in Fiction Writing | Advanced Fiction Writing

I’d define style to be the set of patterns you use in your writing: word choice patterns, grammatical patterns, sentence structure patterns, paragraph structure patterns, narrative structure patterns.

I’d define voice to be the “attitude” you bring to your writing. This can be separated into the voice of each of your characters plus the voice you bring in as author.

So there seems to be an agreement with the first example I gave. It's the attitude you bring to the fiction you're writing, but can also been channeled through your characters.

Here are just two examples of what voice means. Does anyone have any other links or opinions on how you define voice? It would be interesting to hear the different interpretations and finally put to rest what this "voice" really means.

For me, I believe it's the way a story is told. We can all tell a story about a dragonslayer in a different way. Some may rely on a more casual narrative:

"This dragon pissed me off for the last time."

Or a more flowery presentation:

"Through smoke and ash, I rode up to the slithering great wyrm, my lance steady, my black steed kicking up dust."

I think each way has a distinct voice. The first one suggests that the author, and character, is approaching the content in a more direct, modern way. Whereas the second one harkens back to a more traditional fantasy style of voice for a dragonslayer.

In any case, what are your thoughts on the subject of voice?
 
Last edited:

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
For me, I believe it's the way a story is told. We can all tell a story about a dragonslayer in a different way.

This is essentially the same idea I was espousing in the other thread before I saw your post. Yes, I agree. Voice is mainly the storytelling processes and methods unique to an author.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I usually think of voice as "reproducible elements of technique and style + subtle distinctions unique to the author."

We can talk about some style elements at length. Short sentences, highlighting verbs, keeping a tight description, and so on. Things that we can look at and learn and reproduce. But I'm going to find that I like using my short sentences in different places and to a slightly different effect than you do. That difference is voice.

The dragon beat its wings. It gnashed its teeth. It spat fire at the ground. And then it left an opening. Todd took the swing, sent the ball across the grass, up the hill, through the flame, between the dragon's legs, and just narrowly missed a hole in one.

There's a tiny story in a few quick sentences. How would you have told it? Chances are even if you used short sentences, you'd use them differently than I did. That mix of style and purpose and subtlety is voice.
 

Scribble

Archmage
I see "voice" as the author's view of the universe, their "humanity", sense of humor, aesthetic tastes, and sense of irony as it shines through the words of the story. It's perceived through the characters and elements the writer places on his little stage, how they interact, and in which details the writer shines his light on.

Humor is one element that attracts me. People have very different kinds of humor. Humor is very different between writers. Some have none at all, some are oozing with it. I can't read a humorless work, not for long. It doesn't have to have laughs in it, but it has to convey a sense of irony, a sense of playfulness, a sense of the ludicrous... somewhere behind the scenes. For me a humorless work may be written by an author who either has no humor, or who hasn't found their voice.

When I speak French, which I do every day, I feel like I lose my personality. I convey accurate technical information, but my play of language, my jocularity, my way of putting people at ease, of convincing, it is all tied up in my command of English. I often will say, "je suis plus charmant en anglais", (I am more charming in English!). That's my metaphor for a writer who hasn't found their voice. They are speaking a language to the reader that for whatever reason, they are unable to have their personality come through. It might be a sense of reservation, of high technical control, or timidity that is eclipsing their personality.

It relies on a confidence or strength in their writing voice. It doesn't mean that they are strong or confident people, but where the pen hits the page, they put themselves into the words, rather than just write the words. I hope that makes sense :)
 
Last edited:

Caged Maiden

Staff
Article Team
I'd like to clarify my comments on how Deep POV and "voice" go hand in hand.

WHen the narrator is describing things in third person, they are sometimes a separate entity, conveying story information, like "The party slept restlessly that night, the howls of wolves keeping them up." Okay, that's clearly a narrator, not a character. However, DEEP POV and voice come into something like this: Gerald lay awake that night while his party slept. (narrator) Damn howling wolves (POV). Staying up half the night listening to their incessant baying (voice) was going to leave him cross in the morning (narrator). The last thing he needed (voice), traveling with a bunch of elves(POV)..."


So is there anything wrong with the first one? no, it's a choice. And you could argue that there's a lot of places where details can be put in. My point is that the more you can enter a voice for the character and cut the narrator blandness the better, and a narrator with a voice is a better one for when you need it.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
It doesn't bother me that it is hard to define. Writing is many things, and one of those things is an art form. You can look at famous paintings and talk about textures and colors, use of light and dark, how angles draw the eye, and so on, but at some point you run up against something a bit more undefinable when you try to put your finger on what it is that makes the greats so great.

I think T.Allen.Smith made a good point in the other thread about how differently various writers would write the same story. I think you could give ten authors the same plot outline, same character backstory, and even give them a detailed scene-by-scene outline that sets forth what the characters do, how they react to events, and how they react to each other, and you'd still have ten very different pieces of writing.

There are competent writers who don't have an engaging voice. They don't seem to me to do that well, but kind of linger on at middle or lower levels of sales for a while until you don't see them on the shelves anymore. I've read some such books, and even enjoyed them well enough, but I never went back out and bought another book by that author. Why should I, if they're interchangeable with a dozen other writers? I might read those authors from time to time, but they're not the ones that I consider myself a true fan of. The ones that do it well are the ones where, when I hear they have a new book, I'll go buy it immediately. I don't care what's on the cover, or even what the book is about. I am buying it because of who wrote it, because that person can deliver to me a product that no one else can.

I think for those of us doing some self-publishing, it is even easier to get lost in the proliferation of self-published work. You can market, take out ads, blog, engage social media, etc. all you want, and it may get you some initial success, but if the reader picks up your book and finds it interchangeable with dozens of other books popping up on Amazon or B&N, they're not so likely to buy your next one. Once you get in a reader's mind as an author who can be taken or left, it is very hard to break out of it, because the sheer number of potential books are so vast that there's not much incentive for the reader to give you a second chance.

I think, ideally, you want a reader to remember your name and to be the kind of reader who is going to buy anything that has your name on it because they know you're delivering to them a unique product and not one of 100 identical widgets from a box.
 
Top