Developing a distinct character voice?

[cydare]

The novel I'm currently working on will be written in third person limited and has two POV characters. As such, I'm anxious to give them distinct voices.

This is particularly difficult for me outside of dialogue. I seem to be having a bit of trouble when it comes to separation between the voice of each of my characters and the voice of me, as the author.

What are everyone's experiences with voice? How do you use and define it?

 

[Penpilot]

My life experiences, my vocabulary, my way looking at things will always color the language, but those things are generally unconscious. When I write, the character takes precedent, so that which is me gets colored by them. It's like I'm the broth and the character is the spice, the veggies, the meats, etc., all the other ingredients to the soup.

Another way to look at it is, instead of trying to look at the world with me-type glasses, I look at the world through character-type glasses. It's still me behind the glasses, thought.

 

[Malik]

Deconstruction. I didn't get a handle on character voice (or my own) until I really understood the language to the point where I could identify what makes speech patterns unique. Gerunds, split infinitives, contraction, adverb placement, trochaism, simple vs. continuous verbs, simile, metaphor. Once I could identify it, I could rebuild it consistently.

 

[cydare]

Penpilot, I'll definitely try to pop in my character's eyes as I write, even if it's still my mind using them! Thank you! The analogy really helped in terms of author vs character voice.

And Malik, that's incredibly helpful! I am currently in a linguistics course and I'll pay special attention. I honestly never thought of it that way. You've opened my eyes.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I write in first person, so this comes somewhat naturally. What I do is try to get to know the character and get a sense of how they think and talk. I do interviews with them and write down their answers, or even casual, informal chats. Once I know the character well enough, voice will come naturally. Because, well, it's them talking, not me.

I'm not sure how this relates to writing in third person though. Third person has always felt too detached and objective for me and that's why I avoid it.

 

[Malik]

Penpilot, I'll definitely try to pop in my character's eyes as I write, even if it's still my mind using them! Thank you! The analogy really helped in terms of author vs character voice.

And Malik, that's incredibly helpful! I am currently in a linguistics course and I'll pay special attention. I honestly never thought of it that way. You've opened my eyes.

I minored in linguistics (I'm an old-school structuralist) and worked in computational linguistics for a time. It's going to help your writing like you can't believe.

Linguistics posts on my blog:

Showing vs. Telling and Typing vs. Writing: Why Movies are not Novels | Joseph Malik

Fair Folk, Greek Literature, and the Plight of the Modern Cunning Linguist | Joseph Malik

Markov and Me | Joseph Malik

They Have a Word for That? | Joseph Malik

Hit me up if you have any questions. I'm probably not hip to the modern theories; it's been 20 years. But I'm always up for talking linguistics. I really do believe that it's an overlooked (and all-too-often handwaved) part of sci-fi and fantasy and it's the one thing I decided to really grind my teeth about.

 

[Malik]

Third person has always felt too detached and objective for me and that's why I avoid it.

Third doesn't have to be detached. Read my book. PM me with an email address and I'll send you a copy.

Third LIMITED is detached. That's where you get the bullshit half-assed cinematic scenes and the straightjacket POV with no author intrusion. ****in' yawn.

Third OMNISCIENT is where you introduce a narrator's voice. This is how stories used to be told; it's called "storytelling," and it's an ancient technique of the masters, lost to the ages. And I'm bringing it back. (I just had an interview with a blogger who commented on my use of narrative voice. He said that my book is "a backpack nuke that [I've] managed to smuggle into the midst of the indie fantasy market." My first review on GR said that she suspects that I'm a major literary author writing fantasy under a pseudonym. So far, so good.)

We see a lot of third limited because it doesn't require delineation between character and narrator voice, and as a result, it writes very fast. Pulp writers love it because you can just bang everything out in one voice -- or even in no voice, and keep it cold and cinematic. Which is chickenshit. NARRATE. Put yourself out there and see if people like you. If you don't -- if you choose limited third -- then you can use your story as a shield and not have to endure personal rejection. They don't like your story. They don't like your characters. You're insulated.

Chickenshit.

Third omniscient is also very hard. It takes years to develop, which is likely the main reason that people don't do it in this age of instant gratification and YouTube fame. With third omniscient you will literally spend months moving words around giving everyone a distinct voice, and it can take years or even decades to develop your own narrative voice to the point where it's unique and separate from the characters. It is literally a dying art.

On the plus side, it's been pointed out that I don't have to worry about hordes of pulp writers stealing my thunder if I end up with a runaway hit on my hands. On the other hand, maybe I suck and nobody will buy my series because it's not written in limited third the way everything else "has to be."

But not all third is detached. Just 99% of it in fantasy and sci-fi these days.

 

[TheCatholicCrow]

The novel I'm currently working on will be written in third person limited and has two POV characters. As such, I'm anxious to give them distinct voices.

I seem to be having a bit of trouble when it comes to separation between the voice of each of my characters and the voice of me, as the author.

What are everyone's experiences with voice? How do you use and define it?

I prefer to stay away from Third Person altogether. Sometimes the story calls for it but for the most part, I prefer first person because I'm lazy that feel the most natural to me. I want to get into the head of the character, not just manipulate their actions like a puppeteer. I find it to be the most engaging, after that, Omniscient. Once upon a time I used to enjoy Third Limited but I find it harder to stomach now (maybe I've just seen too many instances of it being used poorly).

If you've never read it before, consider picking up a copy of Gillian Flynn's Gone Girl (yes, I know it's a way different genre) but it's become my go-to example of a story with two very unique and well done voices (His and Hers) ... if I remember correctly, both in the first person (nothing new for Thriller but a bit out of the ordinary with the Mystery plotline- usually you see mystery in 3rd because you need that removal to keep the reader guessing - so did they or didn't they? Who was in the library with Colonel Mustard? Also - the whole pulp thing). Anyway, I found it to be a good read (albeit risque) but if you're looking for distinct voices it's topnotch. Plus, since it was so huge several years ago, you shouldn't have a problem getting a hold of a used copy for dirt cheap or finding it in a library.

If you haven't already, take some time to get to know your characters. Write a few scenes (for each) in first person. Figure out who they are, not just how they talk but how they think. Optimistic? The way they view the world around them will be naturally more perky. Pessimistic? The way they view the world might be cynical... so for the Optimist you might choose to focus on certain details in description (smells, sights, etc) while for the other you might go with a slightly less external mode for processing (feelings, thoughts, impressions)... You can use two different forms of narration for each in lots of subtle ways. The way you choose to reveal this information will play a role ...

"The rain fell down in big fat drops that stung his skin. Great, he thought to himself, I'll have to wash the car again." vs
"Despite the rainfall, a choir of birds hid in the rafters, singing together. Joyce found it to be delightful."

Both include insight to their mindsets but they also frame the same situation (a rainy day) in a different mood that should capture some element of the character. Neither is a good example, just something written on the fly but hopefully you understand what I'm referring to.

I like Malik's article (Why movies are not books) but I would humbly add that films are a different form of storytelling. I think it's perfectly acceptable to let it influence you to some degreeas long as the written word comes first (not just novels either - add in some flash, vignettes, short stories, and poetry). The same goes with Anime / Manga or comics. Each has a time and place and enjoying them might help you expand your understanding of storytelling and art but it won't necessarily translate well to your writing. No need to swear it off completely but there's nothing quite like analyzing & learning techniques from written text.

@Malik - Beyond lazy descriptions, I would add to the list random jumps between scenes. I recently tried critiquing a flash piece where every fourth or fifth line was a new scene. Hopping around like that might work with a visual format but (at least the way they'd done it) it was jarring and didn't work as short fiction. (It wasn't meant to be experimental either.) In addition to nothing happening, it was just a jumbled mess of mini vignettes with no clear plot progression. I love Tarantino's films but let's just say there's a reason he should stick to film. Some ideas and techniques are best left in other mediums.

 

[Chessie]

I think character voice is different from author voice. How do the two come together? Through descriptions, story line, characters, everything. The author carries a certain tone throughout a story, one that compliments and is tied into theme. There are breaks within the POV character's narrative where the author speaks or narrates as Malik said. Then character voice is just a matter of how she's built and how she reacts to what's happening around her.

In one of Brandon Sanderson's youtube lectures, he goes over the structure for a paragraph and how to open a scene. Start with something concrete about the character, then add setting and a bit of description, next sentence is something about the character again, and so on. Also dialogue. So the way I see it is the author's voice comes in first thing in that OP sentence and tells the reader about character. Setting and descriptions are a mixture of author and character voice. Author comes in on the next sentence about character. Descriptive narrative, dialogue, and observations about other characters are made from character perspective and also author voice. They tie in together to create the essence of you in that story.

In regards to POV preferences...that's just it, personal comfort. What we think is lazy and uninspired (like first person present) might just be the way that particular writer tells her story best. Different strokes and all that. I pretty much only write in 3rd--like, basic 3rd because I'm not really sure that I even understand 3rd limited. Present tense, yes, is actually kind of growing on me but I have yet to try prose with it. I'm still plenty able to connect with my characters and story regardless if I use 3rd. It's just what works for me.

 

[Chessie]

@Catholic Crow: Gone Girl is such a good book! (that wife tho...)

 

[cydare]

I messed up when I said third person limited (I translated directly from my first language. I should know by now that isn't how things work). What I meant was close third person. Or, if I made another error, the sort of third person which is most like first person, and you see through the character's eyes. Sorry about that!

Malik, those blog posts are fantastic, and some tie into what I'm learning now. Thank you for the help and the offer! I'll definitely send you a message once I have a grasp on how I want to include linguistic deconstruction past 'I should do it'. Is your book the one in your picture?

DragonoftheAerie and TheCatholicCrow - I think I'll try writing out a few scenes or short stories in first person, if only to enter the character's head in a more personal manner. It's a good idea to experiment in different ways. One of the reasons I'm keeping away from first person in the actual story is because one of the protagonists isn't quite human. They go through periods where everything is a jumble, and rather than interesting, has been coming off as confusing.

I'll also check out Gone Girl. I'm always looking for recommendations, especially ones that can help. Thank you!

Chesterama, I've just started listening to Brandon Sanderson's lectures yesterday, so this is a really nice way to direct me. Your explanation is helping me figure things out as I think about them more deeply.

 

[Nimue]

Hey Malik... Is it really necessary to denigrate every single method of storytelling except the one you've decided to use? Particularly since the OP has said they're using third limited and the question wasn't why they shouldn't.

Maybe keep the list of everything you think is chickenshit to your blog...


Edit: I'm pretty sure close third and third limited are equivalent? Either way, you're seeing the world from one character's viewpoint at a time.

 

[cydare]

Is it? I think I'm confusing myself with terminology. Thank you Nimue.

 

[Malik]

Hey Malik... Is it really necessary to denigrate every single method of storytelling except the one you've decided to use? Particularly since the OP has said they're using third limited and the question wasn't why they shouldn't.

Maybe keep the list of everything you think is chickenshit to your blog...
.

Really, it's just that one thing. And I do denigrate it. It's flaccid, it's overused, it's wearisome, it leads to bad writing, and worst of all, it's a crutch. It's flooding the market because it writes fast. It writes fast because it takes voice away and concentrates on action and description. (Edited to add: It shouldn't, and it doesn't have to, but it can be used as a very clinical, fast-writing technique by stripping away voice and letting the descriptions carry the scene, and that's how it's being misused. And it's misused so much that now people think that this is how it's "supposed to be done.") It has killed the art of fantasy narration. And it's why we have questions like the OPs, about "how do I separate my characters' voices from my own?" That question exists because nobody does it in fantasy anymore. You have to go back thirty years to find an example. Or turn to lit-fic, where everybody still does it all the time.

And what I said was that, if you're using limited third because you're afraid of personal rejection -- if you remove your own voice because you're afraid that they'll hate you, the narrator, and not the story or the characters -- that's chickenshit. I stand by it. That's not the only reason to write in close third, but I've heard writers say they do it for exactly this reason. "If someone doesn't like your book, it's the book's fault, not yours." Absolute crap. You're an entertainer. A pie in the face comes with the job.

@Malik - Beyond lazy descriptions, I would add to the list random jumps between scenes. I recently tried critiquing a flash piece where every fourth or fifth line was a new scene. Hopping around like that might work with a visual format but (at least the way they'd done it) it was jarring and didn't work as short fiction. (It wasn't meant to be experimental either.) In addition to nothing happening, it was just a jumbled mess of mini vignettes with no clear plot progression. I love Tarantino's films but let's just say there's a reason he should stick to film. Some ideas and techniques are best left in other mediums.

Head-hopping in short fiction is tough unless you're a master stylist. There's a great piece by Palanhiuk here, told narratively, where he changes voices, tenses, and from first to second to third person. And it's brilliant. Me, I'm not that brave. Or that good.

 

[FifthView]

When it comes to developing distinct character voices, there are two issues I think.

First is knowing your characters, having a distinct image of each character–his history, personality, motivations, and so forth.

The other is the more technical details of presenting that character in such a way that he is distinct for the reader (while also making him someone the reader wants to follow.)

There was a Writing Excuses podcast on third limited that used an example of how to present your characters so that they are distinct.

Brandon Sanderson suggested imagining a goblet of water sitting in a room and different characters passing through that room. One might see it and think it's great wealth because water is scarce in his world. Another might see the finely crafted goblet and make plans to steal it later when she passes back through the room. Another might not even notice the goblet of water.

So that is one exercise you can do. Take your two characters and imagine them both noticing or observing the same thing in your world–an object, a person engaged in some activity, an event–and write short pieces about a) what the person actually notices/sees, b) what the person thinks and feels about it, c) what the person chooses to do in reaction to its presence. You could do this multiple times for different things. I'd suggest picking things from the world of your story because these are the sorts of things those characters are likely to encounter or to have encountered sometime in their past.

Different characters will have different frames of reference. A carpenter might notice the table under that goblet and not think much about the goblet. An assassin might notice the heavy curtains in the room–a place to hide–and might also wonder whether the person who lives in this mansion frequently leaves his filled goblets sitting around (making poisoning easier?)

The comparisons characters make may also be distinct for each character. Perhaps a carpenter will be more likely to compare items on the basis of their structural elements or fine/sloppy crafting, whereas an assassin might consider their usefulness, and a thief their value.

Characters might use different metaphors, curses, and even terminology for things differently.

 

[Nimue]

And what I said was that, if you're using limited third because you're afraid of personal rejection -- because you're afraid that they'll hate the narrator and not the story or the characters -- that's chickenshit. I stand by it. That's not the only reason to write in close third, but I've heard writers say they do it for exactly this reason. "If someone doesn't like your book, it's the book's fault, not yours." Absolute crap. You're an entertainer. A pie in the face comes with the job.

That's a bizarre reason to choose a POV. And no, I don't choose to write in third limited because I'm afraid of personal rejection. (What? Seriously?) I choose it because I love seeing the world through characters' eyes, and because almost all of my favorite books--Hugo-award-winners and all--use this form, so it's a comfortable and natural method. It can be beautiful and full of voice and immersive as hell.

I'm not afraid to slip into omniscient when the narrative calls for it, but I think inisisting that all/most stories would be better in omniscient...regardless of the atmosphere they're trying to achieve...is misguided.

 

[Russ]

And what I said was that, if you're using limited third because you're afraid of personal rejection -- because you're afraid that they'll hate the narrator and not the story or the characters -- that's chickenshit. I stand by it. That's not the only reason to write in close third, but I've heard writers say they do it for exactly this reason. "If someone doesn't like your book, it's the book's fault, not yours." Absolute crap. You're an entertainer. A pie in the face comes with the job.

It's funny I know dozens of professional writers who make their living writing in close or limited third and none of them has every remotely suggested that they do it out of fear of personal rejection. Most of them do it because it best serves the modern desire to see close up inside a character with allowing them a great deal more plot flexility than first.

In a well done piece of fiction, the author does not exist. Authorial intrusion is a problem to be avoided.

I think cydare's question touches about something important and shows an strong self awareness of a potential problem. An author can have a style, sometimes called a "voice", but characters need to have their own distinct voices, different from that of the author. Each character should speak like themselves, see the world like themselves, not just like the author.

I think awareness of how other people speak around you can also help you write distinctive character voices. Really listen to people and think about how they speak. Feel free to speculate about why they speak that way. Awareness (which cydare obviously has because of the posed question) is half the battle.

 

[Malik]

I had someone say exactly this at a convention last year, on a panel. It made me insane. The person was a pulp writer, and a fairly successful one. Their stuff wasn't great but the individual in question is making a lot of money. They said that they didn't fear rejection because it was the book's fault, not theirs, and the next one would be better.

"Well, aren't you part of the book?"

"Well, no. I write from the characters' POVs. It's not me. It's them."

 

[FifthView]

I'm often in agreement with Malik. Third limited can indeed be a crutch, facile, and so forth. One might say that of anything.

But I suspect that it's easier to get away with that in third limited than in third omniscient. I don't know, but I wonder if that whole "immersion in character" aspect can sometimes limit our awareness of the facile nature of some third limited writing. Whereas third omniscient when facile is more likely to stab us in the eye.

This doesn't mean that third limited is by default a crutch or a useless narrative strategy. Done well, it's as great as any other narrative strategy.

 

[Malik]

In a well done piece of fiction, the author does not exist. Authorial intrusion is a problem to be avoided.

The author absolutely exists. Narrative tone and authorial intrusion are not the same thing, but even the latter can be done beautifully. The Princess Bride. The Hitchhiker's Guide. Glory Road (granted, written in first but with countless editorial doglegs). Tom Clancy, Stephen Hunter, Lemony Snicket. The Scarlet Letter. Authorial intrusion is full of pitfalls and the most strident advice is to avoid it. Again, though; it used to be perfectly fine. Plenty of gothic horror novels used it to great effect.

And isn't a first-person novel nothing but authorial intrusion?