Developing a distinct character voice?

[Russ]

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."

It is the first time I have heard of that. However, if the person is successful, and that technique is what allows them to get past a potential emotional barrier to publishing I say who am I to criticize the mental gymnastics they do to get the job done.

But I suspect of the people who write in close third it is a tiny, tiny, tiny, insignificant number who do it for that reason.

On a total aside aside, I see people using the term "pulp" writer from time to time around here. I know what the term means historically, but am curious as to what people think the term means when applied to modern writers.

 

[Malik]

Done well, it's as great as any other narrative strategy.

The problem is that it's often not. As with anything. Sturgeon's Law.

The problem is that there is so much of it right now -- to the point where writing blogs and forums and even "professional editors" are adamant that it's the ONLY WAY to write fantasy and sci-fi (I went through a whole thing with an editor who wanted me to change my entire book to limited third, rewrite everything, because it was "wrong") that it's getting harder and harder to find the stuff that's done well. There's a landslide of this crap right now. Limited third is becoming a religion.

You can have distinct character voices in limited third. You should. You should have a narrative tone in your writing, even if you don't intrude. But close third lets you get away with not having these things. Which, again, brings us back to the likely genesis of the OP's question.

 

[Russ]

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?

I think we agree on this. As I indicated above I think each author can and should develop their own style, which you call narrative tone. I am all for unique and distinctive narrative tone. But the "Voices" in the novel should be those of the characters, not mine.

A first person novel, done properly, has no authorial intrusion, but it has a great deal of voice of the narrator who is not the author (generally).

Perhaps an example best illustrates the difference. IF I am writing a first person book about a Russian WWI soldier, the book should be full of the voice of a Russian WWI sniper, not the voice of a middle aged Canadian lawyer or even the voice of a middle aged Canadian lawyer thinking about what it would be like to be a Russian WWI sniper.

Reminders of the existence of an author during the narrative negatively impacts immersion. IF that is your goal, than it can be a tool to achieve that goal. Most people don't want to break immersion that way.

 

[Russ]

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.

Do you feel that limited third for some reason is inherently facile? Or more inherently facile that other POV choices?

 

[Penpilot]

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!

Sorry. In a hurry so have to keep this short.

There are two types of third limited: third subjective/close and third cinematic/objective. Third subjective is what you're familiar with. Third objective you don't get into character's heads at all. It plays like a movie hence why it's called a cinematic POV.

For me, I write in what ever POV the story calls for because each has its pros and cons, and each story has its needs and challenges.

 

[Malik]

It is the first time I have heard of that. However, if the person is successful, and that technique is what allows them to get past a potential emotional barrier to publishing I say who am I to criticize the mental gymnastics they do to get the job done.

But I suspect of the people who write in close third it is a tiny, tiny, tiny, insignificant number who do it for that reason.

On a total aside aside, I see people using the term "pulp" writer from time to time around here. I know what the term means historically, but am curious as to what people think the term means when applied to modern writers.

My mother was a pulp romance writer back in the 80's. She wrote teen romances under this onerous contract for one of the big houses. All of her books had to be a certain length, they had to stick to one of a handful of acceptable plots, they all had to have certain characters, and they had to culminate in the first kiss. The first two, she said, were easy. The next six drove her to drink. To me, that's a pulp. Delivering what's expected, no more, no less. No surprises, no art.

Amazon (and Smashwords) has done an amazing thing in tapping into a market of fantasy and sci-fi readers who are willing to read fantasy and sci-fi that's written like trash romance.

When I say pulp fantasy writer, I mean someone who is writing as fast as they can, hammering together two-dimensional books from expected tropes and cliches and well-worn storylines. The lost prince. The evil sorcerer controlling an army of orcs. The young orphan coming of age. Not putting out anything new, not putting out anything deep (no allegory, no metaphor, half-assed worldbuilding, shoddy research -- and you know how I am about research), just writing and getting the money. The romance novel / erotica approach to fantasy. Type THE END. Publish. Start the next one. I won't name names.

I mean, it's fine. Sure. Good on 'em; they're making a living and I'm not. But ten pages in, I've found twenty typos or misused words and I already know how the story is going to end. And then I look and see that this author has written six books in the past two years, and flipping through the first few pages, they're all like this. That, to me, is a pulp writer. A perfectly legitimate way to make a living but not my thing.

 

[Russ]

My mother was a pulp romance writer back in the 80's. She wrote teen romances under this onerous contract for one of the big houses. All of her books had to be a certain length, they had to stick to one of a handful of acceptable plots, they all had to have certain characters, and they had to culminate in the first kiss. The first two, she said, were easy. The next six drove her to drink. To me, that's a pulp. Delivering what's expected, no more, no less. No surprises, no art.

Amazon (and Smashwords) has done an amazing thing in tapping into a market of fantasy and sci-fi readers who are willing to read fantasy and sci-fi that's written like trash romance.

When I say pulp fantasy writer, I mean someone who is writing as fast as they can, hammering together two-dimensional books from expected tropes and cliches and well-worn storylines. The lost prince. The evil sorcerer controlling an army of orcs. The young orphan coming of age. Not putting out anything new, not putting out anything deep (no allegory, no metaphor, half-assed worldbuilding, shoddy research -- and you know how I am about research), just writing and getting the money. The romance novel / erotica approach to fantasy. Type THE END. Publish. Start the next one. I won't name names.

I mean, it's fine. Sure. Good on 'em; they're making a living and I'm not. But ten pages in, I've found twenty typos or misused words and I already know how the story is going to end. And then I look and see that this author has written six books in the past two years, and flipping through the first few pages, they're all like this. That, to me, is a pulp writer. A perfectly legitimate way to make a living but not my thing.

Appreciate you explaining that. I thought that was what you meant, people who produce high volume formulaic work, often to a deadline, but now I know. I read old pulp for fun, but don't read any modern pulp.

 

[FifthView]

Do you feel that limited third for some reason is inherently facile? Or more inherently facile that other POV choices?

Difficult for me to explain; I'm still piecing things together.

I think that we expect characters to be imperfect, have foibles, and the like. So facile writing in third limited can "pass" somewhat, as long as we are still able to immerse ourselves in the POV character's experiences. Gaps, oddities, and so forth in the narrative get something of a pass. Limited description of the environment? Other details left out? Well, the character just didn't notice these things. Let's say we are a little more forgiving with that narrative voice.

But in third omniscient, particularly the type that has a storyteller narrator, we expect absolute mastery from the narrator. If "someone" is going to tell us a story, we expect him/her to be a master storyteller, to know when and when not to intrude, and how to intrude, and to present characters with pertinent fidelity as well as other details of the environment and events.

So...I'm grasping here trying to explain impressions I've not had to explain before.

I think it's generally acknowledged that 3rd omniscient is more difficult to do well than 3rd limited? I don't want to use argumentum ad populum to prop up my own views, and I acknowledge that I'm still piecing things together. I do not want to argue that either narrative strategy can so easily be characterized simplistically. I think that third limited can be just as great as third omniscient, and given the explosion of bad examples which nonetheless find buyers, I'd hazard to guess that, in general, doing it well is not as easy as snapping one's fingers.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

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.

Third limited, yeah, that's what i meant. But i think third limited when i hear third, because third omni is so rare. (I don't know why. Harder to do well, maybe?)

Third limited does have its place, like everything. It can be done really well, and some stories are best told in third limited. But it can be awful when done badly.

 

[Russ]

Difficult for me to explain; I'm still piecing things together.

I think that we expect characters to be imperfect, have foibles, and the like. So facile writing in third limited can "pass" somewhat, as long as we are still able to immerse ourselves in the POV character's experiences. Gaps, oddities, and so forth in the narrative get something of a pass. Limited description of the environment? Other details left out? Well, the character just didn't notice these things. Let's say we are a little more forgiving with that narrative voice.

But in third omniscient, particularly the type that has a storyteller narrator, we expect absolute mastery from the narrator. If "someone" is going to tell us a story, we expect him/her to be a master storyteller, to know when and when not to intrude, and how to intrude, and to present characters with pertinent fidelity as well as other details of the environment and events.

So...I'm grasping here trying to explain impressions I've not had to explain before.

I think it's generally acknowledged that 3rd omniscient is more difficult to do well than 3rd limited? I don't want to use argumentum ad populum to prop up my own views, and I acknowledge that I'm still piecing things together. I do not want to argue that either narrative strategy can so easily be characterized simplistically. I think that third limited can be just as great as third omniscient, and given the explosion of bad examples which nonetheless find buyers, I'd hazard to guess that, in general, doing it well is not as easy as snapping one's fingers.

Although you have not yet refined this into a well developed worldview, I appreciate your efforts to articulate your thoughts on the matter.

Now you got me thinking too.

 

[Nimue]

Honestly? There's a lot of terrible omniscient out there as well, particularly in amateur or indie fiction. The obligatory beginning where the author stops to tell the reader alllll about the boring history of the setting before reaching any character or action. Or the oh-so-original storyteller prologue. Or the "let me pause to describe all the characters in weird detail before you care about them." Third person omniscient is literally the oldest trick in the book, and it's been mangled at least as many times as third limited, even if it's not as popular in the moment.

 

[Russ]

Third limited does have its place, like everything. It can be done really well, and some stories are best told in third limited. But it can be awful when done badly.

In today's adult commercial fiction (or adult genre fiction if you prefer) is not it's place "market dominance"?

Your comment also begs the question. Are other POV choices less awful when done badly? Is there a POV choice that mitigates the impact of poor writing?

 

[FifthView]

...even if it's not as popular in the moment.

One of the problems with having a discussion about anything is the tendency to go full-on absolutist.

By suggesting that one narrative strategy may be easier—to pass—than another, I'm not saying that omniscient third can't be written poorly.

Nor, that third limited is simple to do well.

I'm not saying that one narrative strategy as a whole is better than the other.

I would propose that third limited's popularity is precisely due to the fact that it more easily passes. But this might not be a bad thing. If importance of story plays a role, then having unobtrusive narration may allow the story to shine, and this also may account for third limited's relative popularity.

 

[Incanus]

Interesting discussion.

In my view, no POV is inherently better or worse than any other. The best POV is the one that best suits the story idea. The amount of current use of any POV (or lack of same), or that some authors do it poorly, plays no part in my deliberation. Why would it? Sturgeon's Law all the way.

That said, I do find third-omni the most difficult to write, and first person the easiest.

 

[FifthView]

Incidentally: Apologies to cydare for the highjacking of this thread.

I think we could have had a great discussion about ways to improve in creating distinct character voices in third limited. My first comment moved in that direction. But sometimes these more general discussions pop up, leading us to overlook the original purpose of a thread.

 

[Russ]

I would propose that third limited's popularity is precisely due to the fact that it more easily passes. But this might not be a bad thing. If importance of story plays a role, then having unobtrusive narration may allow the story to shine, and this also may account for third limited's relative popularity.

I think that analysis might be a tad too cynical.

I have had some long conversations with very successful genre fiction writers about point of view. From them I would suggest that the reason for the dominance of third limited amongst current publications is that it is the best way to bring readers two things that people currently believe are very important in good fiction:

1) a feeling to close attachment to the protagonist and other characters; and

2) some flexibility with allowing the reader to see events that will impact the plot that the protagonist would not be aware of.

I would go far as to say that for the modern genre fiction writer, it looks to me that third limited is the default choice unless there is a clear indicia that the story is best served by some other pov choice.

 

[Chessie]

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

Oh, no. Russ. How can I possibly change your mind about this? Let's see...

...

...

Without the author there is no story. None. Zero. A well done piece of fiction is a balance of author, character, plot, setting, the whole kitchen sink. The author's voice must be present otherwise how else is the story created? Author works behind the scenes, drives and manipulates the story with their own distinct way of weaving. Authorial intrustion in the "you", that's one thing. Having your voice present is another.

I'm currently reading Entreat Me by Grace Draven. She is probably my new favorite author atm. Her voice is strong yet subtle, sensual, a bit raw, and very noticeable. The characters are their own people but SHE is still there. And I love that. Tell me a story! Narrate to me! It's why I read books and why I love writing. Whisk me away! But when an author's voice isn't there...I'm putting that baby back on the shelf.

 

[Russ]

Oh, no. Russ. How can I possibly change your mind about this? Let's see....

I think we probably actually agree on this. I think an author should have a unique narrative tone or style and express it fully. But the "voices" in the book should be those of the characters. See my post #23 above.

 

[Chessie]

@Nimue: If you're finding poorly written Indie fiction allow me to direct you to authors that are actually worth your dollars. Grace Draven writes what you and I both enjoy, so I highly recommend her for starters. I know that not all Indie is written well but not all trade is written well either. But there are some really good books put out there by Indies. The best place to go is Amazon...and seriously it will change your literature reading life. I was skeptical about reading Indie until I discovered Lindsey Buroker's fantasy books. She is also very good (her Flash Gold Steampunk series is thumbs up).

And regarding pulp like Malik has been talking about: it's written fast. A lot of sacrifices are made to push books off the e-press in a month. While I respect those writers and believe that it's indeed possible for them to publish good books in a short amount of time, there are sacrifices made such as descriptions and worldbuilding but what does that really matter? I read a lot of Indie books, some are lame but satisfy my needs as a reader. I think it just takes a lot of practice to be that kind of author but it's doable.

 

[FifthView]

I think that analysis might be a tad too cynical.

I have had some long conversations with very successful genre fiction writers about point of view. From them I would suggest that the reason for the dominance of third limited amongst current publications is that it is the best way to bring readers two things that people currently believe are very important in good fiction:

1) a feeling to close attachment to the protagonist and other characters; and

2) some flexibility with allowing the reader to see events that will impact the plot that the protagonist would not be aware of.

I would go far as to say that for the modern genre fiction writer, it looks to me that third limited is the default choice unless there is a clear indicia that the story is best served by some other pov choice.

Ah, I don't know if cynicism is the right objection. I do think it ignores the strengths of third limited, however, and your #1 is a good one. But again, sucking that reader in so that the reader becomes a part of the story—identifies with the protagonist and experiences the story with the protagonist—might be "easier" when you also have the benefit of free indirect speech and a direct pipeline to a character's thoughts, feelings, impressions.

Then again, those things can be achieved in third omniscient as well. I confess that one of my favorite aspects of Dune was the frequent delivery of direct character thoughts, in italics. In fact, I think that almost everything that third limited can do, third omniscient can also do. I suppose the question would be in whether and to what degree the narration is limited, and what effect this has.