Developing a distinct character voice?

[Demesnedenoir]

As to character voice... there are plenty of choices that can be made. In an Epic I'm working on, you will find differences of terminology. Little things in word choice, outside grammar, such as the narrative and dialogue voices of religious people referring to a collection of religious figures of differing ranks as "adherents" while the Clan POV will call them "holies". The 90 year old scholar isn't of a mind to consider bopping people on the head, but the 9 year old is good with that. The narrative voice of young scholar who grew up in a village might say "I didn't see no cattle" while getting mocked by her peers, while the Clan warriors might speak this way most all the time and mock those with a scholarly air. A lighter more buoyant narrative for a seventeen year-old girl high on her trying to solve a mystery despite the fact she could die any moment, and a more stern, get the job done narrative (with flashes of unspoken irreverence) for the son of a clan Chieftain.

Trying to mash-up the POV with the narrative voice is both challenging and fun. Dialogue is a related bird, but in some ways easier to hit than the snipe which is the POV-narrative mash. If determined, all one needs to do is highlight every character's dialogue in a rewrite phase (preferably very near the end) and make sure character speech patterns and word usage are as strict as you want. This is done in screenwriting a lot, where it's super easy since every dialogue has a tag.

One area where 3rd Om is easier than a multi-POV limited (I separate 3rd into Limited and Intimate) is that there is only one narrative voice in the 3rd Om. From there, it's all about dialogue and consistent actions. In a multi-POV 3rd Limited, a person can go all kinds of crazy tweaking that narrator-POV blend for every POV.

 

[Reaver]

And yet, the approach you choose can make a large difference in the story you end up writing.

Are these choices irrelevant? Does the type of story you want to tell matter when choosing a narrative approach?

I agree with you FV, but I don't think that's the point Skip is trying to make. If I'm not mistaken, I think the point is that the author needs to focus more on the act of writing and not fret over how it gets done. The important thing is that your narrative voice, no matter what style it is, is heard by the masses and makes an impact, even if in a small way, in the reader's life.

 

[skip.knox]

I'm with you on that, Heliotrope. This may or may not contradict what I said earlier, but contradictions do not frighten me, and anyway hobgoblins dine on consistency. I had any number of runs at my first novelette, The Garden of Hugo Vuerloz, all in third person. But then, one day, for no reason I can recall, I wrote this:

The elf was dead by the time I found him. His throat had been cut and he had bled out in an alley between narrow shops and run-down warehouses. I looked around in case the killer was still nearby, but I couldn't see very far in the darkness.

And that was that. It gave me tone and approach, and there was no way the story was not going to be first person. What wasn't working for me suddenly worked. Like you, I had not wanted to write in first person. Doing so made me toss out weeks of writing. But there it was. That was the voice and there was no sense trying to go in another direction. Here's hoping that's how it goes for you, too.

 

[Chessie]

^^^^ see, this is interesting to me, because I feel like it does, but in the same vein the story often comes to me in a specific voice. My current wip comes to me in first person no matter how hard I try to force it to be third omni. I really want it to be third omni, which is where I'm most comfortable, but this particular story just feels better in first.

I think a lot has to do with tone and mood as well.

* edit: dem snuck in there while I was responding to fifthview... Sneaky dem

You're also writing for middle grade so first is more than appropriate.

Honestly, some of my favorite books are written in omni. Gone With The Wind, anyone? The Hunchback Of Notre Dame? And Then There Were None? Oh, I could keep going. If omni was something I did well, I would totally go for it. I've tried and totally suck. Going to stick with 3rd for now but this conversation has provided the gift of insight. Have I reeeeally tried to practice getting better at omni? No. I sort of just gave up after a while but it might be time to revisit it.

 

[FifthView]

I agree with many of the observations made in the last couple of pages, so quoting from everyone and responding individually would be messy and complex.

I do think Heliotrope hit the mark when she agreed with me about the importance of matching narrative voice with story (why, of course I agreed!) and also said that the decision a) often comes via some intuitional route rather than as a purely conscious decision and b) has a lot to do with tone and mood.

I also think that having a firmer understanding of the possibilities might help when making those decisions. I asked Skip the question for that reason; I'm not terribly fond of the idea that contemplating these things is a waste of time. (I always have a knee-jerk reaction against comments which seem to shut down a conversation while simultaneously invalidating what has already come during the conversation—when I think a conversation is valuable.) However, perhaps the great variety of approaches combined with the tonal/mood aspects makes a purely conscious decision nearly impossible, given also the great variety of potential story "types" you are trying to match to those varied approaches.

I don't mean only traditional genre/subgenre "types." That would be too simplistic. I think the latest season of Writing Excuses, which focuses on the way different "Elemental Genres" can influence the telling of a story, drives home the point that any basic story idea can take so many routes depending on the way you tell it. (Basic idea: Take your traditional genres, like mystery or humor or romance, etc., and mix-&-match some of their elemental techniques in a story you are writing so that you benefit from a sort of cross-genre approach.)

Another area that clutters the decision making process: For each of the broad POV narrative strategies, there are multiple approaches. Heliotrope mentioned first-person omniscient—it's different than other 1st-person approaches. For 3rd omni, there are different approaches, so that one novel in 3rd omni may be quite different than another novel in 3rd omni. 3rd limited? Demesnedenoir brought up again a distinction between Limited and Intimate; we've talked about that before, but in my headlong rush to discuss the topic in general in this thread, I elided. Then when you consider the differences between subjective, objective, and omniscient narration....more complexity.

Even so, I do believe that expanding our understanding of the possibilities can only help our intuition when it comes time to write, hit delete-delete-delete, and rewrite.

 

[Russ]

To each their own, I guess. But, first person *does* do different things, highlight different strengths, accomplish different goals...

If anything done in one POV can be done just as easily in any other, why is there any debate about which is best? Why do writers have preferences?

I think there are differences between POV techniques, and like tools there are different tools for different jobs.

I just disagree with your conclusion that third person limited removes more intimacy than third person limited.

POV choice is very important. First person is a tricky way of writing adult fiction where the plot is at all complex. There is a time and a place for it but it is a hard technique to do well.

 

[Heliotrope]

Thanks, Fifthveiw,

I think it is important to discuss and study these tools as well, as more tools in the toolbox is always a good thing.

I also think this is why the old adage from every single professional author to "read, read, read, read" is so important. I posted in chit-chat last night that WP Kinsella, who wrote Shoeless Joe (which became Feild of Dreams) lived in my hometown. A few months ago he came to speak at our little public library. After his time I shook his hand and asked him, what can you tell a new writer? One thing to help a new writer succeed... Yep, like everyone else he said

"Please take time to read. Read everything. Read old stuff and new stuff. Read the classics and the Nobel prize winners, but also read the genre you find at the checkout at the grocery story. Read magazines and read children's books. Read everything."

And I think that is so true. Because when you do that it really opens your eyes to the potential of every possible tool.

I love how Chesterama noticed that many of her favorite books are written in omni, but she has never tried to write that way? Why? Because she is told it isn't in fashion anymore? Because that is not how modern fantasy is written? I'm not sure her reasoning, but I would encourage her to try it.

I would encourage any author to try any tool that helps them get their story across better.

Margaret Atwood has a story called "The Blind Assassin" that has one narrative in past tense, one narrative in present tense, and one narrative as chapters in a pulp sci-fi that one of the characters is writing, with a bunch of news articles and funeral home programs thrown in for good measure.

Please don't limit yourselves.

 

[FifthView]

@Helio:

Way back on page 5, the thread's OP cydare made a comment that bubbled up to the top for me:

Personally, I've never had a preference as a reader when it came to first vs third, or close vs omniscient. Each serves a different purpose and immerses me into the story in a slightly different way. In terms of writing: If I have a group of important characters who often interact, I like the freedom of omniscient. Characters with separate storylines that converge near the end (or when I want to keep a sense of mystery for some reason or another) - I go with close. I use first person for characters who live more in their minds, or have a particularly interesting voice.

Not only did I appreciate seeing how another writer makes these decisions—I recognized something in it.

Russ had already brought to my mind the question of 3rd limited's strength, so I'd had that percolating when cydare made that comment.

I haven't addressed the comment because...I didn't know how to do it without making some sort of absolutist comment about how a particular POV strategy is "best" when trying to write a particular story.

Nonetheless, the idea of creating a "sense of mystery" and writing "characters with separate storylines" does seem to influence my own decision with using 3rd limited. I've been wondering if the limitation inherent in 3rd limited might actually be a strength when trying to inject a story with a sense of mystery. Using that sort of tunnel vision means leaving so much of the rest of the world cloudy, distant, what-have-you. Plus, having characters on separate narrative tracks, and desiring to accentuate the separation—here, again, the idea of tone and mood—might mean 3rd limited would be something to consider seriously. (3rd omni might subliminally key the reader into the fact that these separate tracks are simply the narrator withholding information, because it's all tied together? Dunno.) ASOIAF might be a case in point when considering this use of 3rd limited. [Edit: But, once again, it's not as if I believe 3rd omni and 1st person narration can't have a sense of mystery. So once again I'm back at the...]

I suppose that trying to define, absolutely, what POV narration matches what story, for everyone, might be far less important than each author coming to a personal understanding of all the tools in the toolbox.

 

[Heliotrope]

Totally agree. I didn't mean "don't limit yourself" as in "Don't use a limited POV", I meant "don't limit yourself to only one style, saying oh, I only write in first, or I only write in third omni". I just wanted to make that clear. Don't limit yourself to only one style of tool.

And yes, I agree... understanding all the tools in the toolbox is very important and why I'm glad we have discussions like this on MS. Because maybe your story is best in first, or third, or maybe you find that the best way to tell your story is to have a combo of all of them. Why force yourself to write a prologue in third omni when a simple newspaper article would be more effective? Why force yourself to write in third omni if small interjections of first omni, directed to the reader would be more interesting?

I think my thing is just "be interesting." However you do that is up to you.

 

[FifthView]

Totally agree. I didn't mean "don't limit yourself" as in "Don't use a limited POV", I meant "don't limit yourself to only one style, saying oh, I only write in first, or I only write in third omni". I just wanted to make that clear. Don't limit yourself to only one style of tool.

Ah, I knew that, ha ha, I was going off on a little tangent because my earlier discussion with Russ has been troubling me. I.e., What are my own decision making processes, and am I missing something?

Part of the problem is that my current WIP, not a word yet written, keeps forcing the omni vs limited question in my head without a clear resolution.

 

[Heliotrope]

Ok, well if you'd like I'll share my experience?

So you have been with me since almost the beginning of Blackbeard probably a year ago? It started out as a historical fantasy, then quickly became an urban time travel fantasy. I started planning it in third omni, but when I sat down to write it came out in first person. I hated first person and wrote and re-wrote and re-wrote in third omni. But it didn't come. Whenever I sat down to write the words would start flowing in first. So now I'm just rolling with it, but it may change. Who knows? Maybe as I go along a chapter might be better in third from another perspective? I'll just have to finish the damn thing and see.

Fig Boy, a short that I wrote for top scribe just came out as a strange combo of third limited and third omni and since none of my beta readers complained I kept it like that.

But for Blackbeard I had a similar experience to Skip where suddenly this just popped out:

School was different that morning. The lobby of Martin Luther King Middle School was quieter than normal, but not a solemn quiet, more the knife edge quiet of fear. Too many questions to be asked. Too many imaginations creating terrible futures of war. Nobody knew what to say or what to do because nobody really understood what had actually happened. The teachers turned on the TV in the multipurpose room and watched the news while we students gathered in groups and pretended to understand.

There were a few kids who said stuff. A few loud mouths like Jacob Moncton who said his dad said they should just blow them all up. Every last one of them. That would solve that problem. And really, who could argue with Jacob Moncton’s dad? Maybe he was right. Maybe it would solve the problem, if any of us knew what the problem actually was in the first place.

And Bam. There it was. First person and no turning back.

 

[FifthView]

Yeah I've been thinking that I should just start writing it and see what happens. Part of the problem is that, I know, I don't 100% have the full story/tone/mood/goal(for myself) clear in mind. I have had a clearer idea–multiple of those–throughout the conceptualization phase, but then a new character recently popped in mind and that threw all the rest out of whack. Naturally, one could say that's a clear indication that maybe I should just nix that character. But he's really, really, really cool and came so clearly to mind, I'm more inclined to think the sudden inspiration is tied to sublimnal messages about how the novel really ought to be written.

Alas, this is one of the problems with relying entirely on intuition–for me at least.

 

[Heliotrope]

Yep, that happens to be too. I've written three drafts of my opening... Three seperate openings before I have finally found one I've settled on. I was missing something, a key element to tie it all together, but I didn't realize something was missing until I finally sat down to write it.

I would suggest just free writing and see what happens. My story opening now is pretty controversial. It is not the fluffy adventure story I had originally planned, but it feels right now to me, I on,y had to write the gunk out I think.

Also, please rely in intuition!!! Please allow that dark scary part of your brain to dictate your work. That is where the good stuff comes from. Listen to it and follow it. That's why I suggest free writing first, cleanse your subconscious. You may be happily surprised by what you find.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

To me, the strength of multi-POV limited is that it's a compromise between Om and a flat Limited/Intimate. The stories I tend to write need to be seen from multiple angles dramatically, but I also want the depth of each POV that isn't typically achieved with a narrative 3rd Om. Really, it's just a subjective 3rd Om viewed from one character at a time, anyhow. 3rd Lim can be as narrative as you like, and that's where it get fascinating. Two chapters from two different characters experiencing the exact same event carries a deeper connection than if you did a 3rd Om, typically. But there are a variety of Om techniques.

Ah, I knew that, ha ha, I was going off on a little tangent because my earlier discussion with Russ has been troubling me. I.e., What are my own decision making processes, and am I missing something?

Part of the problem is that my current WIP, not a word yet written, keeps forcing the omni vs limited question in my head without a clear resolution.

 

[Chessie]

@Heliotrope...actually...

Ok, you guys are probably going to think I'm pretty dumb but I have a confession to make. Last night, I read like 10 articles on omni vs 3rd limited. So it's been ages since I was in a creative writing class. I realized, while reading examples, that I actually DO write in omni most of the time. I mix it up with 3rd because I've been told that I do too much telling.

The reality is, that 3rd limited and omni are basically identical during dialogue and other bits of narrative. I'm grateful for this conversation because all of you have educated me, and it's given me a lot to think about. I love having my mind blown and that's what has happened for me. Hey...

Mini rant: I'm on the verge of quitting my crit group. They're nice people that mean well, but as with every other crit group either online or irl that I've participated in, I only get out of it that everyone wants me to write the way THEY feel comfortable. In thinking about this conversation and reading those articles, I realize the reason people either love or hate my writing is because I've been writing in omni all this time.

Please, don't laugh at me. I should've known the difference ages ago. But I do today thanks to all of you.

What comes naturally for me is telling...feelings, thoughts, context. My manuscript is getting slashed for "too much telling", "don't use the word felt SHOW it", "why the backstory?". ****. It's not backstory it's context. And the rest of it is the way I narrate a story. I'm thinking that I want to get better at this. I'm going to. One thing is that I don't head-hop. I stick with one pov per scene though, not per chapter. My povs aren't always organized, meaning you'll get small characters giving a big story picture on occasion. It's how I love to do this. And I've decided to just improve my skills.

Malik is right. I really don't like 3rd limited. I know many of you write this way and I respect that. But for me? Heck no. It's not my style.

 

[Russ]

Malik is right. I really don't like 3rd limited. I know many of you write this way and I respect that. But for me? Heck no. It's not my style.

I think each person should develop their own style and make the POV choice that will work best for what they are trying to achieve. The key is just that the choice should be an informed choice, at its highest a combination of reason and instinct.

To me threads like this help me with that choice. When someone discusses, (or even argues for or contra) different POV choices, my knowledge base to make that choice for myself gets better.

Sorry to hear your critique group is not going well. I have been in some good ones, and the thing the good ones had in common for me was that I really respected the members's skills or instinct, or both. Now I mostly just work with my wife (who is an absolutely savage and merciless editor) and a few close friends from time to time. Hope whatever you choose to do with your crit group works out for you.

 

[Chessie]

I'm pretty much done with critique groups now. This one was my last shot. I finally have an editor worth a darn so I'll be working with her and beta readers. Betas are way more helpful because they tend to be in my target audience vs other writers who can only see a manuscript by how they would write it. Nope. Done.

 

[Nimue]

In defense of third limited...Does this really need to be said? I'm not sure, but I don't agree with the idea that people choose third limited because they're going along with the current or they don't know better or they're just limiting themselves for no reason when omniscient would always be better/more fun/etc.

I write small stories that focus on the experiences and actions of one character--at most, two. I want to stay in their heads, to leave in the mystery and the tension of things they don't know, character motives that they can't explain. A story seems more fraught and dangerous to the lone POV when there is no reassurance or foreshadowing from the author, or even a balancing sense of the wider scope of the world. It also seems to me a very natural way to experience a story, bound to one mind walking through it.

Now, I don't think I adhere slavishly to the concept of "don't bring anything up if the character wouldn't see/think of it!". I dip into exposition and background when it might cross the character's mind, even if the level of detail and linearity is unlikely for their thoughts, and I describe things often with more poetry and lingering than would be completely realistic. That, I think, is built into POV as a literary conceit. No story is truly, absolutely blinkered to a character's vision unless we're talking stream-of-consciousness, here.

On the other hand, I enjoy that third-limited lets me feed hints and glimpses to the reader when the character cuts off a thought, or denies their own feelings, or simply doesn't want to go into detail.

I've dabbled in omniscient--and might thread omniscient into a third-limited story for a section where neither POV is fit to narrate (and when I want a little distance, like a fairy tale. Is it only me that finds omniscient distant?) I've written a couple things in first person, and find it remarkably close to third-person limited/subjective/whatever, but not my preferred state. Third-limited, as opposed to first, gives the sense of the character as separate from the reader, and the world as something that exists beyond the narrator's perception.

Hard to explain, and I'm not sure I've done it well, but I'm a stalwart fan of reading and writing in third limited for some pretty deeply-felt reasons.

 

[skip.knox]

>It's not backstory it's context.

Chesterama, I offer this as nothing any stronger than a suggestion for consideration. I have a kind of rule of thumb when dealing with critiques, particularly the ones that feel formulaic. Kill the adverbs! Too much backstory. Too much description, or too little, and so on.

Rather than saying, but those adverbs are needed, that's not backstory that's development, without that description we'd be in a white room. And so on. Instead, I reformulate (try to; sometimes I have to cool down first!) the comment into something like: this passage did not work for me.

That is, I try to start with the assumption that the reader is being honest and did not like a passage (or character or plot development). The words the reader chose to express that may not be on the right path. It might not have been the adverb at all. It might be that the backstory passage--the necessary context!--was not properly connected to the scene. So I look for ways *I* think that passage could be improved. I try to move it away from who's right and who's wrong; I try to shift from 'fix this' to 'improve this'.

Now, sometimes, the comment is knee-jerk. The reader is attuned to spotting adverbs and is going to jump on them every time. I can usually spot that sort and I just dismiss them out of hand. I have a beta reader who thinks every page of every chapter needs to proceed at breakneck speed, and every time I slow down she yells at me (the comment is "blah, blah, blah"). I know this is knee-jerk because I've read her stuff in turn, and I get frustrated because I never know why anyone does anything because they're too busy dashing about. So I have to take her comments with a filter. And, like you, I may have to walk away, if it becomes all filter and no value.

Anyway, I'm wandering off here. My suggestion is to at least begin with the assumption that the reader is complaining about *something* even if the specific criticism isn't really on target.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I'm going to share a family story, LOL. My grandma was famous for this line, "You might be right."

Whenever she worked on a project and when anyone made a suggestion, she would stop and think, and instead of arguing or disagreeing, she would just say, "You might be right." After which, she proceeded exactly as she planned to begin with, LOL. This is how to react to critiques. Always think about what they say, but look behind what they're actually saying. I almost never make changes to the story in the way critique people suggest, but if I see an issue propping up the critique, I will try to address it. Or, I'll just ignore it. And sometimes, even when I could ignore it, thinking about it opens my eyes to something else.

Recently Helio hit on something that is weird one for me, because we are in a sense both right, which involved reader expectation versus reality... in this case, reader expectation is (for a lot of people at least) not going to be reality, but because most readers don't know real vs movie, it didn't feel real to her (and likely many others). But the notion of working in magic so that movie vs reality no longer matters created the possibility to seed more culture/world history.

I will also note, I've stumbled on an editor who is really good at this. She raises questions that make you think without really "critiquing" in the usual sense... while at the same she's willing to whack you with a hammer when you need it, LOL.

>It's not backstory it's context.

Chesterama, I offer this as nothing any stronger than a suggestion for consideration. I have a kind of rule of thumb when dealing with critiques, particularly the ones that feel formulaic. Kill the adverbs! Too much backstory. Too much description, or too little, and so on.

Rather than saying, but those adverbs are needed, that's not backstory that's development, without that description we'd be in a white room. And so on. Instead, I reformulate (try to; sometimes I have to cool down first!) the comment into something like: this passage did not work for me.

That is, I try to start with the assumption that the reader is being honest and did not like a passage (or character or plot development). The words the reader chose to express that may not be on the right path. It might not have been the adverb at all. It might be that the backstory passage--the necessary context!--was not properly connected to the scene. So I look for ways *I* think that passage could be improved. I try to move it away from who's right and who's wrong; I try to shift from 'fix this' to 'improve this'.

Now, sometimes, the comment is knee-jerk. The reader is attuned to spotting adverbs and is going to jump on them every time. I can usually spot that sort and I just dismiss them out of hand. I have a beta reader who thinks every page of every chapter needs to proceed at breakneck speed, and every time I slow down she yells at me (the comment is "blah, blah, blah"). I know this is knee-jerk because I've read her stuff in turn, and I get frustrated because I never know why anyone does anything because they're too busy dashing about. So I have to take her comments with a filter. And, like you, I may have to walk away, if it becomes all filter and no value.

Anyway, I'm wandering off here. My suggestion is to at least begin with the assumption that the reader is complaining about *something* even if the specific criticism isn't really on target.