How much does voice matter to you?

[Malik]

To true. I feel sometimes like I have a terrible education in voice, because it's almost non-existent in most of the books I read. I sometimes think it's actually me and I just have a terrible time recognizing and understanding what voice even is, but then there's the rare author that does feel different, even if I can't quite pinpoint why.

Done well, voice is invisible, which makes it one of the hardest things to learn and pretty much the last thing that any author masters. The best way to grok voice is to read voraciously, hundreds if not thousands of books over years and years, while looking for it. It helps if you have a formal education in writing; it's not remotely necessary, but it will speed things up a little.

 

[FifthView]

Authorial voice is impossible to remove, although depending on the writing it can be more or less obvious to a reader. (In both, good and bad varieties.)

For me the question is whether writers should consciously develop habits that will produce a particular authorial voice. Do I put on a "face," and which face do I choose? These questions aren't so easily answered, at least not for me.

 

[Peat]

Personally, I try not to judge voice quickly. Much of human taste is based on what we're used to... so, encountering something different or unique can take time to get used to, for me. That's different from bad grammar and hideous writing, that can be immediate. And maybe terrible voice can be judged instantly, heh heh. Most books I encounter are relatively "voiceless" or more accurately, just bland voiced. This goes for big pub best sellers as well as the indie-author work out there. Heck, some days I might take reading bad voice over the vanilla out there, LOL.

Of course, anything can be judged instantly, the judgement just might be wrong.

For instance, I will not name the book... but the writing felt ordinary, good enough, maybe... but the opening was an orc in a whorehouse. Judgment made! I'm done. LOL. It could be a good book! But the odds of it being for me felt real slim.

How often would you say your initial thoughts on the voice of a book and what it would mean for your enjoyment are wrong?

 

[Malik]

Authorial voice is impossible to remove, although depending on the writing it can be more or less obvious to a reader. (In both, good and bad varieties.)

For me the question is whether writers should consciously develop habits that will produce a particular authorial voice. Do I put on a "face," and which face do I choose? These questions aren't so easily answered, at least not for me.

In close third, you're putting on the face of a different character in each scene. This is where a lot of fledgling authors fall flat; a sure sign that a writer doesn't have the chops yet is when there's no delineation in character voice in close third. The reader should be able to tell whose POV a scene is written from just by word choice, rhythm, and observations.

If you're writing in omniscient third, then you have to put on a different face, that of your narrator. Your narrator is an additional character, who knows the story and is telling it to the reader. When writing in omniscient, narrative voice is often what makes or breaks a book for the reader. The reader has to like the narrator enough to spend several hours listening to them.

 

[Wiglaf]

Well, many thanks to ol’Steerpike for throwing out this little nugget. I’ve been mulling over the question of writers and voices for much of the last week now, and at the risk of p*****g everyone off, my personal conclusion appears to be that, though there are areas of fiction where a strong, distinctive voice is clearly a positive advantage, when it comes to fantasy and sci-fi, it’s not something I’m particularly bothered about.

That’s not to say there aren’t writers in our genres whose work isn’t clearly recognisable. Pretty much any random paragraph of William Gibson or Terry Pratchett immediately identifies the author by the way those guys use language. But many of my favourite genre writers (and please ignore the pun here) seem fairly generic in comparison: Ursula K. le Guin, David Zindell, even the great Michael Moorcock, and J.R.R.T. himself … though they are (or were) fantastic, world-building storytellers, I wouldn’t say the most strikingly individual thing about any of their works was ‘voice.’

Stepping away from fantasy and sci-fi for a (not so comfortable) moment, the idea of ‘voice’ sets me off thinking about writers like Irving Welsh, Roddy Doyle or Kurt Vonnegut. They all have really clear, and very individual writing voices, but though Vonnegut was something of a crossover character, they’re not best known as ‘genre’ writers. They fit more comfortably into the ‘literary fiction’ bracket. And that’s where, for me, ‘voice’ seems really important.

If, as a writer, one of your principal concerns is to create a world as close to the inconstant, smelly, humdrum wonder of daily life as possible, then it helps if the voice painting the picture is an authentic part of that world. In Trainspotting, when Renton says, “Choose a life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a f*****g big television …” to my mind, the use of those short, jabbing sentences, and the totally gratuitous f-word draw us in as much as anything in the story – it’s great writing!

But could Irving Welsh write The Dancers at the End of Time, or Neverness?

I think he’d struggle.

In Moorcock and Zindell’s work, it’s not the voice I’m interested in. I don’t want to be pulled down to gritty, smelly reality when I read their books. I want to soar off to incredible worlds, far from the mundane banality of everyday life. And for that, I don’t think you need a particularly distinctive voice. You need style and technique, sure, all the things that come up in those ‘Top Tips for Writers’ - a good plot; snappy dialogue; a great opening paragraph … you know the stuff. But it seems to me you can do all that without fretting too much about ‘voice.’

I don’t think a writer is ever completely invisible in any piece of work. But there are some who push themselves to the fore (and that’s fine), whilst others remind me more of the drums and bass in old bands like AC/DC. They sit back, holding it all together, not drawing too much attention to themselves, just giving the story what it needs to be sure everyone has a good time.

At the moment I’m reading Patrick Rothfuss’ The name of the Wind, and it’s FAB! Great world-building, perfect pace, gripping story - best bit of new fantasy I’ve read in a good while. A lot of it’s written in the first person, but instead of a third party narrator, it’s one of the main characters that’s speaking, and that works a treat. It’s like Rothfuss is playing the part of Kvoth the innkeeper - as much an actor as a writer. I’m really impressed. Am I hearing his voice in the text? I don’t know. And I don’t care either. As long as Kvoth’s voice is clear and stays true to the role right through to the end, I’ll be happy with that.

So, when it comes to my own writing, if I want things to be prosaic and down-to-earth (maybe a bit smelly), I’ll put a lot of work into ‘voice.’ But if I want to take readers off to the Days of Darkness in old Darinor to tell the tale of Shanor’s near-death struggle at the Battle of Ankharam … it’s not something I’m going to get too wound up about.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I tend to get “used” to a different voice in about 100 pages, but there is no real way to quantify this as a percentage of when I’m wrong. It’s difficult enough to quantify what voice is, LOL. My most obvious example of first impressions being wrong is McCarthy. If I’d walked into store and randomly grabbed one of his books, I’d probably have set it down and moved on. But since a friend gave me a copy, I read enough to get used to his style and voice.

How often would you say your initial thoughts on the voice of a book and what it would mean for your enjoyment are wrong?

 

[Steerpike]

For me the question is whether writers should consciously develop habits that will produce a particular authorial voice. Do I put on a "face," and which face do I choose? These questions aren't so easily answered, at least not for me.

Some writers certainly make a deliberate change from work to work. See Dan Simmons, for example.

 

[FifthView]

In close third, you're putting on the face of a different character in each scene. This is where a lot of fledgling authors fall flat; a sure sign that a writer doesn't have the chops yet is when there's no delineation in character voice in close third. The reader should be able to tell whose POV a scene is written from just by word choice, rhythm, and observations.

If you're writing in omniscient third, then you have to put on a different face, that of your narrator. Your narrator is an additional character, who knows the story and is telling it to the reader. When writing in omniscient, narrative voice is often what makes or breaks a book for the reader. The reader has to like the narrator enough to spend several hours listening to them.

I distinguish between character voice, narrator voice, and author voice. My comment was directed toward the issue of author voice, not the other two.

Incidentally, my habit is to think of the narrator as a character; this is true whether the narrative is close third, omniscient third, or first person. So I tend to see one as a subset of the other. It's just that the narrator is a different kind of character.

 

[Steerpike]

Done well, voice is invisible, which makes it one of the hardest things to learn and pretty much the last thing that any author masters.

I don't agree. Many of my favorites, voice is distinctive and recognizable, and one of the things I love best about the work. Assuming we're talking about the same thing.

 

[Steerpike]

I distinguish between character voice, narrator voice, and author voice. My comment was directed toward the issue of author voice, not the other two.

I think they can be three different things, though depending on the work I think two or more of these can merge. For example, in a first person narrative the POV character voice and narrator voice merge.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Professional writer voice could be another description of what is seen so often. Too many people see this as the end goal of writing voice, rather than a stage, heh heh.

I think one way to study voice as an author is to study dialogue in screenwriting, if you study voice at the micro level, it might help at the macro.

It’s kind of fascinating really when looking at my own stuff, seeing as I know it best. I started a 1960’s gangster novel set in the midwest, utilizing some little known history around Omaha, NE. I distinctly use some different writing style, and language patterns, just like I did when writing a western in a screenplay... is that voice, or are the deeper underlying patterns that are still recognizable as “me” my voice? Or both?

In writing Eve of Snows, I had a chapter written from a young girl’s POV and when my editor hit that chapter I got an email... “What the hell are you doing here?” I was changing the narrative intimate 3rd voice to mirror the girl, and my editor nixed that. How much I changed jarred her from the narrative, and she convinced me quickly not to do that, LOL.

To true. I feel sometimes like I have a terrible education in voice, because it's almost non-existent in most of the books I read. I sometimes think it's actually me and I just have a terrible time recognizing and understanding what voice even is, but then there's the rare author that does feel different, even if I can't quite pinpoint why.
The whole thing stresses me out a little, because voice is one of those things people say will just happen on its own, but that doesn't seem to be the case for most of the writers I'm reading.
Oh well. I'm not sure more examples would even help that much, since voice is supposed to be different for every single writer. But I still wish there were more out there, if only so I could get a better picture of what it even is.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Voice being invisible would need defined.

Voice shouldn’t jar the reader from their experience, just like the grammar, sentence structure, etc, shouldn’t. Is that being invisible?

Writing in generic pro writing voice can alsl be invisible, is that invisible voice?

Is being invisible when the reader is sucked into the voice and reads along with the unique rhythms and word choices? That’s the invisible I want, but it’s not actually invisible.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Intimate third is a blend between character and narrative voice, heavy on the narrative. I discovered quickly in edit that when I changed voice too much toward character, it fiddled with peple’s heads... in particular my editor’s. I don’t think word choice and rhythm are the key here, it’s the mind set and observations, a clear persepctive shift, what they know and don’t know, and how they react. Consistent perepective is also key, and that is where a lot of intimate 3rd falls apart. If you went too far into character voice, you’d get too damned close to a multi-first-person POV novel, which is going to be a mess once beyond two POV.

If we look at ASoIaF, and we accept up front that Martin has the chops for multi-POV in close/intimate third, how much does he really change? I think there’s a clue right up front: Every chapter leads with the name of the POV character. Right off the bat he’s seeding reader expectation. And what is recommended in multi-POV books? Using the POV character’s name up front, almost always in the first paragraph, to make sure people know who they’re reading. Throughout Game of Thrones, Martin’s voice is Martin’s voice. What differentiates the character’s is their perspective: Their hopes and fears, their emotional reactions to events, these are what define the characters, not so much any word choice or rhythm to the writing. Not to say there aren’t subtle shifts, but if I grabbed random bits of narrative from several places without names, I don’t think the writer’s voice alone would tell you whose perspective its written from.

Silence of the Lambs is another good one for characters. When going into Buffalo Bill’s head, it isn’t so much Harris’ voice that changes, it’s the twisted perspective that lends a chill to the reader’s spine. Harris’ voice is still Harris’ voice. Harris does have an advtange over GRRM here, in that he’s dealing with way fewer POVs to delineate, heh heh.

In close third, you're putting on the face of a different character in each scene. This is where a lot of fledgling authors fall flat; a sure sign that a writer doesn't have the chops yet is when there's no delineation in character voice in close third. The reader should be able to tell whose POV a scene is written from just by word choice, rhythm, and observations.

If you're writing in omniscient third, then you have to put on a different face, that of your narrator. Your narrator is an additional character, who knows the story and is telling it to the reader. When writing in omniscient, narrative voice is often what makes or breaks a book for the reader. The reader has to like the narrator enough to spend several hours listening to them.

 

[Chessie2]

An author can be grammatically correct but still lack voice. How do you then help this author? I have no idea. Voice is probably the last skill we develop fully as writers. It'll continue to grow throughout the course of our writing lives. To me, there is nothing sadder than reading a book without voice. Perfect grammar. Everything tidy. No soul. Eff that.

 

[Chessie2]

Done well, voice is invisible, which makes it one of the hardest things to learn and pretty much the last thing that any author masters. The best way to grok voice is to read voraciously, hundreds if not thousands of books over years and years, while looking for it. It helps if you have a formal education in writing; it's not remotely necessary, but it will speed things up a little.

I respect your vp Malik, but disagree that voice should be invisible. I think it should be loud and clear, well honed, and recognizable. Voice = the walls that hold the house of story together. It's strength in craft and commands respect. Voice aids in immersion for the reader. If it's invisible then writing rules are speaking, not the author. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

It's always funny how people are different, I can't stand Name of the Wind. It bores me to death and his framing of the narrative assists in making my eyes roll back into my head for a good nap. My reaction is bad enough I won't touch another Rothfuss book. I would also say Tolkien has a distinctive voice. It's a classic 3rd omniscient narrator, but with story-teller ticks that make him different than most everything out there. But he has been so copied over the years that it might not seem as distinctive. But, there is nothing "pro writer voice" about Tolkien, he is pure storyteller.

To be blunt, there are damned near zero authors I would recognize purely by their voice. I'd be guessing if not for content, I suspect. Other people certainly can... because I've experienced it. I submitted a chapter to a critique site many years ago, then as the story moved on over the next several years, I submitted another unrelated chapter after not being there for those years, and some lady who didn't remember my name or anything else, pegged that I had written this other piece years earlier. That blew my mind. My brain doesn't work that way, LOL. In one eye, out the other, I guess.

Well, many thanks to ol’Steerpike for throwing out this little nugget. I’ve been mulling over the question of writers and voices for much of the last week now, and at the risk of p*****g everyone off, my personal conclusion appears to be that, though there are areas of fiction where a strong, distinctive voice is clearly a positive advantage, when it comes to fantasy and sci-fi, it’s not something I’m particularly bothered about.

That’s not to say there aren’t writers in our genres whose work isn’t clearly recognisable. Pretty much any random paragraph of William Gibson or Terry Pratchett immediately identifies the author by the way those guys use language. But many of my favourite genre writers (and please ignore the pun here) seem fairly generic in comparison: Ursula K. le Guin, David Zindell, even the great Michael Moorcock, and J.R.R.T. himself … though they are (or were) fantastic, world-building storytellers, I wouldn’t say the most strikingly individual thing about any of their works was ‘voice.’

Stepping away from fantasy and sci-fi for a (not so comfortable) moment, the idea of ‘voice’ sets me off thinking about writers like Irving Welsh, Roddy Doyle or Kurt Vonnegut. They all have really clear, and very individual writing voices, but though Vonnegut was something of a crossover character, they’re not best known as ‘genre’ writers. They fit more comfortably into the ‘literary fiction’ bracket. And that’s where, for me, ‘voice’ seems really important.

If, as a writer, one of your principal concerns is to create a world as close to the inconstant, smelly, humdrum wonder of daily life as possible, then it helps if the voice painting the picture is an authentic part of that world. In Trainspotting, when Renton says, “Choose a life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a f*****g big television …” to my mind, the use of those short, jabbing sentences, and the totally gratuitous f-word draw us in as much as anything in the story – it’s great writing!

But could Irving Welsh write The Dancers at the End of Time, or Neverness?

I think he’d struggle.

In Moorcock and Zindell’s work, it’s not the voice I’m interested in. I don’t want to be pulled down to gritty, smelly reality when I read their books. I want to soar off to incredible worlds, far from the mundane banality of everyday life. And for that, I don’t think you need a particularly distinctive voice. You need style and technique, sure, all the things that come up in those ‘Top Tips for Writers’ - a good plot; snappy dialogue; a great opening paragraph … you know the stuff. But it seems to me you can do all that without fretting too much about ‘voice.’

I don’t think a writer is ever completely invisible in any piece of work. But there are some who push themselves to the fore (and that’s fine), whilst others remind me more of the drums and bass in old bands like AC/DC. They sit back, holding it all together, not drawing too much attention to themselves, just giving the story what it needs to be sure everyone has a good time.

At the moment I’m reading Patrick Rothfuss’ The name of the Wind, and it’s FAB! Great world-building, perfect pace, gripping story - best bit of new fantasy I’ve read in a good while. A lot of it’s written in the first person, but instead of a third party narrator, it’s one of the main characters that’s speaking, and that works a treat. It’s like Rothfuss is playing the part of Kvoth the innkeeper - as much an actor as a writer. I’m really impressed. Am I hearing his voice in the text? I don’t know. And I don’t care either. As long as Kvoth’s voice is clear and stays true to the role right through to the end, I’ll be happy with that.

So, when it comes to my own writing, if I want things to be prosaic and down-to-earth (maybe a bit smelly), I’ll put a lot of work into ‘voice.’ But if I want to take readers off to the Days of Darkness in old Darinor to tell the tale of Shanor’s near-death struggle at the Battle of Ankharam … it’s not something I’m going to get too wound up about.

 

[FifthView]

I like the old Writing Excuses episode that explored the issue of author voice: Writing Excuses Episode 35: Voice, Tone and Style

It's not comprehensive, but it points at something I find to be important. Author voice, unlike character or narrator voice, can seem rather subtle to a reader, might even be "invisible" — but, not invisible, heh. Too many different variables play into author voice, everything from grammar usage to various ratios like sentence lengths, paragraph lengths, description-to-dialogue ratios...and more, plus habits of word choice, methods of structuring everything from sentences to chapters to the overall plot...on and on the list of factors goes. Recurring themes, a habit of focus that notices, say, food but not flora and fauna, etc.

These things might carry over from book to book even when the character voices and omniscient storyteller voices are different from book to book for any given author. I do find I am drawn to certain things more than other things, vis-a-vis author voice, and am likely to stick with an author I enjoy even when the cast of characters and plots are different.

Even the methods of showing character voices in intimate third approaches, or the methods of developing the storyteller voices, might be mostly the same even if those character and narrator voices come across as very different people from book to book. Author voice can still "show through."

I understand the idea of making the author appear invisible. To some extent, this author "voice" is not like those other types of voice. In an essay form of writing, the author might show through very well; the author's personality, history, perspective. Nietzsche, Emerson, Montaigne, Auden are some of my favorites. But in narrative fiction, this is rare—not that it never happens. Still, aspects of the author leak through, even if they aren't identified by the reader.

The podcasters of Writing Excuses say it's generally best not to worry overmuch about developing author voice; it'll happen naturally. But on the other hand, these early decisions about how to write a scene, a paragraph, a sentence, etc., really do present issues for the beginning author. They're the fundamental aspects of writing a story, so coming to terms with them seems to me to be an important step in the process of becoming a writer of fiction.

 

[Peat]

I tend to get “used” to a different voice in about 100 pages, but there is no real way to quantify this as a percentage of when I’m wrong. It’s difficult enough to quantify what voice is, LOL. My most obvious example of first impressions being wrong is McCarthy. If I’d walked into store and randomly grabbed one of his books, I’d probably have set it down and moved on. But since a friend gave me a copy, I read enough to get used to his style and voice.

Yeah, I'd say 100 pages - well, somewhere between 50 and 100 - is where I settle into a voice I don't like. But the thing is, even when the voice stops annoying me, I rarely like the book anyway. Maybe if I tried pushing through more voices I don't like to begin with that'd changed... maybe I'd hate more books!

But then,I have a very all encompassing definition of voice. I notice a lot of different definitions here but for me, it's basically everything about how the author chooses to write the story. You talk about the mind set and the observations and I think that's key to how I see it. Its very hard to enjoy a story when the other guy has a very different sense of what's cool to you. Sure, some people have what feels like a very stilted sense of describing things to me and that kills my interest in a book... but nothing like the cool.

And, personally, that can never be invisible, unless we mean by invisible that the reader is so engrossed that they never question the author's choices or decisions at all.

 

[skip.knox]

Here are two, very different examples of voice: highlG.K. Chesterton and James S.A. Corey.

Chesterton was a Catholic and an old-school British conservative. His Father Brown mysteries are masterpieces of the form. The narrative voice is always gentle, always matter-of-fact when dealing with grisly details, and never misses a chance to needle the liberals and the atheists. Father Brown always proves to be at least a shade more perceptive than they, and two shades more moral.

The voice might simply be Chesterton the man. Having read other novels by him, and a bit of his non-fiction, I'd say there's an element of that. There's more to Father Brown's occasional remonstrance or homily than just a character taking a stance. Chesterton's true beliefs can be found on every page. That said, it's also clear that he adjusted his voice to the story, or at least to the genre (which he was helping to invent). IOW, with Chesterton I'd say that his voice is clear but he also was enough of a writer to know how to modulate it.

James S.A. Corey is the author of the series of books called The Expanse. I'm reading the first volume now and really enjoying it. Some of the best SF I've read in years, and the voice is very strong. It's old-school detective voice--weary, cynical, but with an unshakable moral core. It comes out in the quick wit, sarcasm, and small bits of near-poetry that reminds is there's more to life than the body count. The narrator's voice fits in perfectly with the dialog of the characters, though Corey is smart enough never to draw so far back that it's the narrator passing judgments. It's always the characters.

Except that he isn't smart enough because Corey isn't a he. Corey is a they.

Corey is a Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck collaboration. Obviously highly successful. If we take the common position that voice is in some way the expression of the author as a unique individual, what does a writing partnership do to this discussion of voice? Do we assume that Abraham and Franck are so alike that they just naturally express themselves in the same voice? That seems a stretch. I dunno, maybe one only does plotting while the other does all the actual writing, but there are other writing partnerships where both wrote. But then I think about those goofy projects where different famous writers all try to tell a common story. This never works out and voice has a lot to do with that. Too many voices spoil the tale.

I offer all this by way of saying, voice does matter and I don't have a good grasp as to how or why.

There you go.

 

[Wiglaf]

It's always funny how people are different, I can't stand Name of the Wind. It bores me to death and his framing of the narrative assists in making my eyes roll back into my head for a good nap. My reaction is bad enough I won't touch another Rothfuss book. I would also say Tolkien has a distinctive voice. It's a classic 3rd omniscient narrator, but with story-teller ticks that make him different than most everything out there. But he has been so copied over the years that it might not seem as distinctive. But, there is nothing "pro writer voice" about Tolkien, he is pure storyteller.

To be blunt, there are damned near zero authors I would recognize purely by their voice. I'd be guessing if not for content, I suspect. Other people certainly can... because I've experienced it. I submitted a chapter to a critique site many years ago, then as the story moved on over the next several years, I submitted another unrelated chapter after not being there for those years, and some lady who didn't remember my name or anything else, pegged that I had written this other piece years earlier. That blew my mind. My brain doesn't work that way, LOL. In one eye, out the other, I guess.

All points clearly made and understood, Demesnedenoir – it surely is funny how people are different! Shame The Name of the Wind didn’t do it for you. But hey – that’s OK. It’s a big world. We can’t all be into the same stuff, can we? And please don’t think I mean any disrespect to Tolkien. The influence that gentleman has had on my life over the past forty years has been HUGE. The word ‘fan’ goes nowhere near expressing the esteem I have for him as a creator, writer and all-round top-class bloke.

I dunno … I seem to be out of step with pretty much everyone else on this thread. But still, as far as I see it, narrative voice of one kind or another is an inevitable consequence of the writing process – everyone who writes develops one by default. It’s not something we’re all obliged to make a song and dance about. I don’t see anything wrong in working toward a neutral, or generic, storyteller’s tone and just writing a good tale for its own sake without worrying about how individual or revelatory of the author’s character the style may be.

What’s more important to our readers? The story, or insights into the personality of the writer? For me, in sci-fi and fantasy at least, the story comes first (most of the time).

Incidentally, if Rothfuss sends you to sleep, who are the contemporary fantasy writers you think are worth getting excited about?