Voice? How and how much?

[teacup]

I do fully contend that, if the options are:

1. Blindly follow the rules.

Or

2. Go your own path completely and ignore the existence of the rules

That the beginner who follows option 1 is going to progress faster and produce better initial works than the person who follows option 2.

I'm sure it depends on the individuals, but generally, I would agree with this. I didn't know any writing rules or guidelines at all when I began. I just wrote, simple as that. I thought it sounded good, and so it must have been good. (I even used big words ;P)
Very soon after joining this forum I discovered all these rules, and realised my writing was terrible. So I followed the rules, and improved. Now I've learned to use them well, I would think, and my writing has improved a lot more because of this.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I put tension right after clarity. It seems to be the next biggest issue for beginners and is critically important.

Hmm . . . I generally write slow-paced stories with relatively low tension, so I didn't give much thought to this. On the one hand, properly using tension can be a bit complex--I think it's harder to learn than clarity or even flow. On the other, if it's something that ruins a lot of stories, it could be worth learning early.

(Does this belong in a separate thread?)

 

[BWFoster78]

I'm sure it depends on the individuals, but generally, I would agree with this. I didn't know any writing rules or guidelines at all when I began. I just wrote, simple as that. I thought it sounded good, and so it must have been good. (I even used big word ;P)
Very soon after joining this forum I discovered all these rules, and realised my writing was terrible. So I followed the rules, and improved. Now I've learned to use them well, I would think, and my writing has improved a lot more because of this.

Exactly my experience as well. I'm not sure where you are in your path, but mine progressed much like this:

1. Writing really bad stuff with no feedback and thinking it was good
2. Discovering through feedback that my writing was really, really bad
3. Learning all the rules
4. Following rules too blindly to the detriment of my writing
5. Gaining an understanding of the rules
6. Identifying specific problems with my writing and working hard to improve them

I'm looking forward to finding out what the next step will be...

 

[BWFoster78]

Hmm . . . I generally write slow-paced stories with relatively low tension, so I didn't give much thought to this. On the one hand, properly using tension can be a bit complex--I think it's harder to learn than clarity or even flow. On the other, if it's something that ruins a lot of stories, it could be worth learning early.

(Does this belong in a separate thread?)

Low tension is a valid choice. To my way of thinking, no tension isn't.

One thing I've realized is that utilizing high tension helps to mask lacks in other areas. My writing has a bunch of weaknesses, more than I'll be able get rid of fully for several years. I think that, in the interim, focusing on developing tension will seriously help make my novels readable. It seems a lot easier to find a market for high tension as it provides easy engagement for the reader.

 

[teacup]

Exactly my experience as well. I'm not sure where you are in your path, but mine progressed much like this:

1. Writing really bad stuff with no feedback and thinking it was good
2. Discovering through feedback that my writing was really, really bad
3. Learning all the rules
4. Following rules too blindly to the detriment of my writing
5. Gaining an understanding of the rules
6. Identifying specific problems with my writing and working hard to improve them

Same for me, I'd say.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Low tension is a valid choice. To my way of thinking, no tension isn't.

One thing I've realized is that utilizing high tension helps to mask lacks in other areas. My writing has a bunch of weaknesses, more than I'll be able get rid of fully for several years. I think that, in the interim, focusing on developing tension will seriously help make my novels readable. It seems a lot easier to find a market for high tension as it provides easy engagement for the reader.

Sounds kind of like what I did for emotion. I focused heavily on how to show what characters are feeling, in the hopes that readers would feel it too.

(This might also relate to what I write--emotion is very useful in erotica, and tension is often minimized.)

 

[Svrtnsse]

Just to return to an earlier part of the thread, regarding voice, I think that another description of voice could be the atmosphere created within a story. I'm thinking specifically of Neil Gaiman, or Stephen King, two authors you can spot a mile away. The atmosphere they create within their books is very distinctive, almost like an extra layer of... something, generally and frustratingly, undefinable, that marks the work as theirs.
This comes about, I think, through the choice of words they put one after the next, regardless of the level of description versus pacing. What I think I'm trying to say is that voice comes from every single word choice, and how they go together. Pacing, or lack thereof, is separate from this. I think
cheers

It's been very many years since I read anything by King so I don't remember much. I'm a big fan of Gaiman's style though. I think that, as you say, his voice is what comes through in the atmosphere of the book, but I probably couldn't explain it better than that.
My hunch is that voice/atmosphere etc comes from the little details that I, as a casual reader, don't think about. The choice and order of words probably has a lot to do with, but I think it's the consistence of those choices that create the overall effect and not the isolated instances.

As has been pointed out here and there in this thread though; voice is probably something that develops over time, whether you like it or not. I like to think I have a cool narrative voice, or that I'll develop one some day, but I think that for now, I'm probably better off just trying to figure out how to write something that someone else would enjoy reading. The voice will make itself heard sooner or later anyway.

 

[Svrtnsse]

1. Writing really bad stuff with no feedback and thinking it was good
2. Discovering through feedback that my writing was really, really bad
3. Learning all the rules
4. Following rules too blindly to the detriment of my writing
5. Gaining an understanding of the rules
6. Identifying specific problems with my writing and working hard to improve them

I'm on 3 and 5, carefully prodding 6 and trying to avoid getting trapped in 4.

 

[Devor]

To me, the way I understand it (and with only a few minutes to think about it)...
...the tightest writing is that in which anything but the absolute bare minimum needed to move the plot forward has been eliminated.

I think this is a hangup, actually: The thought that only plot develops. Or setting or characters.

The details can develop too.

Here's a line from a challenge entry I wrote about a nervous kid dressed as a vampire for halloween, waiting for the girl to trick or treat at his door:

Tedd stood a little embarrassed. An old black sheet spread down his back like a cape, and ketchup smears highlighted two small marker dots on his neck.

Here's a follow up line when he finally talks to her:

His neck felt cold and itched in the night breeze, and he rubbed it reflexively after tossing the candy into her bag. Andrea laughed at him. He had rubbed off the ketchup. His blood felt dry.

Sure, that's character development. But it comes from developing the details.

I'm of the mind that every time you successfully make a new connection between your story elements, you increase the story's power. And you can make those connections with the details, especially as they grow - I used this detail in an effort to help highlight the important moment of the story.

So I would argue that you create voice and maintain tightness by finding the right details, and then developing them to a point where they become relevant.

 

[Svrtnsse]

So I would argue that you create voice and maintain tightness by finding the right details, and then developing them to a point where they become relevant.

I was going to disagree with this. I was going to argue that voice is in what details you chose to develop. I was also going to argue that tightness is something more technical, something separate from voice. Content vs presentation if you will. Then I thought a bit more about it and remembered what I posted in post #67, about how the voice could be found in little details such as what words you chose and in what order.
...and now I'm not so sure anymore.

I can definitely see how what details you chose to develop is a consequence of your voice though. I'm on board with that. Just as I think voice resides in the details, I also think that in order for a voice to be heard it needs to be maintained consequently and contribute to the greater whole (I'm a firm believe in that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (except maybe in mathematics)). In that way, the things you chose to bring the reader's attention to are definitely part of your voice.

In the same scene you describe I might have chosen to focus on how the kids cape was too warm or chafed on his neck or something entirely different, but it would still have been the same event, just completely different.

I'm still pondering a good definition of tightness. I can't help but think that it's about eliminating anything that isn't needed, both from content and from sentences. It raises other questions though.

..the tightest writing is that in which anything but the absolute bare minimum needed to move the plot forward has been eliminated.

Mainly, what's needed to bring the plot forward?

"Frodo went to Mordor and tossed the ring into the volcano."
See, I've tightened up the entire Lord of the Rings to one sentence. That's what happens when you pull things to extremes. It's not much of a tale.
I guess tightness in itself is a balancing act. What's needed to bring the story forward and what isn't? What is the story about? What IS a story?

I think I'm getting the point someone (you Devor?) made about how tightness and voice aren't necessarily mutually exclusive though.

 

[Penpilot]

That the beginner who follows option 1 is going to progress faster and produce better initial works than the person who follows option 2. I understand, however, that reasonable people (such as Steerpike) seem to disagree on this particular issue.

My personal experience was opposite to this. I wrote things for a long time, then I dove into every writing book I could find, learned every "rule" I could learn, and I zealously followed them to the letter. I thought I was getting better, but I was actually getting worse. I didn't now how to use the rules and my writing stunk up the joint. You might say that it was probably better than what I was writing before, but it wasn't.

I was taking an editing course and each student brought part of a manuscript to the course to examine. I brought the novel I was currently working on and the short story that I based the novel on. The short story I wrote almost 20 years prior. The comments I got on the novel were that the prose was hard to engage with and seemed over worked, but the short story was much more engaging. They said that the short story's prose seemed more honest and much more easier to "get".

I did some examination and came to realize that I was instinctively doing certain things right before I dove head first into the rules-pool. We all have natural instincts that tell us if something works or not. Rules can create noise that drown out those instincts. As soon as I stopped being a zealot about the rules and let my gut take the driver's seat in guiding me, I got better and better.

In hindsight, I think I would have been better off if I didn't know the rules until later on in my writing life. I would have gotten more done because I wouldn't have been spending time worrying about following the rules exactly and just wrote.

"Rules" can throw you in the wrong direction. They're important to learn and know, but they can be dangerous.

My analogy is carpentry. Each rule is a tool in the tool box. If you don't know how to used a tool properly, you may lose a few fingers. Best to avoid the dangerous tools until you're ready. How do you know when you're ready? I don't know. Maybe only after you've gained experience making tons of mistakes doing things your way, and only using the tools you naturally own, that you are ready. But again, I don't really know.

 

[Feo Takahari]

See, if you were a carpenter, you'd learn from other carpenters--not abstractly, but directly and in detail. In this biz, everyone's afraid that will ruin their "authorial voice."

A little secret of mine:I didn't starty with a narrative voice of my own, so I wrote in Orson Scott Card's voice. I've learned a few more tricks, but it's still heavily Card-derived (arguably more so than the garbage Card writes now!) I learned what worked for him, I made it work for me, and I used it to tell stories Card wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. This mythical, mystical "authorial voice" doesn't have to be the thing you use to distinguish yourself with, not if you have a fresh perspective and untold stories!

 

[Svrtnsse]

I'd so very much like to write in the style of Tove Jansson. It's carefree and whimsical and happy. I love reading it, but writing it doesn't quite suit my mentality. I guess I could try analysing it and copy things, but I worry I'll just be overly analytical and spoil the fun out of it. I'm trying to go for my own version of that same feel though.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

First, I don't think there is anything wrong with emulating a writer's style. A lot can be gained from that effort as long as we don't hold ourselves responsible for producing the same level, or style. That's not likely to happen. Still, it can be a contributor, or inspiration, toward developing a unique voice.

Now....a tight writing definition. In my view, tight writing eschews unnecessary wordiness while also making an effort to say the same with less, or at least, more precise verbiage.

There's certainly a different quality or feel to tight writing than one may get from a looser presentation, but I don't think it limits voice. Rather, it's a component of voice, a small variable, one of many that contribute to the overall feel. Considerations, like limiting adverbs & adjectives, is only one factor . Even that may not be pervasive for all writers who employ a tight style, like it is for mine. Pros that have been writing for a long time have difficulty defining voice for just this reason. Further, it could apply to an authors voice as much as an individual character voice.

For me, I've had the most success with writing tight. That doesn't mean I don't describe things in detail, or use more words at one time versus another. I do, but I try to do so for effect, to concentrate the readers attention or to shift them away. In my work, I feel I have more freedom of movement (to describe greater levels of detail when needed for effect) if the main body of work is tight and economic.

That being said, there are plenty of brilliant stories I've read that fly in the face of the guidelines I've adopted for myself. Likewise, there are those who are much more consistently tight. Neither is right or wrong, it's just a sliver of the overall style. If the author tells the story well, and their chosen style is complimentary, or at the very least not an obstacle, then it's all well and good. When writing is noticeable, when it itself draws reader attention, then it becomes a hindrance....but that's not always even the case. That's a matter of style preference. There are occasions where the words themselves add a noticeable quality. Those are rare for my reading preference but it does happen. When it does, the effect can be magical.

In the end, as long as the story is interesting, all other factors can be pushed aside. Interesting...that's it. You know what can add interest? A great narrative voice. The sense of voice is the recognition of a unique storytelling quality. It can take a piece from good to great. It takes time to develop.

One of the reasons I do like to discuss "rules for writing" is because they offer topics for us to experiment with. I believe that experimentation allows us to discern those elements that work for us each. We discard those that do not. We build upon those that do. If we are unwilling to hear those ideas, or work with them, how are we ever to understand their application? Will that hinder the development of our voice? Maybe, if our reluctance causes us to overlook or dismiss a tool outright. I'd rather consider a tool, and work with it, before casting judgment. If someone asks me for advice, I dig in my toolbox and show them the methods that are effective for me. Are there other tools available? Yes, most certainly. But, I do not have experience with them. Sure, I've tried them out, but they weren't the right tool for my job. You're better off seeking advice on those methods from another...or just trying them out yourself.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Now....a tight writing definition. In my view, tight writing eschews unnecessary wordiness while also making an effort to say the same with less, or at least, more precise verbiage.

The pieces are starting to fall into place. I think I've had a good feeling for what "tight writing" is all along, but having it put into words like this really does help.

In the end, as long as the story is interesting, all other factors can be pushed aside. Interesting...that's it. You know what can add interest? A great narrative voice. The sense of voice is the recognition of a unique storytelling quality. It can take a piece from good to great. It takes time to develop.

I'd better get to work then.

One of the reasons I do like to discuss "rules for writing" is because they offer topics for us to experiment with. I believe that experimentation allows us to discern those elements that work for us each. We discard those that do not. We build upon those that do. If we are unwilling to hear those ideas, or work with them, how are we ever to understand there application? Will that hinder the development of our voice? Maybe, if our reluctance causes us to overlook or dismiss a tool outright. I'd rather consider a tool, and work with it, before casting judgment. If someone asks me for advice, I dig in my toolbox and show them the methods that are effective for me. Are there other tools available? Yes, most certainly. But, I do not have experience with them. Sure, I've tried them out, but they weren't the right tool for my job. Your better off seeking advice on those methods from another...or just trying them out yourself.

I support this.
I don't mind getting told about rules and things to do or not to do, but I do like to know why I should or shouldn't do something. Understanding the reason for the rules means I can make up my mind on whether to follow the recommendations or go my own way. Inexperience can and will cause me to make the wrong decision for the wrong reasons, but that's why I'm asking for feedback on things. Testing stuff out and checking it against the impressions of others has been a really great boost for me.

One of the people who's given me the most feedback here is Brian. His preferences are radically different from the style I'm writing, but he keeps giving me advice anyway.
It's been extremely helpful.
Not because he's pointed out what I'm doing wrong or what rules I'm breaking, but because he's explained why. If I were to follow his advice I think my writing would be radically different. I'm not sure I even could do it if I tried. What I can do is understand the advice and the reason for it and I can apply that understanding to my own style.


I'm thinking that the main importance of the rules isn't what they tell us to write or not write, but what the reason for the rules tells us about how people read. If I understand how people perceive words, sentences and stories I can incorporate that into my writing and eventually learn produce a pleasant reading experience.

 

[Jabrosky]

I really do think, based on what I see in a lot of self-published fantasy and fiction, that there's a mass delusion among young writers that writing a best-selling novel is akin to becoming famous from posting a YouTube video. I really think it's symptomatic and generational to believe that you can be wildly successful without putting the hard, grinding, awful work in. But then, maybe I'm just old.

I believe there's more to that problem than mere laziness or short attention spans though. A major reason why a lot of young people in general want to achieve great success so quickly is because they're terrified of the alternative, which is a lifetime of grueling wage slavery. Most young people, even the ones who can afford college, have only so much time in their lives before they get kicked out of their parents' household and must fend for themselves in the larger world. Amassing a lot of fame and fortune in a short amount of time is practically the only way they can protect themselves from the predations of parasitic capitalists who lust for cheap labor. If they can make that money doing something creative, which is what most young people naturally enjoy anyway, so much the better.

I'd say that suffices to explain the problem of impatient young writers without putting down their attention spans or whatever.

 

[BWFoster78]

(This might also relate to what I write--emotion is very useful in erotica, and tension is often minimized.)

Considering that I've never even read 50 Shades, I'm not an expert in the genre. Minimizing tension, however, seems counter to what I would think would be useful. To me, tension is a big help in creating interest. Even if you're driving interest through other means, wouldn't more interest be better?

This would be an interesting experiment:

1. Take an old story of yours, maybe one that didn't get a great response, and revise it.
2. In the revision, for each scene, give the POV character a well-defined goal, make sure there is opposition to that goal, and clearly indicate the consequences for the goal not being met.
3. Repost the story and see if it gets a better response.

If you ever have the inclination to do this, I'd love to know the results.

 

[BWFoster78]

In my view, tight writing eschews unnecessary wordiness while also making an effort to say the same with less, or at least, more precise verbiage.

As in all topics we discuss on this forum, definition is important. If one perceives tight writing as, "Cut everything to the bare bones," I can see why they wouldn't buy into that. Romeo and Juliet becomes: Guy meets girl, ending in death.

The key word in the definition is "unnecessary."

Get rid of all of the words that aren't needed.

We can easily see that the "of" after "all" is completely superfluous. In fact, what does "all the" add? Not much.

Get rid of words that aren't needed.

To me, the two sentences say the same thing, but the second accomplishes its purpose much more efficiently. Stylistically, you can go even futher, though. If you replace "get rid of" with "eliminate," does that work for your story and your intended audience? Would your character use a word like "eliminate?" Can we replace "that" aren't needed" with "unneeded" or "unnecessary?" If it works for the style and mood and character, it's more efficient. If your character wouldn't say such a thing, leave it.

Eliminate unnecessary words.

 

[BWFoster78]

My analogy is carpentry. Each rule is a tool in the tool box. If you don't know how to used a tool properly, you may lose a few fingers. Best to avoid the dangerous tools until you're ready. How do you know when you're ready? I don't know. Maybe only after you've gained experience making tons of mistakes doing things your way, and only using the tools you naturally own, that you are ready. But again, I don't really know.

Here's the thing, though: if you see an apprentice carpenter screwing up, how do you help him? The only think I can think of is to try to explain to him how to use the tools. Seems to me like that's better than telling him, "Sorry, you have to figure it out on your own."

 

[BWFoster78]

One of the people who's given me the most feedback here is Brian. His preferences are radically different from the style I'm writing, but he keeps giving me advice anyway.
It's been extremely helpful.
Not because he's pointed out what I'm doing wrong or what rules I'm breaking, but because he's explained why. If I were to follow his advice I think my writing would be radically different. I'm not sure I even could do it if I tried. What I can do is understand the advice and the reason for it and I can apply that understanding to my own style.

I think you have a fantastic attitude about learning. You take in criticism, try to understand it, and apply what you find useful. That's exactly what I feel you should be doing. If you took all the advice you encountered and applied it blindly, it wouldn't help you at all.

My goal is to help move you along your path in the best/quickest/easiest way possible. The only way I know of to do that is to tell you, from my perspective, what you're doing wrong and why I think it's wrong and, sometimes, how I would do it to make it better. I'm glad that's helping you!

EDIT: I think it's also important (and this is something I've learned from reading opposing viewpoints on this forum) to point out both the degree I think the problem is and whether I feel the problem is absolute or subjective.

For example regarding a subjective issue, I have a definitive view on speech tags in that I feel that "said" is the best way to go. When I critique someone, I'm going to mention it if they've used a tag other than "said." However, I try to point out either that this is just my personal taste or point out the logical inconsistency they created in the instance without making the general statement.

If the work fails to engage me, I'll instead say definitively, "This is boring." I'll go on to tell them that I see the problem as a lack of tension.

I hope those distinctions come through in my comments.