Voice? How and how much?

[Devor]

Okay, here's the problem as I see it: You can't treat everyone like a newb. You should be a newb for like the first 50 hours of writing, and then you continue growing.

The rules that people talk about are good rules for a newb. Snip, snip, tighten up, keep it plain and simple. Any other rules get complicated, but eventually you have to get there. Boot camp has to end, and the real learning process has to continue.

And in the advanced class, people don't learn from rules. They learn from their peers. The difference between Harvard and my Alma mater isn't the funding or the teachers or the curriculum. It's the fellow students who go there, who set the bar, who live the example, who say things like "Yeah, we can do that," and "Why not think bigger?" when everyone else says "Let's trim to what's doable."

How do you write the epic? How do you write with power? How do you write to make readers go "Wow!" These are things that you can learn, if you shake off the idea that you're only talking to beginners.

 

[BWFoster78]

How do you write the epic? How do you write with power? How do you write to make readers go "Wow!" These are things that you can learn, if you shake off the idea that you're only talking to beginners.

Devor,

I don't disagree with what you said at all.

Two issues:

1. The further from the fundamentals you get, it seems to me, the harder it is to discuss writing in general terms. It seems like the best way to learn from peers is to have your peers critique your actual work. There's a lot of this going on via email exchanges and, to a more limited extent, on the Showcase. It seems to me that threads on the forum that attempt to discuss writing theory on a higher level don't have much success. If you can figure out a way to facilitate that discussion, I'm all for it.

2. For me, the next level beyond talking about what the rules are is to talk about how the rules can be best applied. When is it best to show versus tell? How can you effectively break from tight writing to better your voice? In my experience, however, these kind of threads don't seem to go well.

 

[Ankari]

I would like to flip the argument around, put the burden on the advisor instead of the advised. I understand the need to train others in the current rules, but doesn't that mean that the advisor must master all of the rules him or herself? Wouldn't that include, as he is reading the sample story, the ability to see a broken rule, consider the intent, and judge it's success? Not the success as measured by the beta reader's mind, but by the intent of the author?

To me, a beta reader who wishes to offer criticism on a story must consider the voice the author is striving for (got this back on track!), judge whether the author has succeeded, and advise to the contrary if he has failed. As I see it, those who brandish rules are adepts repeating the words of the masters. A master, on the other hand, can look through the lens of the writer, judge his success at the story he's trying to write, and dispense advice accordingly.

This is something I'll have to work on. I know I've spewed rules in the past because they exist, and not because they helped the story.

Sorry folks!

 

[BWFoster78]

Ankari,

I disagree completely.

Feedback is a precious commodity. Your missive above, to me, implies that one should not critique or offer advice unless they are experts in everything writing related. As someone who values all feedback on my work, I couldn't be more against that concept. I can get something out of just about any opinion on my writing. Maybe you have no idea what I'm trying to accomplish, but you spewing some rule at me reveals at least one crucial piece of information: the piece in question didn't work.

Truthfully, it's not the beta reader's responsibility to determine the cause of the problem, but the writer's. The best function of a beta reader is to point out that a problem exists. Again as a writer, I enjoy suggestions. You just might point me in a good direction that I never would have found on my own. In the end, though, it's not your story. It's mine. I must decide what goes in it and how it is written and what rules I use.

As to the concept that the beta reader should try to interpret intent, that boggles my mind. Really.

What value is it to me as a writer if a beta reader goes into the piece trying to interpret how I wanted to do something and then essentially grade on a curve to tell me if I accomplished it? There are going to be as many interpretations of a piece as there are readers who read it. I need to know how the piece is interpreted by others. If I want to know if I accomplished what I wanted, the best person to judge that is me.

 

[Ankari]

I can understand your point.

Here's mine. Most who follow that rules are detrimental to a writer's understanding of the art, state a writer can break rules if he knows the rule he is breaking.

Assuming that beta reading is done among peers, doesn't that, in essence, negate the need for a beta reader to point out a rule is broken? For the beta reader to be effective, doesn't s/he have to understand the rule enough to know why it was broken? If s/he understands the reason why a writer broke a rule, doesn't it make more sense to judge the efficiency of the intent?

One of the lessons I've acquired from hosting the Iron Pen Challenges (I'll be doing another one after NaNo) is that ever author has their own voice, their own phrasings and pacing. If I were to judge every entry to my preferences, there would be an obvious line of demarcation between who I award points to, and who I don't.

Besides, as beta readers, aren't we evolving as we critique? Isn't it possible to expand what you consider acceptable with each new example of different writing styles?

An example of this is Robert Jordan Vs Steven Erikson. They both have their distinct voice. They both have their way of using the English language to tell a story. An unforgiving beta reader who favors the (seemingly) disconnected plot, heavy ideas of Steven Erikson, may think Robert Jordan's writing "doesn't work".

But a true beta reader would never say that. To state that something "doesn't work" really means "this doesn't appeal to my style of story telling, nor would I buy this kind of story from a vendor had I come across it." Basically, you're giving a review of the final product, not the advise needed to see the author through to his vision. As you can see, authors can have different visions of how stories are told, but can both be successful.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I'm with BWF on this. Beta readers aren't there to be experts. If they know something about writing etc that's good. But their function is really to represent the normal readers. If they don't understand something it's not a literary criticism. It's a simple statement - they don't understand something. And if they don't understand it then the chances are other readers won't. If they think the writings off or the voice strange, then the chances are that other readers will too. If you want literary expertise that's your editor's job.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[BWFoster78]

But a true beta reader would never say that. To state that something "doesn't work" really means "this doesn't appeal to my style of story telling, nor would I buy this kind of story from a vendor had I come across it." Basically, you're giving a review of the final product, not the advise needed to see the author through to his vision. As you can see, authors can have different visions of how stories are told, but can both be successful.

Maybe we're looking for different things out of beta reading. I want to know, when you read it, what are the problem areas that you see. I find this information useful because it's hard to see past what I intended when I wrote it to figure out all the possible ways that it could be interpreted. I may think I've explained something completely when you read it and go, "Huh?"

Ultimately, the main thing I get out of you beta reading for me is: "This section didn't work for Ankari."

A lot of times you offer me advice. Sometimes I find that advice extremely helpful and far superior to what I had. In those cases, I incorporate it. Other times, I completely disregard your opinion. In those cases, it may be that:

1. I feel the issue was more your personal taste so there's not really a problem.
2. I feel that you've nailed that there is a problem but you didn't understand the root cause.
3. I feel that I have a better solution to the problem than the one you pointed out.

In all cases, I'm glad both that you pointed out the problem and that you've made a suggestion. Again, it's my responsibility to make the ultimate determination of what goes in my novel, not my beta readers.

Assuming that beta reading is done among peers, doesn't that, in essence, negate the need for a beta reader to point out a rule is broken? For the beta reader to be effective, doesn't s/he have to understand the rule enough to know why it was broken? If s/he understands the reason why a writer broke a rule, doesn't it make more sense to judge the efficiency of the intent?

I disagree.

One of the main reasons that beta reading is crucial, for me anyway, is that I am so close to my work. I know exactly what effect I intended. It's hard to separate how I wanted my work to be read from possible ways that the work can be read. Also, at our level of skill, we know far, far less than everything there is to know. I don't know about you, but I do stupid stuff all the time even when I know better and, again, I don't know nearly everything.

Sometimes, I need that kick in the pants to say, "Hey, idiot, what exactly were you doing there?" What I don't need is my beta reader thinking, "Brian knows better than this. He must be trying something here. Maybe he's going for this technique. Gotcha. It's weird and distracting, but okay." That does me no good whatsoever. If you think I made a mistake, tell me!

All that being said, note that my approach to beta reading is:

1. Determine if it works (which, by my definition, means "am I interested in what I'm reading?)
2. If it does work, move on regardless of any rules being "broken."
3. If it doesn't work, try to determine why, imo, it doesn't work.

This is what I want my beta readers to do for me, and this is what I do for the people I read.

BTW, what the crap are you doing up so late? It's 1am in FL. I'm up way past my bedtime, and I'm in CA.

EDIT: Speaking of which, "Good night!"

 

[BWFoster78]

Hi,

I'm with BWF on this. Beta readers aren't there to be experts. If they know something about writing etc that's good. But their function is really to represent the normal readers. If they don't understand something it's not a literary criticism. It's a simple statement - they don't understand something. And if they don't understand it then the chances are other readers won't. If they think the writings off or the voice strange, then the chances are that other readers will too. If you want literary expertise that's your editor's job.

Cheers, Greg.

Greg,

This is an excellent point. It does seem like maybe Ankari is confusing the beta reader's job with the editor.

 

[Ankari]

BTW, what the crap are you doing up so late? It's 1am in FL. I'm up way past my bedtime, and I'm in CA.

EDIT: Speaking of which, "Good night!"

I'm up writing, of course. And Good night.

Back on topic.

Beta reading by peers is different from beta reading by a general audience. We don't talk about "rules" when discussing the general audience. They don't know them by name, and may not know the existence of some entirely. A good example is the adverb rule. As pointed out in the Glen Cook thread, he used plenty of them. I never noticed until I became more serious about writing.

If we are talking about opinions, then everything Greg and BWF is true. We're talking about the rules themselves, how we advise one another as peers, and how we hold ourselves to these standards.

With that in mind, reread my previous post.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I'm a member of a writing club that allows a wide variety of stories. I brought in an erotica piece today, and they absolutely shredded it. All the assumptions that come naturally in the sort of erotica I write, for the audience I normally write for, become bizarre or even creepy if shown to other audiences.

On the one hand, I could say that they didn't understand my vision. It might even be true. Were I to post the story today, most of the folks who read erotica wouldn't even notice the things they complained about. For the purposes of the majority of my audience, those flaws "don't exist."

But the authors who've inspired me, the authors I strive to emulate, weren't the ones who settled for "good enough." Even porn can be elevated to art--in some cases, I've even seen art-lovers fail to recognize that it was porn*--and I'm going to revise my story until it's good art as well as good porn. I believe that there will be readers who'll notice and appreciate the care I took, and even if they don't, I would still know it if I stopped trying.

You can't adopt everything someone advises. Some target markets don't play well with others. But just because someone isn't in your target market doesn't mean their advice doesn't hold meaning.

*I recently saw a game design website recommend Saya no Uta as a gruesome but brilliant horror game. As a matter of fact, it's not even horror--it's a porn game for gore fetishists, in theory the lowest art imaginable. But it was created by Gen Urobuchi, who I believe is one of the most brilliant Japanese writers currently alive, and he did such a good job that even a mainstream critic with no idea of its origins thought it was great. That is how to transcend your genre.

 

[Devor]

The further from the fundamentals you get, it seems to me, the harder it is to discuss writing in general terms.

Harder. More challenging. Absolutely.

We still need to do it.

It seems like the best way to learn from peers is to have your peers critique your actual work.

I've worked with a lot of people with a lot of different backgrounds. Process gets trumped trumped by attitude, every time. If you go into a critique with a "beginner's mindset" or a "rules-focused" mindset, you're going to have trouble moving beyond it.

In my last post I mentioned the difference between Harvard and the college I went to, NYU. I was part of a student group in college, and we got an email once from the corresponding group at Yale. They wanted to organize simultaneous full-page ads across a dozen universities to try and catch national media attention. I told the others in our group, and they all said "That's cool, but no way, we can't afford that." So I responded to the guy from Yale, "Sorry, we just can't afford it." His response? "We'll pay for it."

At NYU, student groups are given a budget. At Yale, they aren't - they're expected to fundraise. There are plenty of ways to make money fundraising at NYU - I mean, it's lower Manhattan. But by comparison, there's very little drive to do it. But at Yale, there's enough drive to fundraise for a national ad campaign. Wow.

My point? If you approach a critique with the wrong mindset, you're not going to bring your A-game. Worse, you're not going to draw the A-game out of others. You're going to be stuck in the we-can't-go-big, let's-just-hand-out-flyers-like-everyone-else zone.

If you want to grow, rules are the starting field, rules are the first month on the job, the place you want to move out of as fast as humanly possible. They are a great starting place, but they will hold you back if you can't see past them.

For me, the next level beyond talking about what the rules are is to talk about how the rules can be best applied.

What would be the benefit of learning rules without learning their application? The idea that those are two different levels really unsettles me.


((edit))

I do want to qualify one thing, however. I do think there is a difference between "rules" and "strategy." I would say that "always build tension" is more of a strategy than a rule. It's a guiding principle against which the little things get judged. As such I would say it's a different category and not the kind of rule I was referring to.

But there are other strategies to consider.

 

[BWFoster78]

Beta reading by peers is different from beta reading by a general audience. We don't talk about "rules" when discussing the general audience. They don't know them by name, and may not know the existence of some entirely.

This is where our fundamental disagreement is. I don't feel there is any difference between what I want out of a "peer" beta reader and any other kind.

I still just simply want to know, "In your opinion, did this work?"

For a "peer," I might ask that question in more detail and reference tension, character/story arcs, and pace, but, in the end, it's the same question.

The difference with a peer is that the peer is better able to provide, sometimes, an accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause as to why the piece didn't work.

Look, when I read something, I'm going to have one of two reactions:

1. It interested me.
2. It didn't interest me.

In the first case, I'll say something like, "I liked this, but I have some suggestions that I think would make the piece tighter or more tense or more clear or whatever." In the second case, I'll say, "You completely failed to gain my interest. This is why I think the piece didn't succeed."

We're talking about the rules themselves, how we advise one another as peers, and how we hold ourselves to these standards.

Again, imo, the only reason to talk about the "rules" in as a beta reader is in reference to, "This is why I think this didn't work."

 

[BWFoster78]

I've worked with a lot of people with a lot of different backgrounds. Process gets trumped trumped by attitude, every time. If you go into a critique with a "beginner's mindset" or a "rules-focused" mindset, you're going to have trouble moving beyond it.

Devor,

I'm having a little trouble understanding what problem you're trying to fix.

When I'm critiquing someone and there's a sentence with an adverb, here's my thought process:

1. If I feel it works, I make no comment b/c I probably didn't notice it in the first place. I don't go through a piece counting adverbs.
2. If the adverb stands out to me, I try to determine why it stood out.
a. If the sentence reads the same without it, I say that and ask the author to consider deleting it.
b. If the adverb is a cop out for using better words, I say that.

I do these things because it's what I want my beta readers to do for me. Whatever about my writing bothers them, I want to know about it. Sometimes I'll change my piece based on that input. Other times, I won't. My decision, but I always appreciate the input.

Obviously, comments on tension and character and story are more important than a misused adverb. That fact doesn't negate that I want to know if I've misused an adverb.

If someone I'm critiquing isn't interested in hearing about my opinion on their adverb usage, they can tell me so. In that case, I can make the decision as to if it's productive for me to continue giving them feedback or not.

What would be the benefit of learning rules without learning their application? The idea that those are two different levels really unsettles me.

At my first writer's group meeting, someone pointed out to me that I used "was" a lot. Perhaps that was put across as, "You need to be more active in your writing." I took it as, "Get rid of was."

I scoured the internet trying to understand how to write without using "was."

Eventually, I came to understand that choosing strong verbs is the important point. The fact is that, when you tell someone what you feel they're doing wrong, you have limited power over how they interpret your advice. For me, I don't regret the time I spent learning how to get rid of "was" in my writing; in the long run, I consider it time well spent.

My experience isn't universal, but, sometimes, you have to understand that there is a rule before you can understand what the rule's purpose is.

When I give advice on "was," I try to frame it as, "This sentence would be better if you chose a better verb." I know, however, that, no matter how carefully I state it, this can easily be interpreted as, "Get rid of was."

 

[Addison]

When I first began writing this was the biggest obstacle I had to face. It took a long time for me to find the right way to get through it and I have William Forrester {Played by Sean Connery} to help me through it. One sentence helped me break the wall; "First you write with the heart, and then with the head." Don't think about the words so much. If you find yourself spending five minutes trying to find the best way to write that paragraph or scratching your head at the dialogue tags, then you're writing with your head. All writing is about one thing-Passion! We write what we're passionate about, whether or not it's fantasy or even fiction. The first draft is pure passion. We're at our keyboards or paper and we're just letting our imagination take over. When it's done, and we put or Revisor hats on, that is when we write with our head. BUT you want to make sure that as you write with your head you don't accidentally delete something of your voice from your first writing.

Passion is the voice, revising is the speech therapist. Not a lip-singer/writer.

 

[Svrtnsse]

When I first began writing this was the biggest obstacle I had to face. It took a long time for me to find the right way to get through it and I have William Forrester {Played by Sean Connery} to help me through it. One sentence helped me break the wall; "First you write with the heart, and then with the head." [...]

I think this is good advice. I've had a hunch lately that I'm being overly analytical when I write. I don't feel that it's exactly stifling my creativity. I'm still producing good text, but not as much of it as I used to. I'm writing slower, pondering things more and spending a lot more time thinking about what I'm putting down than I did before.

I guess that among all of the other exercises I plan to set for myself I'll put one about trying to "write with the heart", just let the words flow and then tidy it up later. I might enjoy it and I might not. It could work out or it could just make a mess of things. But it's worth trying.

 

[Philip Overby]

I think Addison's point about writing with your heart and not your head is a good one. I've found that writing what just naturally flows out of me works for me leagues better than tinkering with every little word that may or may not work. I think voice emerges from that rawness. Then, when it comes time to edit, you temper the voice by adding here or taking away there.

I have a friend that gave me some great advice recently. He said he read a study that talks about making lots of decisions every day can effect your ability to produce creatively. Basically, if every time you sit down for breakfast you say, "What am I going to eat?" you've wasted one of your important decisions for the day on something trivial. I think as a writer, we have to allow our decisions to naturally come out at first. When it comes time for an important plot point, that's when our minds should step in. Not when it comes to making miniscule decisions on whether to use "said" or "whispered."

I find the more voice in a story, the better. I feel the difference between a novel with a strong voice and one without is the difference between reading a story and reading a newspaper report. The newspaper report may be written better or even give more valuable information, but the story is going to have more life to it because it has that "heart writing" in it.

 

[Devor]

I'm having a little trouble understanding what problem you're trying to fix.

When I'm critiquing someone and there's a sentence with an adverb, here's my thought process . . . .

At my first writer's group meeting, someone pointed out to me that I used "was" a lot . . . .

I have a rubric that I put together for critiquing stories. "Was" and "adverbs" aren't on the list. "Tension" was one of three items under "Plot" - specifically, "do the scene's setups build tension?" Another being, "Does the scene have a payoff which makes it worth including?"

Under language, I have a few items, but mainly: "Does the language deliver on the emotion in the scene?"

Overusing was and adverbs are micro-elements of that much greater category. I don't understand why anyone would want to spend so much time on them, especially when they're discussed out of context of the question above. It strikes me as just avoiding the more difficult aspects of writing.


((edit))

My apologies for continuing the off-the-topic-of-voice elements of this conversation. This is my last post here that isn't about the topic of Voice.

 

[Steerpike]

What would be the benefit of learning rules without learning their application? The idea that those are two different levels really unsettles me.

Yes, hiding the ball doesn't appeal to me. Further, if the person critiquing doesn't take the time to understand what the writer is trying to do, their critique isn't going to be as good as it could be, and might be completely off base. But an unsure, inexperienced writer might take it to heart regardless.

 

[Devor]

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.

The conflict between voice and tightness comes from the way that tightness would have you cut many of the nuances that make up your voice. For some people, that's not a problem, their voice comes out clearly in the throughline and they struggle with the excess. For others, cutting the "excess" may cut out the life behind their voice, the places where it's strongest.

If you dissect your story elements deep enough, you'll find that there's much of your story that's "necessary" based on your overall goals. I was trying to advocate how to include more detail while still maintaining tightness - by having the details evolve and change until they become relevant. That gives you more content and more choice over what happens in your narrative, giving your voice greater room to show through.

For more on establishing your voice, I recommend an old article from the Mythic Scribes blog:

Finding Your Writer's Voice

Here's an excerpt:

#1: You already have Your Voice
It’s in you, inherent and hardwired into your DNA. Every breathing moment – awake or asleep – has layered depth and breadth and scope to Your Voice. It rumbles like grinding continents, burns like lightning, and whispers like a child on Santa’s knee. It’s authentic and powerful and it’s yours.

#2: You don’t have to find Your Voice
You don’t have to find Your Voice any more than you have to find your pancreas. All you have to do is understand it...

Almost by definition your author's "voice" is the one aspect of your writing that people can't really help with. At best, someone who has read enough of your writing might be able to articulate a few patterns they've picked up on. But there's no abstraction for figuring out that part of your writing that's distinctly you.

 

[Feo Takahari]

#1: You already have Your Voice
It’s in you, inherent and hardwired into your DNA. Every breathing moment — awake or asleep — has layered depth and breadth and scope to Your Voice. It rumbles like grinding continents, burns like lightning, and whispers like a child on Santa’s knee. It’s authentic and powerful and it’s yours.

#2: You don’t have to find Your Voice
You don’t have to find Your Voice any more than you have to find your pancreas. All you have to do is understand it...

I wonder if this would be perceived differently on a site for television scriptwriters. A good TV script is one that has the "voice" of the show itself, even if that voice was determined by someone other than you. Some of the worst episodes I've seen of shows I liked were scripted by writers who used their own voice rather than the show's voice.

(To get personal, there are stories right now that I simply can't write, because the voice I write in isn't suitable for telling those stories. I'm trying to learn other voices, so I can tell stories in those voices--I'm not sure whether I'll succeed, but I think it's worth the effort.)