Writing Beyond Good

[Steerpike]

An interesting article here about how to make your writing standout for publishers (and for readers as well). The author points out that good writing simply isn't enough these days - good writers are a dime a dozen, frankly, and the fact that you can write well isn't going to distinguish you.

I particularly find that the advice about voice and character resonates with my own feelings as a reader. What do the rest of you think.

Writing Beyond Good | TMR Blog

 

[BWFoster78]

I particularly find that the advice about voice and character resonates with my own feelings as a reader. What do the rest of you think.

Voice doesn't do much for me. Characters are a big part of why I read, but I don't need them to be weird or standout in some way; I simply need to want to root for them.

 

[Graylorne]

If you want your writing to stand out, Steerpike, could you use a slightly larger font?

I'll read the blog tomorrow, when I'm fitter. Been writing all day, I'm done.

 

[Steerpike]

Voice doesn't do much for me. Characters are a big part of why I read, but I don't need them to be weird or standout in some way; I simply need to want to root for them.

I find voice important. I've grown tired enough of generic writing that I'm as likely as not to put a book back on the shelf if something about the author's voice doesn't engage me. I don't know how prevalent that is among readers, though.

 

[BWFoster78]

I find voice important. I've grown tired enough of generic writing that I'm as likely as not to put a book back on the shelf if something about the author's voice doesn't engage me. I don't know how prevalent that is among readers, though.

Voice isn't easy to define.

When you use that word, I tend to picture what I feel is overwrought sentences that focus much more on style than substance. Like the example the author of the blog post used; from that short sample of the character, I think I'd abhor the book. I so value clarity over style.

That being said, I do feel that I should be able to tell who the POV character is even if the author doesn't tell me. Though I haven't come close to mastering the necessary techniques, I feel it's possible to employ subtle differences that make such things clear.

In contrast to my reaction to when I read the word, I'm not sure that it's what you mean. From what I've read of your work, while you tend to give your characters a much more distinct voice from a wording standpoint than I do, I don't feel you create overwrought pieces.

I would think that most readers either wouldn't care all that much or would prefer clean writing. I have no objective basis for that conclusion, however.

 

[Steerpike]

Voice doesn't have to be wordy or heavy on description, though if it is and it's done well it doesn't bother me.

I suppose it is hard to define as well, but for many of my favorite authors I think I could be presented with a page or so of something of theirs I've never read, maybe less, and have a pretty good shot at telling you who wrote it.

Steven Brust has a great authorial voice, for example. Very effective. Steven Erikson does as well. Other authors with voices that work well are Joe Abercrombie, and Terry Pratchett (even though I'm not a fan of the latter). I can pick out James P. Blaylock's fantasy work in a paragraph or so, I imagine.

Some of those authors use a more wordy style, and some don't, but there is something distinctive or at least engaging about the voice of each of them. I'm not sure how to define it in concrete terms.

 

[BWFoster78]

Voice doesn't have to be wordy or heavy on description, though if it is and it's done well it doesn't bother me.

I suppose it is hard to define as well, but for many of my favorite authors I think I could be presented with a page or so of something of theirs I've never read, maybe less, and have a pretty good shot at telling you who wrote it.

Steven Brust has a great authorial voice, for example. Very effective. Steven Erikson does as well. Other authors with voices that work well are Joe Abercrombie, and Terry Pratchett (even though I'm not a fan of the latter). I can pick out James P. Blaylock's fantasy work in a paragraph or so, I imagine.

Some of those authors use a more wordy style, and some don't, but there is something distinctive or at least engaging about the voice of each of them. I'm not sure how to define it in concrete terms.

Of those, I've only tried one of Erikson's works. Ankari will find this heretical, but I found his writing well nigh impenetrable.

As we've discussed before, I'd much rather someone be able to pick up my book and say, "That's Xan speaking" than say "Brian Foster wrote this."

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I find voice important. I've grown tired enough of generic writing that I'm as likely as not to put a book back on the shelf if something about the author's voice doesn't engage me. I don't know how prevalent that is among readers, though.

I couldn't agree more. Although, you don't want the reader to notice writing, a writer with a unique voice can make the reading more enjoyable, fresh & distinct, if you will. If done well, the reader still won't feel as if they are reading.

The main points:
1. Surprise
2. Voice
3. Memorable characters
4. Enlarge the scope of your story
5. Allow the reader to participate in the story

I agree with everything here. The one I haven't really given much consideration, until now, is #4...enlarging the scope. I find that very interesting and I'm going to learn more about that aspect.

 

[Steerpike]

Of those, I've only tried one of Erikson's works. Ankari will find this heretical, but I found his writing well nigh impenetrable.

I find it heretical as well

But diverse views are good for the craft.

 

[Daichungak]

Voice isn't easy to define.

When you use that word, I tend to picture what I feel is overwrought sentences that focus much more on style than substance. Like the example the author of the blog post used; from that short sample of the character, I think I'd abhor the book. I so value clarity over style.

Voice is the style of the substance. Just like I can identify my family and friends by hearing their actual voice, an authors literary voice identifies them as an individual. Clarity never requires the sacrifice of style, but style certainly can affect clarity.

Personally, style is why I read. If I want clarity I will go find a textbook.

 

[Creed]

Voice is the style of the substance. Just like I can identify my family and friends by hearing their actual voice, an authors literary voice identifies them as an individual. Clarity never requires the sacrifice of style, but style certainly can affect clarity.

Personally, style is why I read. If I want clarity I will go find a textbook.

Hit the nail on the head.
I think that's the phrase…

 

[Caged Maiden]

I think voice is the hardest thing for writers to develop. Voice turns the drab into the colorful, and for me, it's the single most enjoyable part of reading. Recently I did a crit on a story about a ghost haunting a house. The ghost wanted to be famous and lamented dying early without reaching his goal. So when a boy moved into the house, he tried to turn him into a rock star... Okay, first let me say, it's the single best short story I've ever critiqued. Other than one sentence with a wonky flow, I had only positive things to say about it. One of those comments was "You took a concept that could easily have gotten silly and ridiculous and turned it into something compelling and absolutely entertaining."

I was floored. The writing was great, the flow and pacing bang on... The voice, however, was the star of the show. One of her analogies: "Like the sound of twenty dogs running on a hardwood floor..." I mean, you got into the character in every sentence. it was minimalist, not heavy at all, but the voice of the character came through so loud... it was really amazing. Every single description was short, sweet and to the point. "U-Haul", "cornrows" every word she chose conveyed so much more than bland descriptions.

So, yeah, for me, voice is the key to writing something that stands out, if you ask me. Anyone can write a cute story that is clean and flows well. They can tell a tale of characters that amuse and entertain. It's the rare writer that leaves me raving about the manuscript's awesomeness and makes me want to share it with everyone I know. This story was exactly that.

When a story lacks voice, it tends to read (for me), like: "There were some people and then they went here and then they did some stuff..."

It's just night and day.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I've made a couple mentions of a story I once critiqued that didn't, strictly speaking, have an authorial voice. The narration was plain and spare, saying exactly what the reader needed to know with no emotion and no unusual turns of phrase. I actually think it worked well for that particular story--the just-the-facts presentation contrasted interestingly with the various unique speech patterns of the characters, setting the stage to question what the characters believed and expected. (On the other hand, a similar style worked out badly for a story about mounting chaos and creeping terror--the intended feelings just didn't shine through.)

I think one of the most valuable skills a writer can develop, and one of the hardest to learn, is to create a voice not for themselves, but for the story. Even many great writers can't pull this off, writing in the same voice for every story they tell, and while this can bring new insight (a slice-of-life written like a horror story, or a horror story written like a slice-of-life), it can also feel forced or even distracting. It's better to dig out the story's mood and feel, and write in such a way as to bring it out.

Granted, this is something I still have trouble with . . .

 

[Philip Overby]

My opinion about writers is about the same as guitar players (I've probably mentioned this on the site before, but if not, here I go again). There are probably millions of competent guitar players in the world. Maybe some have taken lessons, others are self-taught. Some can play any cover song you throw at them while others can read sheet music. This doesn't mean you're going to get a record deal though.

Same goes with good writers. Just because you're a good writer doesn't mean you'll get published and people will buy your stuff.

I agree that good writers are a dime a dozen. Just because your writing is technically sound doesn't mean it's going to attract readers. Generic, cookie-cutter writing just doesn't cut it anymore. With so much competition on the market, I feel like you absolutely have to have some kind of voice in order to attract readers. For me, my definition of voice is that intangible "it" factor a writer has. It makes sense that people have different interpretations of what voice is because it probably means different things for different people. Voice to me means if I pick up a book, I'm going to become engaged by something the writer has done. For me, Steven Erikson is engaging because his style feels fresh and unique. Yes, it's hard to get into, but once you do, you'll understand why so many people like him. Same goes for people like Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, and Guy Gavriel Kay. I don't think their styles are as easily accessible as say Brandon Sanderson or Patrick Rothfuss, but they're widely considered masters of the genre because they're the total package.

Great characters are also super important obviously, but I think the best writers inject voice into their characters. I think the two go hand in hand. I've read a lot of writing that I couldn't tell you who is talking half of the time unless I constantly had dialogue tags to remind me. Memorable characters with memorable goals are going stand out more to me than just a run of the mill story about saving something or someone.

However, all that said, I do think good writers definitely have a leg up. If you're technically good, then you're going to have an advantage over a sloppy writer that makes numerous mistakes in the first couple of pages.

So for me "writing beyond good" means:

1. Having something that makes you stand out from the crowd
2. Being able to follow simple guidelines and be a technically sound writer
3. Have engaging characters doing engaging things (not just sitting around staring at each other or waiting for something to happen)
4. Have a "feel" to your world. Like if I'm reading Abercrombie's work, I feel it. Same as if I'm reading J.K. Rowling.
5. Break out of the shell. Meaning genre conventions are made to be broken. Break some.

 

[The Dark One]

Voice is everything. Far more important than technique, for the obvious reason that there are plenty of books published with bad technique - break every rule under the sun - but are nevertheless popular because of an engaging voice that makes the bad technique irrelevant. There is an Australian author (I won't name) who has been one of the top selling fiction writers here for the last 30 years. His books are rubbish, but they undeniably have a really strong narrative voice that keeps his readers coming back again and again for another serve.

But good storytelling technique blended with distinctive voice - that's the sweet spot. I don't know how to advise people on finding their own voice but I can describe how I found my own.

By relaxing.

My first book, I was trying too hard and it was badly overwritten. The second book, I had relaxed into my own style a bit but it was still trying too hard and writing about a really fake and made-up world. But I could see, in some of the more relaxed passages my true voice coming through and that was the inspiration. My third book was completely relaxed and (non-fantasy) writing about a subject and world I know really well. That book was my first published in the mainstream.

Writing in my own voice is now second nature and the book I have coming out next month is, I know, really different to anything else in the market. Partly because of the original premise and characters, but mainly because of the voice.

I have high hopes for this one.

 

[Ankari]

Thanks for the link, Steer.

Voice is a big deal for me. I've become a firm believer in the theory of limited core plots. The author's voice is what makes the whole thing a resurrected memory, a thing buried at the edge of awareness and forced into your mind, tapping all five senses and the collective human conscious.

I see the argument made that author's voice cannot coexist with character voice. I don't buy into this. Characters can have their separate pool of memories, emotions, vocabulary, and influences. Authors can still weave their own voice in each character.

For me, good writing means:

1. Distinct, clear author voice.
2. Thoughtful, living world.
3. Characters you care about.
4. Characters you identify with.
5. Characters you hate.
6. Emotion. The kind that swells quietly to the surface and manifests against your will.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Maybe I'm looking at this differently because I'm coming at this from a different direction. When I'm impressed by the artistry of a comic, movie, or video game, I tend to be drawn in by the characters. The elements more equivalent to "voice," like cinematography or music, just set the stage on which the characters act. Narration in a book is a bit more intrusive, for lack of a better word, but I still think of it in the same terms. I've given up on beautifully written books because the author put so much effort into voice and flow that he forgot to have the characters do or say anything interesting--it felt like listening to someone play a technically difficult piece, and wondering when it was going to turn into actual music.

 

[Jabrosky]

1. Having something that makes you stand out from the crowd

This doesn't seem that hard for me. I've always had a fairly unorthodox range of passions, and I like think this gives my writing more distinctive subject matter than others' in the same genre. Far be it from me to write about elves, orcs, and all that other trite pseudo-medieval crud. In my experience it is a lot easier to defy genre conventions when your special interests don't conform to those conventions in the first place.

 

[BWFoster78]

For me, my definition of voice is that intangible "it" factor a writer has.

This is part of my frustration with conversations like this. I think every person who has replied to this thread has a different definition of what we're discussing.

I think there are a lot of authors whose success haven't had anything to do with either style or sound technique. It's all about the ability to capture a reader's attention from the start and not let go. Seems to me, the way to do that is to:

1. Introduce a relatable character.
2. Put that character in trouble.
3. Resolve the trouble by putting the character in more trouble.
4. Go back to 2.

Not really what I'm trying to produce, but that's a formula for success that many writers have followed. If you can keep a reader engaged with your book, I think you'll find an audience regardless of your style or technique.

 

[Steerpike]

This is part of my frustration with conversations like this. I think every person who has replied to this thread has a different definition of what we're discussing.

I think there are a lot of authors whose success haven't had anything to do with either style or sound technique. It's all about the ability to capture a reader's attention from the start and not let go. Seems to me, the way to do that is to:

1. Introduce a relatable character.
2. Put that character in trouble.
3. Resolve the trouble by putting the character in more trouble.
4. Go back to 2.

Not really what I'm trying to produce, but that's a formula for success that many writers have followed. If you can keep a reader engaged with your book, I think you'll find an audience regardless of your style or technique.

I don't think that's true, really. I think the really successful writers have more going on that what you've said. There has been disagreement in the thread about exactly how you define it, but there has been broad agreement that it is there.

You could do items 1 through 4 in something that sounds like a newspaper article. That's not going to win you any readers. Have you ever read a book that does items 1 through 4 but just doesn't grab you? I have. I've heard that complaint plenty of times from other people as well. You finish the book, the characters were interesting and they were doing interesting things, but for whatever reason the book just didn't "grab" you. I'll finish that book. It's decent enough. I'll just never buy anything else by that author.

Elements 1 through 4 are simple to do. The authors who are really successful and build a loyal following are doing something more, and that comes down to style. The reason they have loyal fan bases is that readers don't just want 1 through 4, they want it in the way that particular author writes. She's not interchangeable with every other generic fiction writer who comes along trying to tell a story. There is something distinctive and engaging about her.

If all you do is 1 through 4, in a generic style that could have been written by anyone, why should any reader eagerly await your next book as opposed to the next book by the dozen other authors doing the same thing in the same way? I think 1 through 4 is great, but it is not sufficient in and of itself to make me read an author's work.