Writing Beyond Good

[BWFoster78]

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?

That's the thing, though. There seems to be huge market for books that do just that. Look at James Patterson. Isn't that basically what he does? His books don't grab me at all, but they have a huge audience.

Elements 1 through 4 are simple to do.

Not as simple as you might think. There are a lot of people self publishing right now who aren't even getting this part right.

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.

Again, there seems to be a huge market for light books that you simply can't put down. Bestseller lists seem to be full of them.

I think 1 through 4 is great, but it is not sufficient in and of itself to make me read an author's work.

I'm not saying that it's enough for everybody, but it seems to be good enough for a lot of the reading public.

Personally, I want to transcend simply doing this, but, if I can find a book that's fun to read, I'll look for other books by that author even if the book didn't resonate with me on any kind of deeper level. Believe me, it's harder to find books that are engaging than you seem to think.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I agree with Brian, as far as the importance of his four points, and that a writer can find success employing them without having a distinct voice.

However, there's a difference, in my view, between those authors that can find some level of success and those that are so unique & sound so different from their contemporaries. While at the same time espousing the other fundamentals they are, as a result, catapulted to status & success above other more common writers. That is the power of voice.

Look at star singers... There's plenty of good singers in the world that spend their careers as back up vocalists, never stepping forward to the front of the stage. Why? Often, it's a matter of tone & style. A good singing voice and an understanding of principles isn't enough. They lack a unique tone or other elements that make the superstars distinct & recognizable.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I agree with Brian, as far as the importance of his four points, and that a writer can find success employing them without having a distinct voice.

However, there's a difference, in my view, between those authors that can find some level of success and those that are so unique & sound so different from their contemporaries. While at the same time espousing the other fundamentals they are, as a result, catapulted to status & success above other more common writers. That is the power of voice.

Look at star singers... There's plenty of good singers in the world that spend their careers as back up vocalists, never stepping forward to the front of the stage. Why? Often, it's a matter of tone & style. A good singing voice and an understanding of principles isn't enough. They lack a unique tone or other elements that make the superstars distinct & recognizable.

Would you say that Justin Bieber has a unique tone that makes him distinct and recognizable? If so, would you say that positively? Or would you say his music is relatable to a certain market?

 

[Philip Overby]

That's the thing, though. There seems to be huge market for books that do just that. Look at James Patterson. Isn't that basically what he does? His books don't grab me at all, but they have a huge audience.

I've never read James Patterson, but despite the fact that his books don't grab you, they grab other people. The same can be said of awesome fantasy writers. You mentioned before that Steven Erikson didn't do anything for you. But for many he's on some of the top fantasy writer lists of all time. And he definitely isn't just following steps 1-4. He's got a flair to his storytelling that grabs you (well, in this case, not you, but you get what I mean )

There are some that can't get through a single Tolkien book. Does this make him any less engaging? Is he not doing steps 1-4 right? I think these issues come down to preference a lot times. For me, Tolkien has a strong voice. As does Erikson. As does James Patterson for some people. If these writers were just following a pattern of storytelling, then they wouldn't be, have been, as successful.

Some readers, and writers for that matter, are hard to impress. This doesn't always mean a writer is doing something wrong. It just means something's not clicking with the reader. I think a writer's job is try to connect with readers whichever way works for them. Writing is, at the end of the day, a form of communication. Whether you're communicating something interesting is really in the eye of the beholder. Some people may be engaged by YA supernatural romance. However, they may think George R.R. Martin is horrible.

The general reading public doesn't analyze these issues as much as we do. They like what they like. Same as people go in droves to see Grown Ups 2,some people will buy something familiar and easy to digest. It's what they like. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Would you say that Justin Bieber has a unique tone that makes him distinct and recognizable? If so, would you say that positively? Or would you say his music is relatable to a certain market?

I'm not qualified to answer that question. I'm not a teenage girl & I'm well past the age to appreciate that type of music.

However, you'll notice in the above post I wrote "and other elements." I'd say there is probably some "it factor" or style to the kid that is a large part of his stardom. And yes, he is a star to a certain demographic. I see no difference there for any artist. A writer is going to appeal to certain people while remaining no more than a name to others.

I don't know any Bieber songs but I know the name. I'm sure there are fans of his who know the name Tolkein but never read his books.

 

[BWFoster78]

I've never read James Patterson, but despite the fact that his books don't grab you, they grab other people. The same can be said of awesome fantasy writers. You mentioned before that Steven Erikson didn't do anything for you. But for many he's on some of the top fantasy writer lists of all time. And he definitely isn't just following steps 1-4. He's got a flair to his storytelling that grabs you (well, in this case, not you, but you get what I mean )

There are some that can't get through a single Tolkien book. Does this make him any less engaging? Is he not doing steps 1-4 right? I think these issues come down to preference a lot times. For me, Tolkien has a strong voice. As does Erikson. As does James Patterson for some people. If these writers were just following a pattern of storytelling, then they wouldn't be, have been, as successful.

Some readers, and writers for that matter, are hard to impress. This doesn't always mean a writer is doing something wrong. It just means something's not clicking with the reader. I think a writer's job is try to connect with readers whichever way works for them. Writing is, at the end of the day, a form of communication. Whether you're communicating something interesting is really in the eye of the beholder. Some people may be engaged by YA supernatural romance. However, they may think George R.R. Martin is horrible.

The general reading public doesn't analyze these issues as much as we do. They like what they like. Same as people go in droves to see Grown Ups 2,some people will buy something familiar and easy to digest. It's what they like. Nothing wrong with that.

Phil,

The point was that "voice" isn't the crucial element to success that posters on this thread seem to be making it out to be. How can anyone say that James Patterson has a unique voice when it's widely acknowledged that he employs a lot of authors to "cowrite" with him? He's successful purely due to writing thrillers that make his readers want to see what happens on the next page.

Again, not what I'm trying to achieve, but there's nothing wrong with that. More power to him!

I don't think there's one characteristic of writing that guarantees success. My advice is to figure out what you want to accomplish and do that well. If you do can master what you want to accomplish, I think you'll be able to find your audience.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I read the blog post and liked it. I guess what it amounts to is that getting it right is more than just doing it correctly.
I'll try not to get into the debate about voice, but I'll admit that I like the idea of voice being important.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't agree regarding Patterson.

I know quite a few James Patterson fans, and the one thing they seem to agree on is that the quality of his work has gone downhill (though most of them still buy his books). By the time Patterson started writing by committee he was already successful, already had a following, and was already a brand unto himself. I don't think you can look at that and draw the conclusions that are being drawn. I don't think an unknown writer would be likely to do it and have it work for them.

If you look at Patterson's early work, which is what made him famous to begin with, he certainly has a distinctive style and voice. Once his name became a brand, he could do what he wanted and still sell a lot of books.

 

[BWFoster78]

I don't agree regarding Patterson.

I know quite a few James Patterson fans, and the one thing they seem to agree on is that the quality of his work has gone downhill (though most of them still buy his books). By the time Patterson started writing by committee he was already successful, already had a following, and was already a brand unto himself. I don't think you can look at that and draw the conclusions that are being drawn. I don't think an unknown writer would be likely to do it and have it work for them.

If you look at Patterson's early work, which is what made him famous to begin with, he certainly has a distinctive style and voice. Once his name became a brand, he could do what he wanted and still sell a lot of books.

This conversation is growing a bit pointless. "Voice" is so nebulously defined that I can pull out any example I want, and you can simply say, "He's got a great voice. That's the reason for his success."

 

[Svrtnsse]

This conversation is growing a bit pointless.

It does feel a bit like you're going in circles.

 

[Steerpike]

This conversation is growing a bit pointless. "Voice" is so nebulously defined that I can pull out any example I want, and you can simply say, "He's got a great voice. That's the reason for his success."

No, you said it couldn't be his voice because he's writing by committee. I'm just pointing out that he was famous before he started doing that and that his older books do have a style and voice. I didn't say it was the reason for his success, I'm just saying the point you made about him being famous without a distinctive voice doesn't hold up. I don't know why you're opposed to the idea that narrative voice matters. How else do you think an author is going to stand out from the mass of other authors, particularly in self-publishing? If there are 1000 writers of generic fiction all doing the same thing, you've got to have something that distinguishes you, in my opinion, unless you're planning to rely on luck alone.

 

[BWFoster78]

I don't know why you're opposed to the idea that narrative voice matters.

Because it doesn't to me. I've never read a single book where afterward I said, "Wow, that book was awesome. The author had a great voice."

Instead, I say, "Wow, I couldn't put the book down because the tension keep me so engaged. I loved rooting for the characters and wanted to find out what happened to them."

Obviously, for you, voice is an important aspect. That's fine. There's a wide variety of literature available for that reason. I just don't feel you can say, "For writing to be objectively good, it has to have a good authorial voice."

In my highly subjective opinion, that's just not the case. It's a feature that literally doesn't matter to me in the slightest as a reader. As a writer, I want each of my characters to have a distinct voice because I think it enhances the deep POV that I wish to achieve, but even that is a subjective goal of mine, not a universal necessity.

How else do you think an author is going to stand out from the mass of other authors, particularly in self-publishing? If there are 1000 writers of generic fiction all doing the same thing, you've got to have something that distinguishes you,

I think that each of us needs to figure out exactly what makes writing come alive for us and learn how to create that effect. For me, it's writing that makes me care about the characters and compels me to turn the pages. For you, it's apparently "voice."

 

[Philip Overby]

This may be taking the discussion a little off track, but I think it's worth noting in today's age of writing and publishing. It seems more and more that writers rely on social media, interviews, and word of mouth to sell books. It's not just "Oh, that sounds like a good book" anymore. There are hundreds if not thousands of good books, some by more established authors or even by deceased authors in some cases. "Voice," however nebulously defined, is what got me interested in Chuck Wendig's fiction. I thought, "If this guy is this funny, then his books must be awesome." I'm not wrong. That's one of his selling points as a writer. He connects with people as an author and thus gets people reading his books. From there, they can become engaged in his characters, his world, etc. If you follow almost any currently relevant writer in the genre now, they're using Twitter in a way to show what they're about. To give you hints, snippets, reviews, or whatever they can do to connect with readers.

A big part of that comes down to voice. A writer's voice inevitably carries over to his or her fiction in some ways. Unless you're Cormac McCarthy you can't afford to not put yourself out there in some way. Sadly, there are some awesome authors out there that I'll probably never read because the days of me going into a bookstore and saying "Oh, this looks good" are pretty much over. I almost always buy something if either:

a. I like the author
b. I like something the author previously wrote
c. Someone (a friend or writer I like) recommended it

Writing doesn't always speak for itself anymore. You've got to "get people in the door" so to speak. A strong, distinctive presence can do you a lot of favors.

All that said, I agree with BW that having strong, distinctive characters that resonate is very important. However, I've read dozens of stories that I couldn't tell you who wrote them because they didn't have a distinctive style or flair. I may have read them and said "That was decent" but I'm probably not going to seek that author out again unless something really struck me.

Going into the world of movies for a moment, my belief is that Quentin Tarrantino is one of the greatest film makers of all time. That said, there have been dozens if not hundreds of movies made about WWII. If you told me "There's a new WWII movie out" I'd probably say "Oh, OK." But if you told me "Quentin Tarrantino made a WWII movie" I'd say "Oh, wow, I need to see that." That's the same in fiction if you say "There's a new YA book out" or "Joe Abercrombie has a new YA book out." 99 percent of the time I'd pick the Abercrombie book because I'm sold on his voice, style, approach, everything.

I need a potent fiction concoction. And that's almost always a combination of voice, strong characters, an interesting setting, and a solid, cohesive plot. Having one of these things is not enough for me anymore. I need it all!

 

[PaulineMRoss]

I've followed this thread carefully, and numerous other threads on the same subject, and read dozens of blogposts about it, and I still don't really understand what you guys mean by 'authorial voice'. It seems to be no more than a distinctive writing style, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

But whatever it is, I don't see that many people base their reading choices on it. Writers might, because they read in a different way, but ordinary punters buy a book because the premise sounds good, or they've enjoyed other books by that author, or they've seen the movie, or their best mate told them it was awesome, or they just like the cover. IMO, of course.

I've found that if an author has a distinctive writing style, it tends to get in the way of the story. It becomes a distraction. Very few authors have the power to dazzle purely by writing style - the likes of Patrick Rothfuss, maybe, but even then a lot of readers dismiss his work as pretentious twaddle.

Now a writer like Michael J Sullivan has a very plain, down-to-earth way of writing that no one will ever write eulogies about. But what he does astonishingly well is Brian's four-point list: terrific characters, then the trouble/resolve, trouble/resolve cycle that ramps up the tension all the way through. I'm reading his sci-fi work 'Hollow World' at the moment, and there are points where I literally had to put the book down for a second to remind myself to breathe. Great stuff, and the writing style is completely transparent (to me, anyway).

But maybe I see it this way because I don't understand voice.

 

[Steerpike]

@BWFoster, I think we'll just disagree on this Even in the types of books you cite, I think it is the author's voice, whether recognized by the reader or not, that is a significant factor in the success of the book. I read a lot in the thriller and mystery genres, where authors are very good at doing this sort of thing and keeping readers turning the page, and I see voice as significant there.

A good example might be Michael Connelly. The guy is at the top of his genre, and he's been writing about the same LAPD homicide detective since somewhere around 1991. His characters are regular people. They're good at what they do, but nothing spectacular in terms of fictional characters. There are a lot of characters I think are more relatable than his protagonist. His plots are good. They vary in scope, but most of them are modestly focused around the L.A. area. The sorts of things that might happen to a homicide detective.

Year in and year out, Connelly puts out exactly the kinds of books you're talking about and they always sell well. There are dozens of authors writing the same sort of thing, who are just (if not better) at creating characters, and just as good at plotting, and they're stuck on the mid-lists and the authors probably can't even quit their day jobs. The reason, in my opinion, is that the way in which Michael Connelly tells the story, in large part his narrative voice, is just so much better than those other guys. If you made Connelly and one of those other authors switch plots and characters for their next novel, the Connelly book would still be compelling to readers while the other guy would still manage only another mediocre offering.

 

[Steerpike]

Pauline: I think style and voice are two different things, though they influence each other or overlap. And while the average reader may not consciously consider voice when they are reading a book, just like they don't consciously consider any number of of others things writers think about, I think it is a significant factor in the enjoyment of the story.

As for Michael J Sullivan, I disagree. I think he's got a pretty strong narrative voice, which is one reason I enjoyed his books as much as I did.

I think it was Margaret Atwood, whom I'm not actually a big fan of but who is a successful writer, who recommended starting with voice. I don't always do that, though I have, but I think she's right in ascribing a high level of importance to it.

 

[Caged Maiden]

So, Brian, are you saying it isn't possible, that even if you weren't "searching for it", those favorite books of yours didn't have a great narrator voice? And that it didn't subconsciously lead to your greater enjoyment of the books?

I'm not trying to argue, but I know that when I looked back at some of my favorite books, I noticed things that years ago, I couldn't have even comprehended. In fact, I recently mentioned doing so and noticing that one of my very favorites of all time was written in FIRST PERSON! Something I thought I hated!

I bet you twenty dollars here and now, if you crack open a few of those books and look at them again, you will not only find those elements you already mentioned (engaging characters, great action sequences, probably strong antagonists and plenty of tension). But, you will also find deep POV utilized, to really draw us into the character and his predicament, and voice. Voice is to me, those little comments that works in tandem with deep POV. While deep POV is the omission of the narrator, voice is the thing that connects the reader to that POV.

It's in every description, every internal thought, and my favorite, every analogy. I just got a piece judged and got compliments on "voice". I highlighted all the "voice" choices I made in red. At least as far as I understand the concept. I hope I'm not terribly lost in my thinking. I notice, a lot of times people talk theory here on the forums, but usually we don't dare risk looking like idiots by trying to enact our theories for the world to see. Well, I'll risk looking like that idiot. If I'm misunderstanding the concept or "voice" and deep POV, please let me know. here it is:

Spoiler: the beginning of the story

They call it the Eternal Palace, sitting high above the river Dranz, overlooking the sea. It appears very different to me, from the northern spire, ivory bars on my windows and a thick rope latch binding my door. I chose not to use flowery descriptions. It wouldn't fit the character, and it was more important to "see" the bars and latch from her POV than it was to tell the reader more about them. I tend to feel "static" descriptions are the indicator of a lacking voice, but equally bad are consistently overdone descriptions.

They say it’s for my own protection, but I know better. It’s for theirs. I took a bone comb from my hair and raked my fingers through. It was almost dinnertime. Footsteps sounded in the hall.

The rope uncoiled from my door and Fion entered my chamber, my dinner clutched in his hands. He approached the table as I turned from the window. His eyes never met mine.

He set down a crude wooden cup. My brother, Galen, was a bastard. Too smart for his own good and cowardly as the day is long. this was a combination between deep POV and voice. Fion placed the wooden trencher on the table and when the bread roll toppled off the side, he picked it right up off the floor with his bare hand and set it back on the table for me to apparently eat. I frowned. Also a POV choice that had a "voice", because a generic narrator would have left out the bare hand (which was an important revelation about the character, reinforced by the word "apparently").

No knife, no spoon, just wooden dishes and the basic foodstuffs I’d endured that word was a "voice" choice. I could have said "eaten". for the past year. I eyed Fion. “Would it kill him to spare me a glass of wine now and again?”

The servant paled, his blue eyes darting for the door.

“Relax,” I said, picking up the roll and biting off a chunk. “I know he won’t send one.” I smiled. “Because I’d turn it into poison and kill him.”

He laid a linen cloth next to my plate, pressing it with his dirty hand, to smooth the wrinkles.

Fion’s palpable nervousness pleased me, much more than his prominent brow and underbite. Actually, I thought he rather resembled one of the hideous grotesques that hung right above my window. Not a thought I relished, assuming I’d have to touch him to escape.

The simpleton was only my latest guard, one of many whom Galen employed to keep me in my cage. The smart ones were too easy to beguile and the brawny ones too easy to seduce. Even the women. My brother knew better than to appoint a capable man with my daily care. I guess that’s why he chose a mute slave with the intellect of a child. In fact, I didn’t even know his name. I dubbed him Fion because he reminded me of my father’s hunting dog, also a half-breed mongrel with a jutting lower jaw. Those last two paragraphs were meant to be one long internal thought and therefore, rely heavily on "voice".. I'm sure I could come up with a much more generic way to say what I did here. Would someone do that on purpose? I'm unclear as to why they would.

Four weeks had passed with Fion as my only contact and I was about out of patience. He couldn’t speak and I wasn’t entirely certain he even comprehended my words. But I wasn’t ready to admit defeat. Not to my brother, of all people.

I scanned Fion’s shirt, searching for buttons, a pin, anything.

Nothing. His short tunic revealed trousers belted with a rope and his leather shoes were bound with linen laces rather than buckles. Perfect.

I let him leave, feeling dejected. It wasn’t that I expected Galen to commit some massive oversight, but I was poised to leap upon any small miscalculation. The wine would have been nice.

I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the books we love, whether we know all the reasons and nuances why or not, has a lot to do with voice. In a good voice, I'm more likely to be forgiving of pacing and grammar, but it's almost a moot point, because of those things, voice is the hardest to master.

So let me know if I owe you a twenty.

 

[BWFoster78]

Voice is to me, those little comments that works in tandem with deep POV. While deep POV is the omission of the narrator, voice is the thing that connects the reader to that POV.

Let's take another tack at this. Every writer who has ever written anything puts his personal touch on the work, even if it's a little as using "from" instead of "out of." We all have a particular syntax, cadence, etc.

I contend that these elements simply aren't that important. Here's how I'm reading your definition:

Voice is defined as that which makes writing good (by, in your case, connecting the reader to the POV). Therefore, all great books have a great voice.

 

[Caged Maiden]

i just wanted to say one more thing about "engaging characters". It isn't by learning he's an outlaw on the run with a dead father haunting him in his dreams that we relate to him... it's in the author's way of showing us that, and most often, that's done through voice.


I could simply write:

"The ghost of his father appeared before him as he was unrolling his bedroll for the night. Shimmery translucence obscured the face, but still he recognized his father, a man of dignity and regal bearing."

OR:

He swept a palm over the bedroll, smoothing wrinkles. Around the camp's periphery, mist gathered. He stood from his bed, thinking it an unusual phenomenon, so far from a bog. Smoky tendrils wound together, growing, taking shape, until they appeared as a man, standing before him. His father. Despite the specter's obscured features, his bearing gave away his identity. A puffed chest and chin held aloft indicated a man who died as proudly as he lived.


Okay... the first one I would say has little voice in it. It's static, bland, and gets the job done, if the job is to convey information.

The second, you get a lot clearer picture of the character and I just can't see a reason for choosing the first over the second. The second is not overly long or flowery, but it gives a better POV. I know you're working on deep POV. Don't you think it goes hand in hand with voice?

 

[Caged Maiden]

I sent that last without seeing your question. One sec.

Okay, I think the last post still stands, but I'll try to elaborate (what I understand).

Okay, do all great books have a great voice? No. I've read stories (not novels) that had annoying voices. However... the thing it, the overall enjoyment of the piece would have been lessened without the voice. Unless it was so annoying I put it down. I think a really obscure voice can certainly put people off.


Take "Flowers for Algernon". That has a distinct voice. It comes through in journal entries written by Charlie who's barely literate at first, and then gets super intelligent. WHat would you call that? POV alone? I think it's a marriage of voice and POV that make that one of the most wonderful examples of voice I've ever read.