Ye old Storyteller...

[Heliotrope]

Chesterama's post on voice has really got me thinking about narrative… namely, the 'narrator', or, for the sake of this post 'ye old storyteller'.

I've been thinking a lot about storytelling lately. I always knew writing was something I wanted to do. As an English Lit scholar I know how to throw a sentence together. I have learned, however, that throwing a sentence together is very different from telling a compelling story.

Storytelling has likely been around since the beginnings of humanity. Storytellers can be found with a variety of titles in almost every historical culture. Storytelling was used for a vast number of reasons such as teaching about religion, teaching morality, teaching about an individuals place in the world, teaching about history, and simply to entertain.

Something I'm interested in discussing is the personal/human connection or the relationship between the storyteller and the listener. I'm beginning to think that this human connection is very important, and that it is perhaps being lost.

Up until only a few hundred years ago stores were told by a person. Only the wealthy had access to education, and so most people could neither read nor write. Up until the 15th C in England writing was only done in Latin , when Geoffrey Chaucer et al started to write for people in English, but even then most people were too uneducated to read their books.

Most people had to tell stories orally. A human being with authority would gather a crowd who had come to listen to a compelling story. In history, good story tellers would be famous and would travel around spinning their yarns. Imagine the richness of the experience, sitting quietly while the storyteller would lower his voice to create anticipation, and raise his voice to create alarm. Imagine looking into the shining eyes of an old storyteller while seated around a fire. He would scan the crowd as he spoke, and just as he revealed that the dragon was hiding right behind the stone the very hero stood upon, he would stare directly into your eyes and you would feel the same fear as the hero himself.

I think that this human relationship with the storyteller was integral to the experience. Humans have always been social creatures. We rely on each other for contact and closeness and as much as we like to think we are "islands" I believe that humans need human interaction to thrive. I believe that as humans we want to hear other humans tell stories, regardless of whether they are true or not, we want to believe that the story is happening to someone real.

When I read back into older books I find that the narrative voice is very strong. The story is obviously being 'told' by someone.

Alice was beginning to get very tired of sitting outdoors with her sister, and of having nothing to do. (Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll).

Benjamin Braddock graduated from a small Eastern college on a day in June. Then he flew home. (The Graduate by Charles Webb)

All this happened, more or less. The war parts, anyway, are pretty much true. One guy I knew really was shot in Dresden for taking a teapot that wasn't his. (Slaughter-House-Five by Kurt Vennegut)

Notice how, in these three examples (all within the past 100 years) start with a voice telling us a story. There is a person telling us the story. They do not start with action. They do not start with anyone doing anything. They do not start with mystery or stuff blowing up, or any other matter of things that we are told we are supposed to start a story with. They start with a narrator telling us the story. And yet, to me this is compelling. To me this makes me sit up and think "Oh, ok, the storyteller is starting…I'd better pay attention."

I have noticed that as people have become more isolated from each other (advent of technology, internet, texting) we are losing writer voice in our narratives. We are becoming more focussed on action and showing, and less focussed on providing a storytelling experience.

Has anyone else noticed this? We are writing as if showing the events of a movie, and not writing as if we are a storyteller telling the story.

The human element is being lost. The voice of the storyteller is being lost. We are all developing this sort of "serious writer voice" that is full of rules and structures and "show don't tell" but void of the human element.

Has anyone else noticed this? What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Steerpike]

I agree with you, Heliotrope. I do see, however, that in a number of works that do well there is still a strong narrative voice. Not always, of course, but it is there a lot. The rise of first person narratives really seem to me to showcase this, because in first person stories the narrative voice of the main character is crucial. Authors in SF / fantasy who still rely on a strong narrative voice include Neil Gaiman, Caitlin Kiernan, Robin McKinley, Guy Gavriel Kay, Susanna Clarke, JK Rowling, Steven Brust, Steven Erikson, Dan Simmons, Margaret Atwood etc. There are plenty of others.

With the exception of certain genres where I expect less of such a voice (e.g. thrillers) I have little interest in reading something that could have been written by any generic writer. One of the main reasons I put down fantasy books is the lack of a strong voice and strong storytelling on the part of the author.

 

[Heliotrope]

Thanks Steerpike for your response!

Yes, I agree with you about the examples you gave for contemporary fiction. I was going to go there, but then my post would have been an essay.

It does seem, exactly like you described, that the novels that do well are the ones that still maintain that storyteller voice. This only just dawned on my a few months back when I read Gaiman's American Gods. The novel had that literary fiction quality to it that is very distinct, and what I've come to realize through some analysis over the past few days is that that quality appears to be strongly related to author voice, and that feeling of being 'told' the story vs. being simply 'shown' the story.

I also agree with you about certain genres. I started a thriller not too long ago, but as you described, it felt very generic. Anyone could have written the words on the page. The story was there, but there was no human behind it. It felt void of something very important, and now I think that emptiness came from the lack of human element.

Edit: I also thought that I didn't like first person POV. My WIP was begging to be written in first person, and I just didn't get it. I thought I hated FP. But when I was doing this little investigation after Chesterama's post, I realized that so many classics and personal favourites are written in first person. The Sun Also Rises, The Great Gatsby, The Handmaid's Tale, Odd Thomas… so obviously this sort of relationship with the narrator is more important to me than I thought it was.

 

[Chessie]

Goodness, we read so differently. I hated the Great Gatsby. Hated. Never read any of the other authors you guys have put up either. Hate GOT. But who I do love is Victor Hugo, Agatha Christie, Margaret Mitchell, Lindsay Buroker (an Indie fantasy writer), C. S. Lewis, and yes, Shakespeare to name a few. Aside from Mitchell who only wrote one fantastic book, the others are in a handful of authors who've kept my attention long enough to read all of their works.

The thing I love about classical literature is that the narrator is strong in these works. I'm guided through a story world and being held captive by the author. I don't find that so much anymore. It's a shame, really.

 

[Heliotrope]

The thing I love about classical literature is that the narrator is strong in these works. I'm guided through a story world and being held captive by the author. I don't find that so much anymore. It's a shame, really.

Totally. 100% with you on this.

 

[Steerpike]

I like 1st person when done by a talented writer. I like Atwood, but didn't buy into the start of Handmaid's Tale.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I'm not fond of 1st POV, but it often depends on how it is handled. The classics are quite good at that... but again, history has a way of separating the wheat from the chaff.

See the child. He is pale and thin, he wears a thin and ragged linen shirt. He stokes the scullery fire. Outside lie the dark turned fields with rags of snow and darker woods beyond that harbor yet a few last wolves. His folk are known for hewers of wood and drawers of water but in truth his father has been a schoolmaster. He lies in drink, he quotes from poets whose names are now lost. The boy crouches by the fire and watches him.

Showing? Telling? Both? I don't think McCarthy can ever be said to not have a strong voice, and what he does well to me is blur them together. Who's going to tell Cormac McCarthy to show not tell? Who would need to? It works. As I mentioned earlier, I think a lot of the knee-jerk show don't tell responses are an easy way to critique a piece that isn't working for the reader. I have on occasion been hit with the "show don't tell" critique, and most times is is right, but I've noticed that further down the same person won't say that even though I am once again telling... probably because how I told it in one place worked, the other did not. Fixing such a passage may require showing, or simply stronger telling.

I think you hit on something with movies influencing writing... show don't tell is vital in screenwriting, unless you have a narrator, and narrators are frowned upon... the visual simply must tell the story, or show the story. The carry over is a bit awkward because it discourages the use of every tool in the box to tell a story.

 

[FifthView]

Maybe the demise of 3rd-person omniscient is partly to blame. (Technically not dead, still being used, but often dismissed as a tool in fantasy genres.)

There is a kind of sleight-of-hand when authors use the 3rd-person intimate (or limited) approach, of trying to simultaneously give a 1st-person POV feel while having and utilizing the flexibility of 3rd-P description. The fear of breaking POV limits a lot of what constitutes or may flavor a storyteller voice. It doesn't have to; but the more mechanical 3rd-P intimate/limited approaches tend to have this effect. There is a tight line between staying within POV while at the same time adding description that might be considered unweildy or simply wrong in a first-person approach. So that description comes out flat, matter-of-fact, without all that storyteller flavoring.

 

[Heliotrope]

Excellent example Dem.

This is what I'm saying. In the old style, the narrator was there with you as the reader. They were a presence, telling you where to look, telling you what to see, holding your hand and guiding you through the narrative. That was part of the storytelling process was being a guide of sorts. An authoritarian with a voice.

Now, it feels as though that part of it is being removed in favour of simply just 'showing' the scene. As Steerpike notes, this is not always the case.

Neil Gaiman's book American Gods starts with:

Shadow had done three years in prison. He was big enough and looked don't-****-with-me enough that his biggest problem was killing time. So he kept himself in shape, and taught himself coin tricks, and thought a lot about how much he loved his wife.

See how it starts with Gaiman taking on his role as narrator and telling us the story? Taking us by the hand and saying "OK, the story is starting now."

He could have started it by showing Shadow laying in his cot, flipping a coin through his fingers, flexing his biceps… but he didn't he chose to use his authoritative author voice to tell us the story first…

I have NO CLUE what any of this means… but I find it really interesting and I think it is important to talk about in terms of story telling.

 

[Heliotrope]

Yeah, Fifthview, I've been thinking about that too.

GRRM is a prime example of third person limited. He really writes tightly from the POV of the person we are supposed to be watching… but I do feel not as intimate, like I'm still just watching a show, when I read his work. I'm NOT saying that it is a bad thing… I enjoy GRRM very much… I'm just wondering if we are losing the storyteller part of storytelling?

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Maybe the demise of 3rd-person omniscient is partly to blame. (Technically not dead, still being used, but often dismissed as a tool in fantasy genres.)

There is a kind of sleight-of-hand when authors use the 3rd-person intimate (or limited) approach, of trying to simultaneously give a 1st-person POV feel while having and utilizing the flexibility of 3rd-P description. The fear of breaking POV limits a lot of what constitutes or may flavor a storyteller voice. It doesn't have to; but the more mechanical 3rd-P intimate/limited approaches tend to have this effect. There is a tight line between staying within POV while at the same time adding description that might be considered unweildy or simply wrong in a first-person approach. So that description comes out flat, matter-of-fact, without all that storyteller flavoring.

I agree with this. I love 3rd Lim but at the same time, 3rd Om can be great. I was critiquing a work the other day and pointed out, when they mentioned breaking POV, that they weren't locked into anything, it was 3rd so they had plenty of wiggle room in there. That seemed to click, and as I recall, the next version of the text read much nicer because they weren't contorting every word to stay within this near 1st POV.

Head hopping is another interesting thing. Personally, that's the thing horribly lost from POV now, it can be a great thing, if used right. The trouble comes in when people don't know they are doing it, or do it so rarely that it comes off wrong.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I think, but do not know, that we both lose and gain at the same time. But I don't think the POV can be entirely blamed. 3rd Lim, movies and screenwriting, the internet and writing seminars creating a dogma of how to write (including Iowa Uni. where show don't tell reputedly originated). In my writing I am shooting for a "narrative 3rd limited". I think one of the funnest parts of tight POV with multiple POV is that the narrative (narrator) often lies, two or more people see the truth and conflicting goals, and we're inside both's heads.

At some point I want to read Workshops of Empire and The Program Era. Both should be interesting, but not sure how much they would apply to the topic at hand.

 

[kennyc]

...

I've been thinking a lot about storytelling lately. ....

The human element is being lost. The voice of the storyteller is being lost. We are all developing this sort of "serious writer voice" that is full of rules and structures and "show don't tell" but void of the human element.

Has anyone else noticed this? What are your thoughts on this?

Yes, there is definitely a trend toward 'writers impersonal/workshop voice' - I think Kris Rusch recently posted on this.

Last year at some point after some very intense reading/studying/learning I came to the conclusion that of all the elements that make up a story that voice or narrative voice may be the most important. Not that the other elements - characterization, story, description, dialog, etc. are not important, but given an intriguing narration many of the other elements can be minimized. It's the telling of the story, the way it is presented that is primary as far as I'm concerned.

ah, here it is, found it: Business Musings: Serious Writer Voice – Kristine Kathryn Rusch

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Yes, there is definitely a trend toward 'writers impersonal/workshop voice' - I think Kris Rusch recently posted on this.

Last year at some point after some very intense reading/studying/learning I came to the conclusion that of all the elements that make up a story that voice or narrative voice may be the most important. Not that the other elements - characterization, story, description, dialog, etc. are not important, but given an intriguing narration many of the other elements can be minimized. It's the telling of the story, the way it is presented that is primary as far as I'm concerned.

ah, here it is, found it: Business Musings: Serious Writer Voice – Kristine Kathryn Rusch

I would agree voice is primary, in this sense. I would probably put forth the notion description and dialogue are part and parcel of voice, rather than something separate. Character and story can be more separate, particularly story plot, theme and character creation, the background info etc, while the real act of characterization is again linked to voice. All and all, I would say they are inextricably linked. Even if you look at strict "rules" found in some writing books, what they really try to achieve is structuring your voice, so to speak.

It's all so intertwined, I'm not sure voice can be extricated from description, dialogue, characterization, and the words on the page, the things not on the page, plot, characters, and underlying structure (which are such heavy focus in writing books) can still ruin great voice, while bad voice absolutely can ruin the greatest idea no matter how well conceived.

Hmm, that said, I also believe in pop culture, stories that touch a particular nerve can have great success with questionable voice. Time will cleanse most of these from the book shelves, however.

 

[kennyc]

I would agree voice is primary, in this sense. I would probably put forth the notion description and dialogue are part and parcel of voice, rather than something separate. Character and story can be more separate, particularly story plot, theme and character creation, the background info etc, while the real act of characterization is again linked to voice. All and all, I would say they are inextricably linked. Even if you look at strict "rules" found in some writing books, what they really try to achieve is structuring your voice, so to speak.

It's all so intertwined, I'm not sure voice can be extricated from description, dialogue, characterization, and the words on the page, the things not on the page, plot, characters, and underlying structure (which are such heavy focus in writing books) can still ruin great voice, while bad voice absolutely can ruin the greatest idea no matter how well conceived.

Hmm, that said, I also believe in pop culture, stories that touch a particular nerve can have great success with questionable voice. Time will cleanse most of these from the book shelves, however.

Yep. I agree. It's all tied together, virtually impossible to separate/differentiate.

 

[Russ]

I would agree that the story telling experience is changing from what it was historically and that the intrusion of the story teller into the narrative is becoming rarer and weaker.

The questions then become:

1) is this a good thing or a bad thing; and

2) is there anything that can be done to change the modern audience expectation in this regard.

Firstly, I don't think it is a bad thing. All forms change and evolve. We are not sitting around a camp fire listening to a story by someone in person anymore, we are mostly reading novels or seeing films by people most of us will never meet. Thus they cannot use the tools the in person story teller can use, voice inflection, gestures, sound effects, literal pacing etc but they gain other tools.

I am of the view that the greatest story tellers, or writers are the ones who create the greatest immersion. The story teller should either not exist, or get the hell out of the way of the link between the character and the reader as best they can. A great story is one that carries you away and makes you feel you are really there. I want to feel that I am on the battlefield with Bob, not in Dave's rather lovely study being told about Bob in the battle. That is the experience that I believe that the story teller then or now is trying to deliver. With certain limited exceptions, a great story is one you lose yourself in and don't spend a moment thinking about the narrator, as a narrator. Even in good first person prose, the idea is to reduce the distance between the character as character rather than to allow you better access to the narrator. While an interesting narrator can add some charm and warmth from time to time, the general trend is towards getting the reader and character as close together as possible with as little as possible between them.

So to my mind this evolution in the form of story telling is a good development.

On the second question, can anything be reverse this change in the modern audience? I don't know. Give it a try. If you have a tale in your heart that you believe cries out for a more intrusive narrator, or would be made better with a more human connection to the narrator as narrator, write the darn thing and then publish it and see what happens.

 

[FifthView]

So...How does one detect that storyteller voice in prose? How does one infuse prose with it?

A very nifty tool: add bias, opinions, a peculiar perspective, and attitudinal twists to your description or exposition.

Why? Because such things automatically evoke the person behind them. I wrote above that much of the mechanical writing in 3rd-person limited delivers description that is flat or matter-of-fact. The opposite of matter-of-fact is...opinion. Every opinion must necessarily have a person behind it; someone has to be holding that opinion.

In the tightest of 3rd-person limited, that attitudinal exposition gives the 1st-person-ish feel; it is as if we are inside the POV character's head. An example from GRRM's A Clash of Kings:

Ser Arys had light brown hair and a face that was not unpleasant to look upon. Today he made quite the dashing figure, with his white silk cloak fastened at the shoulder by a golden leaf, and a spreading oak tree worked upon the breast of his tunic in shining gold thread. "Who do you think will win the day's honors?" Sansa asked as they descended the steps arm in arm.​

"Not unpleasant to look upon" and "quite the dashing figure" are observations that convey an attitude or opinion or personal outlook. The more matter-of-fact approach would be something like, "Ser Arys had light brown hair, and today he wore a white silk cloak fastened at the shoulder by a golden leaf....," forsaking the bias and instead being merely...matter-of-fact.

Even so, I do not think that this inside-the-head feel in 3rd-person limited is the same thing as that storyteller voice that is the topic of this thread. I do believe that this is one of the potential strengths of 3rd-P limited, however.

In 3P-limited, this isn't narration of a story. The POV characters aren't narrating the story in their voices, even if we, the readers, get a feel for their voices–or, their personalities. In fact, much of the time this attitudinal description can't even be said to be actual thoughts that a POV character is thinking at the time. If asked to explain their feelings after-the-fact, they might say these things. But often the bias is the author using sleight-of-hand. Sansa may not have been thinking, consciously, Dashing!, above, although her feelings about him might be positive and, if asked directly what she thought about his appearance, she might have used the phrase, "dashing figure."

But this is one of the reasons why I suggested what I did about the demise of omniscient voice and the reason a 3P-limited approach, when mechanical, might eliminate the little flavors that constitute a storyteller voice. With an omniscient approach, the author can add attitudinal observations, twists, asides, and so forth, without worrying about breaking POV. But in 3rd-person limited, any such attitudinal structures must (so the author feels) express only the opinions and limited perspective–the personality–of the POV character. So sometimes exposition comes out flat, matter-of-fact. In the well-written cases, exposition adds to immersion in the character.

 

[Heliotrope]

Thanks Russ for chiming in

I'm not sure it is bad, per se… I love George RR Martin, and Lee Child, and they both obviously have very distinct voices without having an over the top story teller voice.

Someone in one of the posts commented on how voice changes depending on type of story, and I hadn't considered that. That is absolutely true. Good point, that person, whoever you are.

Im not convinced (for myself) that having an obvious storyteller ruins the immersion… I just think it gives it a perspective… I love Kurt Vonnegut's Galapagos, and that has a very obvious storyteller… but yes, I see what you mean in that it does feel distant. Hemmingway also has a strong narrator voice and also feels distant… but I really love it… so that must just be my own personal preference…

Hmmm…. all so interesting.

And yes, FifthView I agree 100% with you like usual The best narratives (for me) are the ones that have something to say… that have on opinion on what is happening. Whether it is a description of an article of clothing, or a description of the battle, what is the opinion on it? What is the perspective that is new and interesting and different?

 

[kennyc]

....

Someone in one of the posts commented on how voice changes depending on type of story, and I hadn't considered that. That is absolutely true. Good point, that person, whoever you are.

....

I think that was me. In the other thread.

 

[Russ]

Im not convinced (for myself) that having an obvious storyteller ruins the immersion… I just think it gives it a perspective… I love Kurt Vonnegut's Galapagos, and that has a very obvious storyteller… but yes, I see what you mean in that it does feel distant. Hemmingway also has a strong narrator voice and also feels distant… but I really love it… so that must just be my own personal preference…

I think a lot of it has to do with reader expectations. There are a lot of old classics (as you point out) with strong narrator voices, or even books written in the form of "as it was told to me" to add even a thicker layer of narrator interference with the story in it. When I am reading a period piece, or a piece that is intentionally trying to carry off a period flavour than I enjoy it for what it is, in its context. It can be really well done, and in older works in coincides with my expectations and everyone is happy.

In fact I was reading Moorcock's Masters of the Pit last night and the whole narrative is premised on a hero telling his story to a writer and the writer re-telling it. It is also a blatant and fun homage to Burroughs Warlord of Mars works, and in this context it is a nice fit and quite enjoyable.

But if you took that same approach and just stuck it on a modern fantasy novel, or movie without a good reason for doing so, I would say it weakens the work.

I think few techniques or approaches are completely dead, but I think that changes in the field and audience expectations make opportunities to use certain techniques to good effect less frequent.