A Matter Of Voice

[Chessie]

Hi, my fellow Scribes. So given certain discussions on this site and some other articles/books I've read recently have me thinking about author or creative voice. We hear this a lot: you just have to find your voice.

So what the heck does that exactly mean?

When I first started writing, I just wrote. I was young and didn't understand crap about anything. I didn't understand grammar, story structure, plot, setting, character development, etc. I just wrote whatever came from my heart and the sentences just flowed. Over the years I learned more and improved my craft. There came a point where I didn't know exactly how to construct a story but I tried my best to copy what I saw in fiction books.

I've been writing for a wicked long time, and can just now say that I finally recognize my "voice".

So what is it? How can we recognize our creative voice?

First off, it takes practice. Years of practice. Sorry. A lot of beginning writers don't like to hear this crap. I can't tell you how many wannabe writers have told me that they just write when they're inspired. They don't try to improve. They don't make writing a habit. Well, all of our writing goals are different, right? Some of us want to sell big time. Some of us just care that a few people read our work. Others of us want big publishing contracts and thousands of fans. It doesn't matter what your goals in the writing business or not are─what matters is that we improve with every manuscript we finish. And how do we do that? Practice.

Write daily or write often. There's no way around that.

So back to author voice. A realization came to me just recently thanks to this article by Kristine Kathryn Rusch. She got me really thinking! Voice is how we talk. We don't recognize our own voice because we hear it all the time when we speak. She's so right! (at least I think so lol)

The concept of author voice has escaped me all of these years but I think that I finally understand. It's always there through the way we construct words, through the way we tell our story, through the type of stories we tell. Author voice is YOU telling a story! Simple. Listen to yourself talk. That's it. We are storytellers using paper to entertain others. Our voice is there from the beginning but it's only through practice (writing daily or often) and by learning HOW to construct a story and use language to our advantage that we begin to recognize it within our work some time later.

My voice is straight to the point with pieces of layered description. I have always preferred to focus on character emotion vs heavy description. I like stories laced with sadness, broken human spirits that find hope, sex, passion, and love that is very, very bad for us. My voice conforms to that. It's how I tell those stories.

Your voice is different than mine. And different from other writers. So yes, language and grammar and spelling are all tools we use to tell our stories but HOW we tell those stories, our choice of words and how we construct the sentences and paragraphs is our voice.

Sorry for the super duper long post, but what do you guys think?

 

[Heliotrope]

There was a post about this a while back, so I'm basically going to cut and paste:

I agree. Voice is tricky, but I think of it like the personality behind the writing. If I were to sit in a pub with Hemmingway, Martin and Atwood and swap fishing stories, they would all have a different way of telling the story. You can pick up each of their books and see how wildly different their voices are. This is very hard to develop.., but what I have found even harder is having confidence in my voice.

When Donald Maas speaks about author voice he states that a good author voice demands your attention in some way. You know when you are at a party and there is some one there who is just a great story teller? They can tell you all about their truck accident and it is hilarious and engaging and you want to drink beers with that person all night? Then you end up trapped with someone's old aunt who tries to tell you about her truck crash, but she is dry and boring and waffles around the details and keeps going on and on about her sore back? Author voice is like that. Engaging, demanding your attention. Standing tall and saying "I have a story to tell."

He says "it isn't words alone that do that, I find, but rather the outlook, opinions, details, delivery, and original perspectives that an author brings to his tale." (Fire in fiction, pg 130).

There are some members on this forum that have a very distinct voice. You can tell who is 'speaking' just based on the way the post reads. You can tell a Caged Maiden post because it is very long and chatty and sort of has a casual conversational tone. You can tell a Nimue post because it is usually insightful and has a sort of wise etherial tone to it. You can tell a Skip.Knox post because it is short, concise, and usually funny, you could tell a Brian Foster post because it had an edge to it that was distinctly Foster.

I find this really interesting. THAT to me is author voice. Some people have a very distinct voice when they write. For others it takes a while to find that distinct voice. Trying to apply that voice to writing is why we get so many variations of style, from Hemmingway's short, unadorned sentences, or George RR Martin's long, heavily descriptive prose, to Rothfuss' poetic prose, to Rowling's silly casual tone.


PS (Major guilt trip now with not writing every day! lol. But yes, my goals are very different than yours for sure.)

END CUT AND PASTE.

So, what happened in the other post was a conversation between me and FifthView about how do you critique author voice? Or can you even critique voice? And at what point does "author voice" become a crutch for bad writing?

And I love how she mentions all the 'rules' of writing now. How everything has to be so standardized in order to be 'good'. What is that?

 

[Mythopoet]

Ah, you read KKR's blog too? Isn't it brilliant?

I loved that post and agree with everything in it. I also recommend this post from a few years ago on the same subject. This is the one that made me wake up to what voice really is.

And this is why it is so, so, so dangerous to take advice from beta readers or people in writing workshops or even editors. Because everything that they suggest is what they would choose. It's their voice, not yours. The more you accept suggestions from other people, the more you are eliminating your voice from your work. Your work might still be good. But it will never be great.

Serious Writer Voice is a real problem these days. Everyone coming into the industry these days hears all the same advice, the advice that makes you think there's one right way to write stories. But this is false and leads to everyone practicing Serious Writer Voice and making every single book that comes out dull, dull, dull to read. I've been reading Elantris by Brandon Sanderson and it's good. But he's got a bad case of Serious Writer Voice. It reads like basically every other fantasy book written these days. Different setting, characters and plot, but same voice. I had to force myself beyond chapter one. And even after the plot and characters managed to grip me, I still find myself tempted to give up when he lapses into a particular dull passage of Serious Writer Voice. And the problem is, it could be so much better.

The truth is that every writer needs to be encouraged to write in their own way. With their own voice. This just means that you don't put stupid arbitrary outside limitations on how you express yourself naturally. Embrace how you express yourself naturally. As KKR says, it will sound boring to you, because you listen to yourself all day long every day and you're used to your own voice. But other people aren't. Your voice is unique to them. Not everyone will like it. But do you really want to be one of those writer who writes with the kind of prose that everyone agrees is good but no one gets excited about? If you're doing it right there should be people who hate your voice and people who love your voice. Because your voice causes people to feel things. That's the essence of storytelling.

 

[skip.knox]

Here's another instance where we really need critique groups and beta readers. I would have sworn I didn't have a voice, or hadn't found it yet, however you'd like to phrase that. But, some months ago, having submitted maybe three or four pieces to the group, one of the commenters said something in passing about "Skip's voice" and specifically how that voice led her to have certain expectations in the reading.

"Huh," I said to myself, so as not to startle my neighbor, "I have a voice."

I still don't know what that voice is, and doubt I could either write it deliberately or deliberately avoid writing it. Thinking about it makes me a little queasy, as if were I learn know my own voice, I'd never be able to speak naturally again. More likely, I'd be able to hone it better.

Meanwhile, I'll just keep talking (writing) and see if someday I'll be able to pick myself out in a crowd.

It does raise the mildly interesting question of whether critics (the professional kind) can really recognize authorial voice or whether they're as scattergun on that as they are on themes and hidden meanings.

 

[Heliotrope]

I also wanted to add that I love that she mentions these 'rules' that we tend to see on forums and crit groups and how that is creating a very bland voice.

I wanted to post two examples of great voice:

"It isn't as bad as all that; here I am and it is now the short a.m.'s. The short a.m.'s. I await the water boiling for a final cup of tea. Probably only drink the stuff in order to pish. Does offer a sort of relief. And simply strolling to the kitchenette and preparing this tea: the gushing tap, the kettle, gathering the tea-bag from the crumb strewn shelf - all of this is motion. (Kelman, 1995)".

"Spandau smoked, and thought the city gliding past was like an overexposed film, too much light, all depth burned away and sacrificed. All concrete and asphalt, a thousand square miles of man-made griddle on which to fry our sins. Then you turn a corner and theres a burst of crimson bougainvillaea redeeming an otherwise ugly chunk of concrete building. Or a line of tall palm trees, still majestic and refusing to die, guarding a side street of bungalows constructed at a time when L.A. was still the Land of Milk and Honey." (Depp, Loser's Town).

This sort of gorgeous writing breaks all the "Show don't tell", "Don't repeat words or phrases" BS that I hear at crit groups.

 

[Chessie]

Or can you even critique voice? And at what point does "author voice" become a crutch for bad writing?

Sure. You can critique author voice. It's either you like it or you don't. Period. About it being a crutch for bad writing...I think only the audience can decide that. If someone asks for feedback then as a beta reader or crit partner, we can tell them which parts weren't clear so they can improve on that. But voice has nothing to do with clarity...at least I don't believe so. Voice is just your choice of words and how you construct your tale. Bad writing is subjective and we can only truly say something is awful if we hate the prose or can't understand the story.

For example, I've had crit partners tell me that I use too much of these:

-And (to start sentences).
-But (to start sentences).
-himself, herself
-major adverbs
-action as dialogue tags
-a lot of ellipses and em dashes

Okay, I write this way on purpose because it's the way my thoughts are constructed, the way that the story is best placed on the page from my internal voice. Is it proper? My old English teacher would tell me no. But it's how I talk in real life and how I tell a story. It is different for everyone.

@Mythopoet: I agree that her article is brilliant. I read her and Dean's blog often and although I don't agree with everything they say, on this particular subject I'm with them 100%. And to tie this in with Skip's thoughts on needing beta readers, I think at the beginning yes, new writers need feedback and guidance. But there comes a point where writers can drop all that and need to start fostering a real respect for their craft.

Not everyone is going to like the way we write. Hell, I would even go far as to say that the majority of people who have read my stuff absolutely detest it. Or they love it. Or get mad anger about it. Why? Because I just write the way that feels right to tell the story.

We should honor our artistic side and the story we're telling. Voice is something we recognize after years of writing practice and we always build on that.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I also wanted to add that I love that she mentions these 'rules' that we tend to see on forums and crit groups and how that is creating a very bland voice.

I wanted to post two examples of great voice:

"It isn't as bad as all that; here I am and it is now the short a.m.'s. The short a.m.'s. I await the water boiling for a final cup of tea. Probably only drink the stuff in order to pish. Does offer a sort of relief. And simply strolling to the kitchenette and preparing this tea: the gushing tap, the kettle, gathering the tea-bag from the crumb strewn shelf - all of this is motion. (Kelman, 1995)".

"Spandau smoked, and thought the city gliding past was like an overexposed film, too much light, all depth burned away and sacrificed. All concrete and asphalt, a thousand square miles of man-made griddle on which to fry our sins. Then you turn a corner and theres a burst of crimson bougainvillaea redeeming an otherwise ugly chunk of concrete building. Or a line of tall palm trees, still majestic and refusing to die, guarding a side street of bungalows constructed at a time when L.A. was still the Land of Milk and Honey." (Depp, Loser's Town).

This sort of gorgeous writing breaks all the "Show don't tell", "Don't repeat words or phrases" BS that I hear at crit groups.

I don't think they really break the rules as much as you seem to think they do, aside from the fact there are no rules, you can do whatever you want just do it well. A novel is show and tell, difficult to find one that isn't, I'd suspect. 1st POV is clearly going to prone to this, because people "tell" stories when they talk, and people tend to speak about their internal thoughts rather than show externalizations. And the second one is very showy to me. Extremely visual even if there is some telling. Again, you can't escape telling when telling a story of any length, in many cases its poetic or even expediency.

Both of these pieces also demonstrate very tight prose, very much within "guidelines" oft called rules, heh heh.

 

[Heliotrope]

Totally with you on the tight prose. That is true.

But the "show don't tell" guideline is something that has been bothering me for some time… Perhaps because I just don't really understand the concept in regards to 'voice'.

So for example, I'm reading my son James Harriot's Animal Stories right now. It is written in first person. All the stories are a wonderful example of voice.

Christmas can never go by without my remembering a certain little cat. I first saw her when I called to see one of Mrs. Pickering's much-loved Basset hounds. I looked in some surprise at the furry creature moving quietly down the hall... (The Christmas Day Kitten, James Harriot).

There is no question that we are being "told" this story… that sitting around that camp fire feeling. And I feel like many of the strongest narratives have that sense of telling to them… like you are sitting with the author himself.

It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen... (1984 George Orwell)

We were the Mulvaneys, remember us? You may have thought our family was larger... (We Were the Mulvaneys Joyce Carrol Oates)

Robert Cohn was once middleweight boxing champion of Princeton. Do not think that I am very much impressed by that as a boxing title, but it meant a lot to Cohn. (The Sun Also Rises Hemmingway).

Notice how all of these examples sort of force you sit up and pay attention? They don't start in action, they don't start with a car crash or alien landing or anything interesting happening… but they start with a distinct voice that says "Hey! I have a story to tell here, you better sit up and pay attention."

On the flip side (and I find this an issue with fantasy in general), you find this:

A simple spell brought him unnoticed past the guards, out from the main gates of the greatest city in all of Avonsea, mighty Carlisle on Stratton…. (The Dragon King R.A. Salvatore).

He is showing us what is happening. Yes, there is mystery, intrigue, action, someone doing something… all the things you hear you are supposed to do in crit groups… but there is no voice! It is like the speaker is going "wah wah wah" with a trombone… it is action on a page with no story teller. I didn't finish the book. It sucked.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I've never actually worried about nor considered writer voice, so reading that article was interesting but seems a little obvious to me, but then I didn't grow up in the age of internet and writer workshops. And I will be honest, I am not a voracious reader of published works anymore. I read unpublished segments (not too much) to train myself to find things I don't like so I notice them better when revising my own work. I am against another "rule" of writing, the "read the classics" and "read read read" rules. Maybe when young, maybe when in between novels, but humans tend to be mimics. One piece I wrote years ago, I could immediately tell when I finished one book and picked up another because I started sounding like them. Outside of finishing off GRRM's upcoming books, I don't really care to read much. I know, anathema to so many.

I have no problem with blanding everyone's writing because it shuts down the competition, heh heh.

More seriously, writing is not simply the voice in your head or your speaking voice. It is your perfected (or purposely imperfected) voice. Perfection is different for every person, it is whatever engages the reader.

In this vein, when somebody says show don't tell, consider the notion, then buy into it or don't, or do both, whatever works, but think about it. When somebody says you have an echo, don't immediately delete, but think about it. When I hit on my pet words, that, had, was/were, don't immediately change them, but do think about them. Always think about any comment someone makes, just realize it may not be for you. That is one of the fun tricks in critiquing writing, I try to point out red flags, and often offer up suggestions, but I try not to step on voice. But my main targets are worthless words, most everybody could do with fewer worthless words, heh heh.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Salvatore and most fantasy, frankly, blow. I've literally only read GRRM for fantasy in the past 10 years. And he is a flawed writer, but a great story teller.

Telling can absolutely be as or more powerful than showing. Either way works, they simply must work.

I really think a lot of times when someone says "show don't tell" they're picking up on something else: it isn't working, and show don't tell is the easy analysis. Sometimes it might be working but they identify it because they are hyper analyzing, but most times, it isn't working. A good tell can do the work of a helluva lot of showing and do it beautifully.

And we all hyper analyze. Which is why all critiques should be taken as not "do this" but "think about this".

 

[Demesnedenoir]

It does raise the mildly interesting question of whether critics (the professional kind) can really recognize authorial voice or whether they're as scattergun on that as they are on themes and hidden meanings.

My money is on the shotgun, just a matter of choke, gauge, and shot size for the pattern, heh heh.

 

[Nimue]

Salvatore and most fantasy, frankly, blow. I've literally only read GRRM for fantasy in the past 10 years. And he is a flawed writer, but a great story teller.

Wow, your tastes are so superior that they preclude an entire genre (...that you're trying to write in?). Try Guy Gavriel Kay, Lois McMaster-Bujold, Steven Brust, and a little less generalization next time.

Edit: Sarah Micklem is also similar to Martin, low fantasy, and her writing is amazing.

 

[Heliotrope]

Amen to Guy Gavriel Kay.

1) Canadian.. Yes, yes, I love my country

2) alternate histories are my favourite, so I'm partial to him for that.

 

[Russ]

I have a unique perspective on voice. I do two or three discoveries a week (Americans call them depositions) so I get to see a transcript of the way I am speaking and the way my clients are speaking and get to read it. I have also done this thousands of times now and read thousands of transcripts of me and others speaking. It is a wonderful educational experience.

The first thing I will tell you is that you often don't speak the way you think you do. I used to think I was speaking in a certain manner to convey things in a certain way and I wasn't doing it as well as I hoped to. Reading those transcripts and consciously changing my way of speaking in discoveries (and in court) has been good for my career.

That is why critique groups and editors etc are very valuable. They are a real world check on whether or not you are communicating in the way you want to. If you sit around and write "your way", for "yourself" with only yourself as judge and jury there is no doubt that you will make yourself happy. But writing is a form or communication and except for very narrow reasons does not reach its highest form in writing to amuse yourself.

Good beta readers, editors and critiquers don't bland your voice out they help you find it and enhance it. They make you a better writer. If your writing is good enough to withstand some challenge it can get better. If you think your writing is not fit for people to critique, or is perfect or sublime just because you wrote is and you don't think anyone should tell you to change a coma...then I suspect you are either writing for only yourself (which is fine I guess) or you are unrealistic in your assessment of your writing.

Good courageous writers recognize this fact and realize that the right input can make their writing better. Much better. Good writers embrace criticism, they don't adopt all of it but they certainly are not afraid of it.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I admit I don't have time to read all the posts on this thread right now, so I'll be brief and promise to read them all later. I just wanted to add one thing, and hope it isn't already mentioned.

I have a lot of voices. When I wrote my zombie thriller modern work, I had a very short and snippy voice, because it suited the character. He's a no-nonsense sort of guy and he's jaded and confused, pondering things as a thug might. I realized when I sent that chapter to two critters that it was a polarizing voice. One of my toughest critters told me to not change a thing, he loved every minute of the read, and the other told me it was okay, but would become tedious for him over the course of a novel. Well, shit. But at least I had a strong viewpoint, I guess I'll have to simply admit it isn't for every reader, right?

In my fantasy series, I tend toward a middle of the road voice. I try to state facts and use my character lens appropriately, but admittedly, the voice of the work is meant to be less styled after a feeling and more appropriate for each given scene of the work. As in--it's blander in a way, but in effect, less polarizing. Less particular and more "typical". I did that to appeal to a wider readership and to the fantasy genre that draws many different kinds of readers. I don't know whether that's been effective, but it was the choice I made. I'm still in there, but I've toned down my natural instinct to "cut to the chase".

Some of my short stories show off my voice more than my novels, and I've been contemplating why they feel so much more successful to me, and the main reason I credit my personal feeling of success on them are simply that I didn't care. I didn't have time to belabor things, change a bunch of things, or otherwise tamper with the writing because I had deadlines for challenges or word count restrictions. For me, as I chose to deal with only one character and show a small story through only one POV, I could settle fully on a style, tone, and voice without worrying about how many parts would feel mashed together.

In short, some of my most successful voices were in stories I wrote in a hurry, in which I didn't overthink anything. And when I have a novel with multiple PsOV, I found it harder to distinctly create that feeling of individual voice for each character section because it could easily feel incongruent, as an overarching narrator voice took precedence to tie the whole book together. Basically, my talking voice took the front seat to the character's own voice, because I wasn't dealing with a single POV.

My favorite voices were my Clichea entry, The Diablarist (published in the ezine), my 10th fantasy novel Warrior's Heart, and my MC in Written in Red, Daniela. Those were most successful because I was really in the character's heads. And while my voice changes from work to work, some POV characters just speak louder to me than others. I think really understanding your character helps with voice, even in paragraphs of exposition, because they include exactly what the character observes in their own unique way.

I love talking about voice, because enough can't be said about the positive effect of a great writer's voice. But it changes for every work for me, personally.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Wow, your tastes are so superior that they preclude an entire genre (...that you're trying to write in?). Try Guy Gavriel Kay, Lois McMaster-Bujold, Steven Brust, and a little less generalization next time.

Edit: Sarah Micklem is also similar to Martin, low fantasy, and her writing is amazing.

Nope, my tastes aren't superior. Nor inferior, they are just my tastes. Most of every genre isn't very good, that's just my opinion. You can love or hate or disregard as much you like. It's a free world. I've read Salvatore books, and I see why they appeal to certain readers. Not just me.

I will stick to most (as I define most) fantasy not being all that good, I did not say all. I am certain there is plenty out there worth reading, I just don't take the effort to waste my time reading much these days. You are the one that stuck entire genre in my mouth, not me.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I have a unique perspective on voice. I do two or three discoveries a week (Americans call them depositions) so I get to see a transcript of the way I am speaking and the way my clients are speaking and get to read it. I have also done this thousands of times now and read thousands of transcripts of me and others speaking. It is a wonderful educational experience.

The first thing I will tell you is that you often don't speak the way you think you do. I used to think I was speaking in a certain manner to convey things in a certain way and I wasn't doing it as well as I hoped to. Reading those transcripts and consciously changing my way of speaking in discoveries (and in court) has been good for my career.

That sounds rather fascinating actually. I expect I speak just about as well as I expect I do.. very poorly, heh heh. I might discover it's even worse than I think... ewwww. I hope to heavens I write better than I speak, LOL. Reading my own transcripts might make me glue my mouth shut.

Readers are vital, I agree with that. Consider everybody's input, while realizing not every bit is right or wrong.

 

[Chessie]

That is why critique groups and editors etc are very valuable. They are a real world check on whether or not you are communicating in the way you want to. If you sit around and write "your way", for "yourself" with only yourself as judge and jury there is no doubt that you will make yourself happy. But writing is a form or communication and except for very narrow reasons does not reach its highest form in writing to amuse yourself.

Good beta readers, editors and critiquers don't bland your voice out they help you find it and enhance it. They make you a better writer. If your writing is good enough to withstand some challenge it can get better. If you think your writing is not fit for people to critique, or is perfect or sublime just because you wrote is and you don't think anyone should tell you to change a coma...then I suspect you are either writing for only yourself (which is fine I guess) or you are unrealistic in your assessment of your writing.

Good courageous writers recognize this fact and realize that the right input can make their writing better. Much better. Good writers embrace criticism, they don't adopt all of it but they certainly are not afraid of it.

I respect your perspective, Russ, and also the fact that you have some insight on what traditional publishers seek. However, I disagree with the statement in bold simply because that's totally not what I'm proposing.

I did mention in my response to Skip that yes, feedback is important when starting out writing. Fresh into the game, we need to learn how to build the house, right? Or like the artistic kid that goes to college, learns how to hone their skills, and then continues painting with the knowledge they learned. I see crit groups in the same way. It's important to learn the structure of storytelling because there is such a thing. It's important to have your work read and edited before being sent to a publisher or putting it up on Amazon. Yes, this is a must.

However, I resent the fact that we writers who choose not to critique our work aren't courageous. LOL because I can't think of anything more courageous than putting my work out there for people to read and comment on! It's like baring my heart to the world!

My critique group experiences have been tough, hella tough. I've cried. I've wanted to throw in the towel because I sucked. One of my harshest reviews was on this site and it left me emotionally wounded for weeks. That's okay. I picked myself back up and continued writing. I never quit. It takes grit to be in this business but we can't just say that because someone can't handle that they aren't being brave.

The point is that there comes a time when, as artists, we have to let go of other people's opinions about our work if they aren't helping to get us anywhere. But that's not what this thread is about. It's about recognizing your own author voice. About honoring that. It's not about changing a sentence here and there or using proper grammar. It's about something that many other writers in critique groups don't even recognize in their own work! I'm not saying feedback isn't important, because it is. But I am saying that as we deepen our understanding of the craft we should trust ourselves more and it should be obvious to us what our voice is after years of practice.

This thread wasn't meant as a way to get people past editors and betas. It's meant to help my fellow writers think about what their voice is/might be so that they can strengthen it through writing daily or often and have faith in themselves as artists.

 

[Nimue]

I will stick to most (as I define most) fantasy not being all that good, I did not say all. I am certain there is plenty out there worth reading, I just don't take the effort to waste my time reading much these days. You are the one that stuck entire genre in my mouth, not me.

All right, not all fantasy, just everything except for Martin. I hope you don't mind if I express some skepticism on judgment passed on the majority of fantasy fiction from someone who doesn't bother to read it?


On the actual discussion, though: I guess I'm a little doubtful about glorifying voice for those folks who aren't yet professional or haven't been truly tested by their writing. If, like CM or Chester, you've written many novels, I can see that you'd understand and be confident in your voice. But for somebody like me or many others, with few unfinished projects under their belts and not much else, I think the advice to follow your heart might be a little misplaced.

My style right now, to be honest, is pretty rubbish. There may very well be some Voice in there, but I think there's also an awful lot of bad habits, inexperience, laziness, and stuff I've talked myself into thinking sounds good. Spice with the occasional misused word.

While it's nice to hear broad encouragement and all, I'm not sure if, in this case, for me, that's going to lead to the quickest progress. Rather, I'd like to hear from people who've found their voice: how do you tell that from the bad habits, etc? When and how have you decided to listen to your writing over the voices of critique, and has that paid off? Is the answer literally just time and experience? The "how you talk" angle doesn't quite ring true to me, because I talk very differently than I write, and that's probably a good thing, because otherwise my friends and coworkers would be completely justified in whacking me over the head.

Anyway. Is there pragmatic advice for me, or do I just need to trust in practice and brain-fermentation?

 

[Chessie]

Is the answer literally just time and experience?

Yes. This is the answer. Lots of writing practice. Lots of reading. Lots of learning through workshops, craft books, youtube videos, etc. Your voice is there now, you just have to hone it. And one day when you recognize it just stay true to it but keep learning.

And by the way, the advice isn't to follow your heart. It is pretty concrete. Practice and learning and improving are the only things that have paid off for me, and continue to do so. Bad habits? Sloppy writing. Telling yourself that you'll rewrite that section later. Notice how CM said that her best work has come from not rewriting anything, from getting it right the first time. Imo, getting it right the first time is something that takes time to get used to, which is why you need to keep writing.

EDIT: I wanted to add that you must finish your projects. Must. And what you learn from working on a specific project you then add to the next, and the next, etc. If you don't finish what you start then how can you write better work? Finishing is just as important as anything else, probably more so.