Forum: Author Hangout

What do you mean when you say "story voice"?

Thank you, I understand. I just hadn't heard it referred to by that term. Thanks. for the link. I'll get it now.

The story voice applies to the types of words you use in the dialogue and the narrative, but it's most noticed in the dialogue.

I think you meant, "…but is most noticed in the narrative."

It's impossible to find a decent definition but IMO everything about an author's writing contributes to their voice including tense, POV, grammar usage, vocabulary, sentence and paragraph lengths, and contractions. (Oxford comma!)

Use of passive and active voice are also contributors to an author's voice, but the two meanings of voice are different.

One of the hardest jobs for an editor is to make corrections in the author's voice rather than their own.

AJ

IMO everything about an author's writing contributes to their voice

Did you mean to reply to me?

My comment to Ernest was that the dialogue is each character's voice. The narrative is the author's voice. Of course in 1st-person, the narrative is the character's voice of the 1st-person narrator (e.g., Huck Finn).

Did you mean to reply to me?

My mistake, it was intended as a general contribution about the meaning of voice.

My writers' group discussed it a few months back and couldn't come up with a definition that clearly distinguished it from style.

IMO each character's voice, including the narrator's, all contribute to the author's voice.

AJ

My writers' group discussed it a few months back and couldn't come up with a definition that clearly distinguished it from style.

Here's Writer's Digest's view:

Q: Could you define the difference between a writer's voice and style in creative writing?—Ralph G.

Here's the breakdown: Voice is your own. It's a developed way of writing that sets you apart from other writers (hopefully). It's your personality coming through on the page, by your language use and word choice. When you read a Dave Barry column, you know it's his. Why? He's developed a distinct writing voice.

Style is much broader than voice. Some writers have a writing style that's very ornate—long, complex and beautiful sentences, packed with metaphors and imagery (think Frank McCourt and John Irving). Others have a more straightforward style—sparse prose, simple sentences, etc.

Here's one way to think about it: WD tries to have all its articles fit a similar style—conversational yet straightforward. But between the covers, each piece is written by a different author whose own voice colors his particular piece. So the continuity of the magazine stays together, but each piece is still different.

Here's Writer's Digest's view:

I can see how that works for multi-author creations, but I'm not so convinced about single-author creations. Oh well :(

AJ

I can see how that works for multi-author creations, but I'm not so convinced about single-author creations. Oh well

No, a writer's voice is similar across stories, it's what defines your stories (short, concise, intense, or detailed and ornate, descriptive, or any number of other styles). If you modify that 'voice', you'd best publish/post under a different pseudonym, because your fans will no longer recognize your voice, and may reject it out of hand.

Style is different, and is typically how you format and structure a story, including punctuation, spellings, etc., but can often change from one story to the next (particularly if you submit your stories to multiple sources, who each insist on a different style guide).

No, a writer's voice is similar across stories, it's what defines your stories (short, concise, intense, or detailed and ornate, descriptive, or any number of other styles).

Sorry, CW, I disagree with this. It's been my experience the author's voice and style will vary between stories due to a number of reasons. While it is possible for an author to keep the same voice and style it's more likely the voice will change if they change the style or point of view.

There's a growing field that involves studying works of literature to determine whether their attributions are genuine, much like there is in art where criteria such as brushwork, palette etc are considered.

While I think it's possible for an author to deliberately tailor their voice/style (I used to do it when editing the works of others), some authors are very distinctive. I'd consider both you and CW to be in that class.

My writers' group occasionally has 'guess the author' sessions. It's interesting that the course junkies are the most difficult to tell apart because there a lot of sameness about their voice/styles, something I personally consider not to be a good thing.

AJ

Sorry, CW, I disagree with this. It's been my experience the author's voice and style will vary between stories due to a number of reasons. While it is possible for an author to keep the same voice and style it's more likely the voice will change if they change the style or point of view.

I agree with that, but only to a certain degree. Since a writer's voice is, essentially, their professional calling card, it's important that they're consistent in how they present themselves. They can change the wording, or how it's presented, but if I suddenly started writing in a "Jack Reacher" style (to borrow another example presented a few times recently), my readers are all going to ask "What the fuck gives? Where's Vincent and his writing?"

An author's voice is more than just the narrative, it's how you identify an author just by glancing at a single page of their story.

Here's someone else's opinion. It's too long to copy here so the link is: https://davehood59.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/the-voice-and-style-of-a-fiction-writer/

Thanks, but I feel the blogger is creating artificial distinctions that don't actually exist in real life.

AJ

My comment to Ernest was that the dialogue is each character's voice. The narrative is the author's voice. Of course in 1st-person, the narrative is the character's voice of the 1st-person narrator (e.g., Huck Finn).

I learned to think of each of my 3rd-person Omni narrators as particular people, whether it's someone from the story recounting what happened, a 'fireside story', recounted from oft-repeated stories, or someone else who knows the intimate details of the story, knowing who is speaking helps you figure out how they'd speak in most instances, so I typically define a narrator for each story, even if he's never introduced (i.e. used in the story).

It's dangerous thinking of the narrator as 'the author', because then everything the narrator says is what you yourself think, which isn't always the way you want a story to unfold (you opinions, your actions, your inclinations). However, casting your narrator as a separate character gives them a separate 'personality', allowing you to cater the story's voice to them, rather than to you.

Of course, as in many of these things, I seem to be the only one who focuses on the narrator on a regular basis.

It's dangerous thinking of the narrator as 'the author', because then everything the narrator says is what you yourself think,

That's not what I meant. The author should never be present in the story. I said the narrative is in the author's voice.

An omni narrator is a character. If they're in the story, like Death in "The Book Thief," then it's a 1st-person omni narrator. If not, then it's a 3rd-person omni narrator. But the narrator can have a personality either way.

In 3rd-limited, the narrative is more neutral. The way the narrative is written is the author's voice, not the author.

The author should never be present in the story.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If the work has strong biographical aspects, how can the author not be present?

Mary Sue stories tend to be very popular on SOL. Those have a lot of the author in them too.

AJ

If the work has strong biographical aspects

I was talking about fiction.

I was talking about fiction too.

Novice authors particularly tend to write what they know. Sometimes in SOL story descriptions they mention that their stories are based on real-life events, but even when they don't, their stories are representative of the culture in which they grew up. I think it's more or less inevitable that the author is present in those stories to some extent.

AJ

I think it's more or less inevitable that the author is present in those stories to some extent.

If the reader hears the author in the story and the author isn't a 1st-person narrator, then I believe it's a problem.

Of course authors will use their experiences. That's part of "write what you know." But it should be told in a way that it's not the author relaying his experiences or values (3rd-person limited).

You hear the author in the following:

Joe lit a cigarette. The Surgeon General determined cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer. Joe inhaled anyway.

Now take the author out of it.

Joe lit a cigarette.

"Do you really wanna do that?" Sally asked. "You know cigarettes cause cancer."

Joe inhaled anyway.

Is an author able to write something that is outside his experience? I don't know that I can. For example, I couldn't write a light airy feel-good story if you put a gun to my head. It's just not in my lexicon of life experiences.

I get nervous around too much happiness as it makes me wonder when the anvil is going to fall. I can write about moments of joy and the trials between them, that I know about.

I can generalize from somewhat similar experiences and paste together what I think may occur. I don't think I can create from whole cloth. Is that from being a novice or is it a peculiarity of personality? Any thoughts?

Is an author able to write something that is outside his experience?

Of course. Do you think Stephen King experienced the horrific things he writes about?

Is an author able to write something that is outside his experience? I don't know that I can. For example, I couldn't write a light airy feel-good story if you put a gun to my head. It's just not in my lexicon of life experiences.

Sure they can. Granted, an author is not going to write about something they're unfamiliar with, or which they think isn't 'genuine', but people write about other people's experiences all the time.

Women write about men protagonists, and men write about black and Hispanic characters. If the author is always the 'character', then that wouldn't even be remotely possible. What everyone is discussing is part of the author's voice (their person way of presenting a story, which paints the story as being uniquely theirs), rather than any given story being 'about' them.

My next story on SOL is about a lesbian NYC police detective. How much of that do you think is biographical? Authors research what they don't know. Not everything is about them personally.

Is an author able to write something that is outside his experience?

That's a controversial question.

Many of the bubbleheads who self-promote the loudest on social media claim that the answer is 'no'.

I've seen agents particularly claim that a white author can't write a convincing 'person of colour', character, a man can't write a convincing woman character, an old adult can't write a convincing young adult character, a straight character can't write a convincing gay/transgender character etc.

However, there are also writing authorities who have a different view, that authors should write the story they want to tell and don't worry about what others think, that the shared characteristics of being human outweigh the differences.

Personally, if I felt my story required something outside my experience, I'd use my imagination. Virtually every hugely successful novel has flaws in the minute details, but only a few pedants care so long as the author has followed the rule of writing what's entertaining rather than accurate.

AJ

Is an author able to write something that is outside his experience? I don't know that I can.

If you work at, you can, but it ain't easy, and it often takes some research too. I've done it a few times.

Is an author able to write something that is outside his experience? I don't know that I can.

If you work at, you can, but it ain't easy, and it often takes some research too. I've done it a few times.

Writing "What you know" is what gives you the confidence to write what you don't. Writing what you don't, is part of what makes you a skilled and polished author. Being able to write from a variety of perspectives gives you the versatility to create truly rich and complete characters. Sadly, I haven't yet reached that particular pinnacle.

Of course authors will use their experiences. That's part of "write what you know." But it should be told in a way that it's not the author relaying his experiences or values (3rd-person limited).

But how can an author do that without obviously using their own voice, or do you think that the use of 3rd-person is sufficient distancing?

AJ

But how can an author do that without obviously using their own voice, or do you think that the use of 3rd-person is sufficient distancing?

I think using 3rd-limited correctly is sufficient distancing.

I gave an example in my previous post. I'm very much against cigarettes. They killed my sister. So I may want to promote that in my story. In my previous post I showed two ways of doing it. The 1st is the author talking to the reader. The second does it without the author directly involved.

I'm not totally convinced.

I've read too many stories in which the author has used characters to espouse their favourite economic/political/religious ideals and it comes across as almost as intrusive as your first example.

AJ

I've read too many stories in which the author has used characters to espouse their favourite economic/political/religious ideals and it comes across as almost as intrusive as your first example.

Then they did it poorly. Or the character is used to push a belief, like Ayn Rand did.

Then they did it poorly. Or the character is used to push a belief, like Ayn Rand did.

And like Heinlein did in the voice of Lazarus Long in, well, just about every story in which Long appeared. Although I rather liked his defense of incest in To Sail Beyond the Sunset.

His cranky complaint in "Sunset" that "back then" (1920s USA?) women didn't work outside the home was kind of tiresome.

bb

I love Lazurus. Jubal Harshaw was pretty fun as well. I hope I'm as a great a bastard as he was when I'm that old but I don't seem to be hitting the mark.

But how can an author do that without obviously using their own voice, or do you think that the use of 3rd-person is sufficient distancing?

You're narrowing into the distinction between perspective, narrator, author's voice and the author themselves. They're all distinct, but there's still a lot of overlap between them.

You hear the author in the following:

Joe lit a cigarette. The Surgeon General determined cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer. Joe inhaled anyway.

Now take the author out of it.

Joe lit a cigarette.

"Do you really wanna do that?" Sally asked. "You know cigarettes cause cancer."

Joe inhaled anyway.

That's otherwise known as "author intrusion", as opposed to the "author's" or "narrator's" voice.

That's otherwise known as "author intrusion", as opposed to the "author's" or "narrator's" voice.

I wasn't talking about author voice. I responded to Awnlee saying: "I think it's more or less inevitable that the author is present in those stories to some extent."

I think it's more or less inevitable that the author is present in those stories to some extent.

Again, there's a BIG difference between an interest, a focus and an author's expertise, and their 'place' in the actual story. Essentially, every story is a compilation of the author's experiences, but the story are still about completely fictional characters. Even in Mary Sue stories, the characters often do what the authors never dreamed of doing in real life, so you can hardly claim the story reflects the author. Even though they are based on real-life events, they are no more realistic than the TV shows that claim the exact same thing.

The author should never be present in the story.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If the work has strong biographical aspects, how can the author not be present?

I agree with Switch here. The author's motivation for telling a particular story is completely independent of the story they ultimately tell. Trying to tie the two together leads readers to assume, as they often do, that anything a character says is literally 'the author stating their opinion'.

That's a dangerous precedent to set. Just because an author likes Mary Sue characters, it doesn't mean he's THE Mary Sue in the story.

An omni narrator is a character. If they're in the story, like Death in "The Book Thief," then it's a 1st-person omni narrator. If not, then it's a 3rd-person omni narrator. But the narrator can have a personality either way.

In 3rd-limited, the narrative is more neutral. The way the narrative is written is the author's voice, not the author.

Yes, that's assumed. But in my limited experience, I've found that view more limiting. By identifying who the narrator is, even if it's just 'random fireside storyteller', it helps me evaluate how the narrative 'voice' should flow (note: I quoted voice in this instance, because I'm drawing a distinction between the author's voice (his identifiable writing style) and the narrators (his cadence, his accent, how formal or informal his is).

Once again, I've expanded the traditional definitions to include items I've discovered more useful over the years. So feel free to reject my distinctions, I'm simply presenting them as an alternative way of approaching a 3rd person omni or 1st person limited narrative to make it more 'authentic'.

Also, when I have a specific narrator, they're still presented in the 3rd-person omni perspective (because they're familiar with all the details of the story), but they have their own personalities. It's only in the final chapter, the final epilogue, that I reveal the specific narrator's perspective (like in my "Demonic Issues" stories, it turned out to be the master alien race who created all the fairies and demons, but who'd lost their way). As such, it presents a wonderful way to turn a story on it's head during the final conclusion, which provides a nice twist (again, a technique which isn't for everyone).

I do know that when an author has a strong voice their work carries an impact that other's work does not. I also know it is something that is learned or should I say absorbed as one practices their craft.

More than anything else, an author's voice is a combination of an author's natural inclinations, and what works best for them. So your first story is simply the most naturally YOU. It conveys how YOU speak, what which 'voice' most inspires you, and the writing style (as opposed to style guide) you use.

However, that's all tempered by what you discover about that voice over time. Some things you'll try will fall flat, or readers simply don't respond to it, so you change it over time. Thus your voice will adapt over time. This isn't you changing you voice, as much as it is your adapting your voice. Most of all, you always need to consider that voice as being 'distinctly yours', so casual readers will associate that way of telling a story with you.

I've always preferred to pick a book, by opening it to a random page, in the middle of a chapter, and picking a random sentence in the middle of a paragraph (first and/or last sentences tend to summarize the paragraph for effect), and if that single sentence captivates my attention, I know I can read the entire story and love it, regardless of the plot! THAT is the sign of a successful writer's voice. It's their way of conveying a story (as opposed to who they are as an individual).

I agree that two is rigid. It was a requirement inherent in the SSA model that I was using a modified form of when I was writing the story. You could have just as easily used 3 or twenty if you're that good(I'm not).

I found your observation concerning the differences between plot, themes, and morals to be spot on. My understanding is still a little basic on theme as the word is somewhat nebulous to me even after reading the definition for the millionth time. It always has been. I look at it like this:

Theme: Hot rods

Plot: the step by step story of how Jack steals the hot rod.

Moral: Whether or not it was correct for Jack to steal the Hot Rod.

That's how I view. Did I catch the flavor?

I look at it like this:

Theme: Hot rods

Plot: the step by step story of how Jack steals the hot rod.

Moral: Whether or not it was correct for Jack to steal the Hot Rod.

That's how I view. Did I catch the flavor?

Well, my definition of 'theme' isn't the same as you'll find in most dictionaries, as it incorporates a little more, and is more useful in determining what to include in each story and what not to.

For me, the 'theme' of your example might be: "Redemption defines one more than their initial acts or words do."

Again, in my book, the theme isn't related to the plot, or the plot elements—in fact, it's completely independent of it. Instead, it's how the reader is supposed to apply the story to his own life, and more importantly, how he's supposed to evaluate the story based on his real-life experiences.

Thus, I'll keep checking back on my theme to determine how to present each story element, so the reader has an easier time relating to what's happening in the story.

Again, the Moral is "it WAS wrong to steal the Hot Rod", but the theme is how you 'flavor the story', so it's more like a spike (ex: cumin or paprika), as opposed to the contents (ex: beef or mutin chops, wich would represent the plot). It simply makes the story easier to consume, and it improves the overall appeal of the story.

But again, you'll never find that definition anywhere else!

I believe I see what you're saying. I'll need to marinate in that a bit as you're right. That is a unique definition. Still, it looks to be a good one.

In reference to your reply to my statement about writing outside your experience. A recent story of mine "Terri" dealt with a lesbian bondage situation. I am not female. But I have touched a few and know how it feels to be touched by someone you really want. Hence I was able to cobble together a response.

(Totally random bitch - I am in a Migraine phase so I go to my quiet area and my wife follows me and turns on the brightest lights and my loudest adult child follows her and they are talking loudly. sometimes I FUCKING HATE LIFE! - end rant)

(Totally random bitch - I am in a Migraine phase so I go to my quiet area and my wife follows me and turns on the brightest lights and my loudest adult child follows her and they are talking loudly. sometimes I FUCKING HATE LIFE! - end rant)

That's why migraine sufferers (primarily women) very often hide in closets, where most family don't typically look. No lights, a slight sound muffling, and a little solitude.

Lol Thank you, I needed that. Unfortunately only one closet has a door and my youngest has it packed full.

I loved Brust. Remember the convo between the drummer and the body guard on percussion.That rocked and who can forget the swearword "By the blood on Vera"s floor." Great stuff. Still have them laying around here somewhere.

Thanks for letting me know.

That's the amazing thing about fiction. One man's garbage is another man's treasure and one man's treasure is another man's garbage.

That's why I just state a preference and then move on to more agreeable topics.