. . .on Voice

* Posts Saved From the CW List

It seems to me that there are two ways to use 'voice' - one is an author's voice and the other is the story voice. For me, the author's voice is that indefinable way of using language that never varies from story to story - it's always there in whatever the author writes, and if you read enough of one person's work, you get to where you can identify the writer, simply by the overall "feel" of the story - it's what gave 'Richard Bachman' away as Stephen King. Certain phrases will pop up again and again in the writing, certain sentence constructions appear all over the work. It can be analyzed, and has been, but most readers don't do a conscious analyisis. But it's as much an identifier as finger prints or voice or speech patterns. Story voice is again, an elusive thing that stamps a story - hard boiled detective is one voice for a story, for example. That is something a writer can, and should, counsciously control because it adds to the story, makes it more believable and more in tune with the content of the story.

If you're writing from more than one viewpoint, the voice of the pov can vary, but overall, there is, or should be, a consistent 'feel' to the story that helps make it a cohesive thing. One of the things that I alternately love and hate about the writing business is this oh, so incredibly precise and accurate and specific definitions of terms we use in our work! (that was sarcasm, by the way!) Given that our business is words and the use and misuse of them, you'd think we'd have nailed down our own jargon by now! <g> But no . . . we keep on being slippery and mutable with the terms we use. Sometimes that's good so that we can keep refinining and defining what our business and art are, other times it drives me crazy, trying to explain to my classes why this term or that one can mean this or that thing, depending on who is using it and in which context. The reason "voice" is so hard to define is that nobody has ever really sat down and defined it and argued about it and set it solidly, if not in stone, then at least burned into a chunk of wood somewhere. It's just something that's kind of evolved over the years, as we talk among ourselves about our work. It can be the feel, and mood and expression of the book. It can be the feel and mood and dialogue of a character, and it is the way in which a writer uses words and phrases, and images across the entire body of their work. You have to look at context and direction when the term is used. A book's voice certainly contributes to its quality, there's no doubt of that - but there is also setting and characterization and pacing and tension and depth of plot to consider as well - none of which are voice. A book can have a striking voice, but have lousy characterization or bad pacing, or have a very thin plot that has no inner conflict or major character resolution. A book *always* has a voice - it can't not have, since it's written by a person with a unique view of the world. The question is, does the voice of the book meld with the voice of the author, to produce a book with a unique and memorable read? If not, then the voice doens't work.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Margot Finke

Reading the classics of literature shows that each author, from Shakespeare to Ernest Hemingway, can be recognized by the way they throw their words together - either lots of them by Shakespeare, or in limited numbers by Hemingway. As well as the number of words each uses to tell a story, they also have a way of weaving those chosen words together that has nothing to do with the mood of the book, or the voice of their main character. It is their writing fingerprint if you will, and uniquely their own. All great writers leave this fingerprint within their chapters.The voice of the characters depends on the talent of the writer, the setting, the plot, and the emotional wringer your writer intends to put his character through. If the writer hits all of these marks with a clear bull's-eye, and along the way, also develops their own unique writing voice, then I feel their books have a chance at capturing our grandchildren's imagination, plus their hearts. Linda Sue Park's, "A Single Shard," indeed has a wonderful POV voice, and her writing talent transports the reader to another time and place. Yet her writing style (voice) is still evident and hers alone - a fingerprint of style and talent that can not be denied.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Margot Finke

If you want to get a handle on writer's voice, think great fashion or art .Jackie Kennedy had a fashion sense all her own. Some tried to emulate her, but there was only one Jackie. It was in the way she looked, spoke and walked. We would recognize her anywhere.A great writer's voice is like Jackie Kennedy Onasis. It is the flair with which they craft their sentences, and the way they develop and enrich their plots and characters. The totality of these abilities becomes their special voice. All painters use paints, canvases and brushes, (or other tools), to create their masterpieces. Yet Picasso and Rembrandt are never confused with each other. They, as well as all the other great masters, have a signature way of applying their brush strokes. This makes their work recognizable to all. Each has a unique signature style. Great writers have a unique signature "voice."