Thread: Finding a Voice

Whenever I write a critique for a piece of fiction I try to remember to preface it with the statement that my point of view is that of a reader, not a regular writer of fiction.

'Not a regular writer' does not mean I have not written or published fiction. In my early 20's I had one novel and about two dozen short stories published. Most of the stories were published in the little literary magazines and drew positive comments from readers.

But fiction was not my first love and not what I wanted to spend a lot of time writing. I 'went in harm's way', found my true vocation. and have spent the last 45 years writing all sorts of non-fiction. War, politics, economics, and 'third world' development have been my major subjects. Today much of it is about agriculture. Most of my writing has been for magazines and newspaper syndicates, along with some television and radio. I've led many workshops on news writing for both newspaper and broadcast. Most journalism courses do not make a clear enough distinction.

That's who I am. Now here's what I believe. The beginning writer is like the beginning music student. You can't hand someone the score for a Widor organ symphony when he's just learned where middle C is. If you tell a beginning writer to 'write like Dan Brown' then you will have a train wreck. Dan Brown didn't find that voice when he was just beginning to write. He developed that voice over time and at the cost of we don't know how much paper.

And do you really want a beginning writer to aim at being a second-best Dan Brown? That's what imitation leads to.

The beginning writer must, over time, find his own voice. Given encouragement, he will continue to write and read and work his way toward a personal style, something he can call his own.

The opening lines of CandyRot's piece show talent for the simple reason that it shows the willingness to commit personal ideas to paper without trying to write like anyone else. There is no pretence, no conscious effort to impress, to 'write like a writer'. That is a gift. Very few people can do that.

Are those lines suitable for commercial fiction publication? No. Do they show writing ability? Absolutely. CandyRot is someone who can find a strong voice, given time and practise. I say this based on experience.

In my writing workshops I sorted out the beginners according to whether they could plainly and simply write a narrative about a recent event. Most could not. A few could. Those who could I used from the very beginning to help the others. At the end of each 13-week workshop every student was capable of walking into a media house newsroom and going to work writing usable copy.

To put it simply, having the initial ability to write the way people talk in the real world is a first step toward developing a voice that will be effective in any kind of writing.

If you tell a beginning writer to 'write like Dan Brown' then you will have a train wreck. Dan Brown didn't find that voice when he was just beginning to write.

Yes, if someone tries to write like Dan Brown, they will produce crap writing. Much like Dan Brown's.

To put it simply, having the initial ability to write the way people talk in the real world is a first step toward developing a voice that will be effective in any kind of writing.

If you recognise that having "initial ability" isn't enough, why were you arguing that nothing should be changed in the thread? You argued with one person's opinion on what should be changed based on the piece sounding "just how someone would speak". You already acknowledge that it isn't enough to simply write as people speak, yet argued that it should be left as such.

As a matter of fact I enjoy Dan Brown's books.

Now please read this part of my statement again:
The opening lines of CandyRot's piece shows talent for the simple reason that it shows the willingness to commit personal ideas to paper without trying to write like anyone else. There is no pretence, no conscious effort to impress, to 'write like a writer'. That is a gift. Very few people can do that.

Are those lines suitable for commercial fiction publication? No. Do they show writing ability? Absolutely. CandyRot is someone who can find a strong voice, given time and practise. I say this based on experience.

The lines should not be changed. They are perfect as they are where they are to fill the purpose intended by the writer.

These same lines produced by an experienced writer of any sort would be scoffed at. (Excuse me, CandyRot. I hope you understand what I'm talking about.)

I'm not sure you read all of my post carefully enough to see the point I'm trying to make. Remember that I'm talking from a great deal of workshop experience teaching beginners in several different countries how to write. The ones who start by writing the way people talk are always the ones who make the fastest progress.

To put it simply, having the initial ability to write the way people talk in the real world is a first step toward developing a voice that will be effective in any kind of writing.

Well, I guess an ear for dialogue is important, but hardly crucial to developing an authentic voice. Which people? A banker? A bricklayer? A university professor? A child? I think the ability to convey, or to re-create authentic experience is closer to the core of what is needed. You are correct, though, in saying the effort to 'write like a writer' (any writer, even the best ones) is an anathema to finding one's voice.

It's not just dialogue I'm talking about. Ask ten people to write a description of what they see in front of them. Nine of them can't do it. They will write stilted, awkward sentences as they try to 'write the way writers write'. They may not consciously think of it that way, but that's what's in the backs of their minds. Try this for real, and then ask them why they wrote the way they did.

The tenth one, if you are lucky, will write simple sentences in the everyday language they use when they gossip over the fence in the back garden. The sentences will accurately describe the scene. That person has the gift. By the gift I mean the ability to simply and clearly say what they want to say. That person can be taught, or, better, is capable of teaching himself, the craft of writing.

The ability to see things clearly and describe them is certainly a necessity for good writing, particularly in the field of journalism. But creative writers need to see deeply into things and evoke a myriad of qualities beyond simple description. So a greek vase with leaves and a wedding scene becomes:



Thou still unravish'd bride of quietness,
Thou foster-child of silence and slow time,
Sylvan historian, who canst thus express
A flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme:

Strange you should use this as an example. I have used it many times in workshops and seminars as an example of how simple expressions can evoke powerful images. In the stanza you quote, a few people might have to look up 'sylvan', otherwise the language is straightforward, strong, direct, and speaks to us in a way that is easy to understand. The rhythm patterns are those of everyday speech.

This is language elevated half a step above the common by a skilled craftsman. Go read Keats' letters and see the genius mind at work.

Do you think I do not know how to 'evoke a myriad of qualities beyond simple description'? Do you know what it takes to portray poverty properly, to go beyond a description of the physical degradation and lay bare for the reader the crushing humility, the heart-break in a child's eyes, the despair in the face of an elderly man who has worked hard all his life for his family and now sits beside the body of his grandson shot through the head by a government sniper? Can a mere physical description of that scene do justice to the injustice?

Or consider the fear in the face of a young soldier in battle for the first time, suddenly realising he is mortal and can die and might very well die this very day. Do you think a simple description of his uniform and the M16-A1 he carries will convey to the readers thousands of miles away from a war-infested jungle the absolute terror that freezes his soul?

But wars and revolutions and starvation and the rule of tyrannical, insane, despots is non-fiction, and non-fiction is how I've made my way in the world all these years, so I now realise I'm not qualified to comment on fiction. I will in future abstain.

This is language elevated half a step above the common by a skilled craftsman. Go read Keats' letters and see the genius mind at work.

If I recall correctly, Keats postulated a concept called 'negative capability', which I understand as the ability to allow space in one's mind, one's consciousness, for the infinite wondrousness of things as they are. This of course would mean setting aside hindrances like pride in who we are and what we have done.

But wars and revolutions and starvation and the rule of tyrannical, insane, despots is non-fiction, and non-fiction is how I've made my way in the world all these years, so I now realise I'm not qualified to comment on fiction. I will in future abstain.

Your choice, my friend. I was rather hoping to expand the discussion, not terminate it.

Here's my short opinion on this:

1. The original post is not a discussion. It's a list of qualifications, a name drop, a back-handed compliment to said name drop, and then one promising bud of a post that died early.
2. Let writers pick their own weeds. You can guide them towards what to pull out, but in the end, we're all playing the same game and have no right to say someone's garden is more or less superior to our own. You want a writer to find their OWN voice, not yours. Books are published that are written like the author is talking, books are published that are written like classic literature. This is why I don't advocate new writers joining classes/workshops/groups. No one should shape you when you're new. You should shape yourself, even if your writing is terrible and it takes years.

Originally Posted by subtlesoda

Books are published that are written like the author is talking

What subtlesoda said

J.R. MacLean - Pride in one's work is part of 'things as they are'. Every writer needs a certain level of 'cheerful self-appreciation', as Asimov put it, or that first typescript would never be submitted. I do not believe it is wrong to defend what I believe, and rarely are others who do not agree with me hesitant to defend what they believe.

The first post was written, rather hurridly, in a minor fit of pique over the statement that since I am not a regular fiction writer I have no business commenting on a piece of fiction. I had thought that as a regular reader of fiction I would be entitled to hold and to express my opinion about a piece, but that apparently is not so. That is why I say I will abstain from further comment about anything posted under Fiction. Let those who make their living writing fiction be the ones to comment.

While I want to go back and pick up where I left off years ago and try writing some fiction again, at my age I have to realise that I'll probably not live long enough to master that particular craft.

That does not mean I want to abstain from discussing the ideas that have been raised here. There are basic concepts that apply to all writig, and in my mind the first is the ability to write without affectation, to write in one's own natural voice. Go back and read the first Harry Potter. That's the natural voice of J.K. Rowlig. The story is told directly, plainly, simply. That's part of its power, part of its appeal. It's a child's story with adult themes in the background. That's why a ten-year-old can read it and appreaciate it, and so can his grandfather.

So yes I am full of 'cheerful self-appreciation'. Otherwise, as I hit that three-score years and ten mark, I'd be sitting in a corner somewhere asking someone to bring me another cup of warm milk. As it is I'm off to do some research down in the Cayo District this afternoon.

I've not forgotten Keats and 'negative capability'. We can talk about that when I get home tomorrow.

subtlesoda - The original post was written hurridly, as I say, after I'd been told that since I don't make my living writing fiction I shouldn't critique fiction. My response is a bit over the top. Sorry.

I don't know what you mean by name drop, unless you mean the reference to Dan Brown. That name had already been brought up by someone else in the discussion.

What promising bud of a post? I'm afraid I don't follow.

The rest of what you say is essentially what I've been saying all along and no one seems to notice. When you say 'You want a writer to find their OWN voice, not yours' that is exactly right.

Workshops can be good or bad. The ones I have led have been for the specific purpose of training media house staff how to write news stories. That's a fairly narrow field with two sub-domains, broadcast and newspaper. Such workshops are needed because most journalism courses do not properly teach the differences between the two; how a well written story for newspaper sounds like crap on the radio. The goal of the workshop is to turn out competent reporters and editors for the newsroom, and the easiest way to achieve that is to start with absolute beginners who have nothing to unlearn.

Whether that kind of workshop provides a foundation for other kinds of writing, I don't know. I've never followed up on that, but only on the students' ability to hold a job as a news writer once the workshop is ended. That's easy to track, since most of the workshops are sponsored by media houses.

I've heard too many horror stories about writers' groups. It seems there's always a pecking order established early on and pity the poor soul at the bottom of the line.

Ox - See above.

garza -I think I may have misunderstood what you meant by writing in one's natural voice. And Sam apparently got it wrong too, in the other thread. For some Antipodean reason that defies logic I equated your remarks with dialogue.

On that subject of being too old to learn, I am perhaps beginning reluctantly to agree with you. I am four years older. All I've learnt so far is to eschew adverbs.


Edit: Which in turn may mean I'm wasting my time here.

Originally Posted by garza

The first post was written, rather hurridly, in a minor fit of pique over the statement that since I am not a regular fiction writer I have no business commenting on a piece of fiction. I had thought that as a regular reader of fiction I would be entitled to hold and to express my opinion about a piece, but that apparently is not so. That is why I say I will abstain from further comment about anything posted under Fiction. Let those who make their living writing fiction be the ones to comment. .

Whoever said that is a dick.

Pay no attention anyone who holds such an opinion, there is nothing more valuable to a writer than the opinion of a reader.

As a boy, I read. I fell in love with every book imaginable from the Bible to Jack London to Kafka to a National Geographic. I am reader. As such, I believe that my opinion, though it is often my flawed concept, is more supported by who I am. Perhaps my flawed concepts are more valuable than those who wonder mystically at the name of Faulkner or Hemingway. Ultimately, readers are the bedrock of literature. Without them, wouldn't writers be up to nothing, resolved merely to be a minor niche engrossed in its own products of creation?

Garza - I've found that readers make the best critiquers, or at least, writers who are the best readers. Readers give an honest insight on how a piece draws them. I do wish that you wouldn't hesitate to continue providing ones in fiction with that unique perspective. Besides, isn't fiction reality just of another sort?

A writers voice is much like the growth of a person. For some, being in a group environment will encourage self-identity, yet for others, it will stifle the creativity that makes them unique. A voice can have a great potential but if its defining characteristics aren't identified and honed, then it will die in usual and average. When someone informs me that this/that writer has a great voice, I always ask what makes it so.

A mature voice is always about characteristics, experience, training, and skill. Being great at one isn't going to make a great voice but it sure makes it easier.

While a style/voice is important for a writer, of utmost importance even, that is absolutely no reason for a writer not to want/need to improve their work otherwise.

I may as well use myself as an example. I came barging into this very forum with little experience, but, (according to many), a very distinct "voice" in all my work. I was fortunate enough to gain the attention of some of the best writers on here at the time, and their words of advice have played a big part in my very fast progression as a writer.

While I could always come blaring in with a strong voice, I didn't have a grasp on elegance in turns of phrase (perhaps I still don't). But they helped me harness the concept of storytelling, of toning the voice up and down when necessary, of hooking a reader until the end. All the things I feel I've picked up since then, I largely learnt from critiques I received.

So I think the point is that while we should applaud a new writer with a strong voice, if they've found their way here it might be time to help them learn to use that voice.