Character Voices

[Mistook]

One of the things that ruined the movie "Pulp Fiction" for me was that every character had the same vocabulary, and that vocabulary included some conspicuously large words which in reality, none of those characters would have used.

Watching the movie, I could actually see the script writer typing everybody's lines. I could see the same hand inside every puppet, and that's a very bad thing to have happen.

How much trouble do you take to make sure each line of dialogue actually fits the character speaking? Do you take into account that people choose different words depending on who they're talking with?

If you write in third person, what's your idea of a normal narrator voice, and how is it different from or affected by the POV character?

[Garpy]

Now you mention it....you're damned right! Yes.....they all sort of speak how I imagine Quentin wished he sounded like. Having said that, I never noticed (until now)...because what the characters were saying was so damned funny.

As for my own writing, I don't consciously tweak the different character's voices, it happens at a sub-conscious level, but when I hear them talk in my head, just before I'm typing it in, each voice does have it's own sound, accent and range of words. So generally I rarely need to go back and tweak dialog to get it sounding like the 'correct' character.

As for the narrator's voice....I tend to give the narrator a twang that is sympathetic to the character around which the action is centred. Whilst we're on the subject of narrators though....one of my pet peeves is 'the witty narrator'. By that I mean a narration that tries to be funny with a description or turn of phrase....two writers that spring to mind are Douglas Adams (peace be upon him) and JK Rowling...it just, argghhh...just smacks of naffness.

[maestrowork]

My characters speak to me. I let them speak the way they do.

One of the problems I find with a lot of books out is the fact that their characters sound like the same person -- and like the narrator! Drives me crazy.

[sassandgroove]

Ah, man, I just accidently deleted my post rather than posting it. *sigh*

I will try again.

Mistook, you make an excellent point, which I will keep in mind as I rewrite. I will look at each character and make sure they sound like themselves, not me. But I think I did pretty good at listnening to them the first time.

It's been a few years since I saw Pulp Fiction, but you are totally right! All of his stuff is kinda like that. I think Quentin's strength lie in places other than dialogue, which would explain that phenomenon. One could consider it a style. Wouldn't it be cool if...rather than trying to be 'real'.

[Saanen]

I never saw Pulp Fiction--now I have another piece of ammunition when people try to get me to watch it. Characters who all sound the same are one of my great dislikes, and one I try to avoid with my characters. I don't know how well I succeed, but at least no one's ever told me I fail at it.

In my current WIP, which is charging to an end far faster than I planned and is going to turn into a novella unless I add some stuff, my main character is not a native English speaker. Since the book (novella?) is written in first person, I really struggle with making it sound slightly ingenuous without being hokey, contrived, awkward, overly simple, or overly sophisticated. It's a tightrope walk.

[inexperiencedinker]

I think my characters voice depends on the main personality traits they embody. But I have found that working out my characters histories and personalities on paper, even if it doesn't all make it into the book, has helped differentiate them in their mannerisms, speech, and characteristics.

[Jamesaritchie]

One of the things that ruined the movie "Pulp Fiction" for me was that every character had the same vocabulary, and that vocabulary included some conspicuously large words which in reality, none of those characters would have used.

Watching the movie, I could actually see the script writer typing everybody's lines. I could see the same hand inside every puppet, and that's a very bad thing to have happen.

How much trouble do you take to make sure each line of dialogue actually fits the character speaking? Do you take into account that people choose different words depending on who they're talking with?

If you write in third person, what's your idea of a normal narrator voice, and how is it different from or affected by the POV character?

I had the opposite reaction to Pulp Fiction. I thought the dialogue was very good, and the characters quite distinctive. I thought the dialogue did exactly what it was supposed to do, and was the best part of the film. Considering the kind of movie Pulp Fiction was, and what its intentions were, I thought every line of dialogue fit every character perfectly. It's a mistake to think people in that line of "work" are stupid, or have small vocabularies. It's a holdover from bad B movies.

Having said that, trying to make each character an individual is one of my biggest aims in writing fiction. Ideally, a read should know who is speaking without the use of any dialogue tags at all, just by what is said and how it's said.

[Torgo]

John Sladek was particularly good at that. There are pages of Roderick with no speech tags at all, and ten different conversations going on, and yet you can pick each character perfectly well.

[Jamesaritchie]

John Sladek was particularly good at that. There are pages of Roderick with no speech tags at all, and ten different conversations going on, and yet you can pick each character perfectly well.

Yes, he is good at making characters come across as individuals in dialogue. It's a very tough trick, and one not many writers can master.

Egads. I just looked up John Sladek. I didn't realize he was dead. And only 62 at time of death. Okay, I need to write faster and more. I'm only ten years behind him in age.

[aadams73]

I had the opposite reaction to Pulp Fiction. I thought the dialogue was very good, and the characters quite distinctive. I thought the dialogue did exactly what it was supposed to do, and was the best part of the film. Considering the kind of movie Pulp Fiction was, and what its intentions were, I thought every line of dialogue fit every character perfectly. It's a mistake to think people in that line of "work" are stupid, or have small vocabularies. It's a holdover from bad B movies.


This is a "me too!" post.

[Mistook]

[QUOTE=Jamesaritchie]
Considering the kind of movie Pulp Fiction was, and what its intentions were, I thought every line of dialogue fit every character perfectly.
[QUOTE]


If I had the screenplay in front of me, I'd be able to pick out examples of what I mean. But it's not just the words, it's they way they're strung together and what they're saying.

Each of the main characters is given a scene in which he/she gets to make some ultra-hip, yet trivial bohemian observation, which floats off the tongue without the slightest hem or haw. In other words, they all get a chance to have the plot grind to a halt so that they can channel Tarantino with blatant shouts out to his film school buddies.

After I saw that, the illusion was broken. You're right that many of the lines were right for the character, but here and there through the movie, each character uses a word or two that don't quite fit, and if you take all those errant words together, you have the standard vocabulary of a grad-student, and suddenly it stops being a movie, and starts being a concept that two geeks are dreaming up at a campus coffeehouse.

[Mistook]

Anyway, I think the only way to learn how to put the right words in the character's mouths is to observe real people from all walks of life.

I know around a dozen guys who went through grade school with me who all know the word "obdurate". I was with them in the seventh grade spelling class where it was given to us on a vocab list. We all passed the weekly vocab test. I heard them all use the word at lunch and on the playground. To this day, if you use the word "obdurate" in front of them, they will all know what it means.

But those of us who didn't make it through college simply don't use the word. There's some kind of unwritten code that says it's beyond our station, or something. Two of us dropped out of high school. Not only don't they use the bigger words that they know, but I watched them both deliberately begin saying "ain't" when they never said it before.

Around here at least, "ain't" is almost like a password if you work a blue collar job. It's not that blue collar workers are stupid, or that they don't know better. It's a signal of solidarity. I don't say "ain't". I'm regularly accused of "talking like a yuppie" because of it.

People modify their speech to match their clothes. It's no joke.

I've met more than a few guys in this line of work who've been to prison a time or two. It doesn't matter how intelligent they are, they throw "Fu*k" into every sentence, and are the most likely to make "gay" jokes in ordinary conversation. I guess it's a way of showing that you're tough, and not gay.

[ricaykw]

All of my characters kind of sound like me... if I had more time in conversations to think of something witty to say. To try and fix this, I'm going through and highlighting each of the main characters' dialog with a different color. Once I'm done with all the other editing I'm going to re-read the whole thing focusing on one character at a time and making sure they have a unique and appropriate voice.

[Mistook]

All of my characters kind of sound like me... if I had more time in conversations to think of something witty to say. To try and fix this, I'm going through and highlighting each of the main characters' dialog with a different color. Once I'm done with all the other editing I'm going to re-read the whole thing focusing on one character at a time and making sure they have a unique and appropriate voice.

I try to base characters on people or types of people I'm familiar with. When I'm writing, I'll ask myself, "How would X really react to this, and how would X word it?"

I don't think you can ever get every single line of dialogue so unique to a character that you'll clear up all ambiguity - at least not without using blatant stereotypes. You can't because in certain situations, many characters will speak a given sentiment about the same as many others.

You can not always make the line absolutely unique to the character, but you can always make it true to that character.

As far as having characters who say the witty things I wish I could say, It's okay if you have one or two of those types in the story. But if everybody from the garbage man and the prostitute to the doctor and the lawyer are silver-tongued geniuses, that's when the story becomes hokey and unbelievable.

[Jamesaritchie]

[QUOTE=Jamesaritchie]
Considering the kind of movie Pulp Fiction was, and what its intentions were, I thought every line of dialogue fit every character perfectly.
[QUOTE]


If I had the screenplay in front of me, I'd be able to pick out examples of what I mean. But it's not just the words, it's they way they're strung together and what they're saying.

Each of the main characters is given a scene in which he/she gets to make some ultra-hip, yet trivial bohemian observation, which floats off the tongue without the slightest hem or haw. In other words, they all get a chance to have the plot grind to a halt so that they can channel Tarantino with blatant shouts out to his film school buddies.

After I saw that, the illusion was broken. You're right that many of the lines were right for the character, but here and there through the movie, each character uses a word or two that don't quite fit, and if you take all those errant words together, you have the standard vocabulary of a grad-student, and suddenly it stops being a movie, and starts being a concept that two geeks are dreaming up at a campus coffeehouse.

I think you missed the point of the movie. If the illusion you had was of mafia type killers in a serious movie, you didn't get it. The title should have been the giveaway. The dialogue you're talking about wasn't wrong, it was perfect. If they hadn't used it, the whole point of Pulp Fiction would have gone bust instantly.

Try watching the movie again while constantly thinking about the title.

[Mistook]

[QUOTE=Mistook][QUOTE=Jamesaritchie]
Considering the kind of movie Pulp Fiction was, and what its intentions were, I thought every line of dialogue fit every character perfectly.


I think you missed the point of the movie. If the illusion you had was of mafia type killers in a serious movie, you didn't get it. The title should have been the giveaway. The dialogue you're talking about wasn't wrong, it was perfect. If they hadn't used it, the whole point of Pulp Fiction would have gone bust instantly.

Try watching the movie again while constantly thinking about the title.


Well, when you put it that way, I can see your point. The last time I watched it, I was constantly thinking about dialogue. Still, I'd like to read some true pulp fiction from the old pulps before I watch it again. It's hard to scare up transcriptions of those stories, even online.

When the movie was released, I was more or less the target audience. I was Twenty Four, had no idea what pulp fiction really was, and was happy to have Tarantino define it for me. The original movie poster grabbed my attention - a mock-up of an worn old dime novel with Uma on the cover, with a cigarette and a gun.

Of course in the actual movie, she had no gun. In fact there's no scene in the film with Uma in those clothes, laying on the floor in that position. It was a bit misleading. I can see how the sylistic shock, violence, and tough language is maybe inspired by the pulps, but what about the references to the Partrige Family, I dream of Genie, Speed Racer, and Suzanne Vega? And those are the scenes where everybody get's so philosophical.

Were the old Pulps obsessed with eating in faux 50's diners and conversations about pancakes and pot bellies?

I really do want to research the subject, but as of the moment all I have to go by is a cassette box set of old "Shadow" radio shows. I'll agree that the dialogue isn't the greatest in that either, but I don't remember Lamont Cranston taking a breather from the action to wax poetic about the MacDonald's menu in Amsterdam. Or anything remotely like that.

[Garpy]

Hmmm, I'm sort of with Mistook's original stance on Pulp Fiction. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie.....I loved the fractured structure of it, and I enjoyed the dialog...but....it really felt like Tarantino's voice projecting from each person. So, okay...if that was a deliberate choice, then fine, I'm cool as school on that, but, I have noticed the very same voice, vernacular, turns of phrase, ticks and idiosyncracies come out of the mouths of every other Tarantino character in every other movie I've seen of his. I've not yet seen Kill Bill, so I'm not sure whether his dialog still does this.

[Mistook]

Hmmm, I'm sort of with Mistook's original stance on Pulp Fiction. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie.....I loved the fractured structure of it, and I enjoyed the dialog...but....it really felt like Tarantino's voice projecting from each person. So, okay...if that was a deliberate choice, then fine, I'm cool as school on that, but, I have noticed the very same voice, vernacular, turns of phrase, ticks and idiosyncracies come out of the mouths of every other Tarantino character in every other movie I've seen of his. I've not yet seen Kill Bill, so I'm not sure whether his dialog still does this.

All I can say is, I'm 36, and strugging to get a novel together that can be considered "decent" on it's own merits. I don't want to have to crouch behind the sheild of humor, or YA, or tribute to be taken seriously. And it's hard.

BUT (big butt) I first tested the waters of novel writing when I was 21, and these Tarantenic characters and conversations were EXACTLY what I wanted to write about. I had no plot. I had no real understanding of human nature. But I had a lot of fun times drinking coffee with my wacky friends talking about trivial pop culture crap and at the time I felt that was enough to base some kind of stream of consciousness novel upon.

I was wrong.

Movies are a different animal. You can get away with things you never could do in a novel. I really can understand why Pulp Fiction was so popular. But I cringe at it the same way I cringe at my own past. I see my own stupidity in that dialogue. I guess it's a personal thing.

[Jamesaritchie]

[QUOTE=Jamesaritchie][QUOTE=Mistook]


Well, when you put it that way, I can see your point. The last time I watched it, I was constantly thinking about dialogue. Still, I'd like to read some true pulp fiction from the old pulps before I watch it again. It's hard to scare up transcriptions of those stories, even online.

When the movie was released, I was more or less the target audience. I was Twenty Four, had no idea what pulp fiction really was, and was happy to have Tarantino define it for me. The original movie poster grabbed my attention - a mock-up of an worn old dime novel with Uma on the cover, with a cigarette and a gun.

Of course in the actual movie, she had no gun. In fact there's no scene in the film with Uma in those clothes, laying on the floor in that position. It was a bit misleading. I can see how the sylistic shock, violence, and tough language is maybe inspired by the pulps, but what about the references to the Partrige Family, I dream of Genie, Speed Racer, and Suzanne Vega? And those are the scenes where everybody get's so philosophical.

Were the old Pulps obsessed with eating in faux 50's diners and conversations about pancakes and pot bellies?

I really do want to research the subject, but as of the moment all I have to go by is a cassette box set of old "Shadow" radio shows. I'll agree that the dialogue isn't the greatest in that either, but I don't remember Lamont Cranston taking a breather from the action to wax poetic about the MacDonald's menu in Amsterdam. Or anything remotely like that.

Yes, those old pulp movies were obsessed with many things. Th ething to remember, I believe, is that much of the dialogue in Pulp was "inside" jokes, but the people inside were not Tarantino's buddies, but all of us who grew up with pulp fiction, pulp movies, and certain types of TV shows and movies that are, at best, pulp in quality.

Even the philosophical scenes are an "inside" joke.

I don't think Lamont Cranston is the right character to have in mind. Think Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe, who seemed to wax poetic over everything in narrative voiceover and in dialogue. In this area, it's really much more noir than pulp fiction, though pulp fiction and noir are often hard to separate, and much of it fits the same category.

As for the McDonald's chatter, I think that was the best dialogue in the entire film. It couldn't have been better, or come at a better moment. "Le Big Mac." Perfect.

The point there is that you have two hit men, two paid killers, and they're on their way to kill someone. But to them it's just going to work. They may as well be on the way to punch a time clock at the local matress factory. They aren't nervous, they aren't scared, they aren't worried. They're just on the way to work, and like those around them who really are on the way to punch a time clock at the local matress factory, they talk about nothing of any importance. They just ramble about whatever comes to mind. Things like "Le Big Mac."

It isn't waxing poetic. It's as far from waxing poetic as you can get. It's mindless rambling about McDonald's and Big Macs. Just the kind of thing any of us might talk about when bored stiff and on the way to another day on the job.

And while I hate to mention this, the McDonald's dialogue is also a reminder of Huckleberry Finn and the slave, Jim. It's why the French don't speak English.

There's a lot of dialogue from classics in the movie, but updated, modern, often intentionally inaccurate. And a good bit of the dialogue is from the Bible, also intentionally misquoted. None of the dialogue is accidental.

I HATE the advice that says every line of dialogue must move the story forward. It just isn't true. The best dialogue develops character, not story.

And, of course, the movie is filmed completely out of order. Things happen first that really happen last, the middle happens after the end, and God knows where the beginning is.

[Jamesaritchie]

Hmmm, I'm sort of with Mistook's original stance on Pulp Fiction. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie.....I loved the fractured structure of it, and I enjoyed the dialog...but....it really felt like Tarantino's voice projecting from each person. So, okay...if that was a deliberate choice, then fine, I'm cool as school on that, but, I have noticed the very same voice, vernacular, turns of phrase, ticks and idiosyncracies come out of the mouths of every other Tarantino character in every other movie I've seen of his. I've not yet seen Kill Bill, so I'm not sure whether his dialog still does this.

I simply didn't hear this. I thought each character in Pulp Fiction has a voice all his own. No two of them sounded anything alike to me.

[Mistook]

Yes, those old pulp movies were obsessed with many things. The thing to remember, I believe, is that much of the dialogue in Pulp was "inside" jokes, but the people inside were not Tarantino's buddies, but all of us who grew up with pulp fiction, pulp movies, and certain types of TV shows and movies that are, at best, pulp in quality.

Even the philosophical scenes are an "inside" joke.

I don't think Lamont Cranston is the right character to have in mind. Think Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe, who seemed to wax poetic over everything in narrative voiceover and in dialogue. In this area, it's really much more noir than pulp fiction, though pulp fiction and noir are often hard to separate, and much of it fits the same category.


I had no idea! I'm still trying to understand what exactly qualifies as "pulp" and/or "noir". I guess those terms are more elastic than I realized.



As for the McDonald's chatter, I think that was the best dialogue in the entire film. It couldn't have been better, or come at a better moment. "Le Big Mac." Perfect.

The point there is that you have two hit men, two paid killers, and they're on their way to kill someone. But to them it's just going to work. They may as well be on the way to punch a time clock at the local matress factory. They aren't nervous, they aren't scared, they aren't worried. They're just on the way to work, and like those around them who really are on the way to punch a time clock at the local matress factory, they talk about nothing of any importance. They just ramble about whatever comes to mind. Things like "Le Big Mac."

It isn't waxing poetic. It's as far from waxing poetic as you can get. It's mindless rambling about McDonald's and Big Macs. Just the kind of thing any of us might talk about when bored stiff and on the way to another day on the job.


Don't forget, "Le Cheese Royale!" I get your point here too. I guess at some point in the past I saw the irony of hit men BSing just the same as anybody else. I guess i'm picking on it because of where I am in proximity to Q.T. More or less we're from the same generation, so if I see something in his work that looks like something I'd liked to have pulled off, there's a bias. Call it jealousy, or call it self-criticizm projected onto a safely famous target.

I, and thousands of other guys my age would've loved to have made such a burger conversation famous, back in that day. But now I have so many regrets from that age, I tend to look at my whole idea of what was cool as a giant tapestry of stupid.


And while I hate to mention this, the McDonald's dialogue is also a reminder of Huckleberry Finn and the slave, Jim. It's why the French don't speak English.


There you've gone completely over my head. Feel free to elaborate.



There's a lot of dialogue from classics in the movie, but updated, modern, often intentionally inaccurate. And a good bit of the dialogue is from the Bible, also intentionally misquoted. None of the dialogue is accidental.


I didnt' catch the inaccuracies, especially with the recurring Bible passage. I guess the movie has more layers of meaning than I gave it credit for.



I HATE the advice that says every line of dialogue must move the story forward. It just isn't true. The best dialogue develops character, not story.


It's just so difficult to sort through all the conflicting advice and figure out what to apply where and when. I think a beginning writer's first instinct, as far as dialogue goes, is to write pages and pages of conversation that shows how deep and witty our heroes are. That was my instinct at least.

If you don't have a plot... I mean, if you're me and you're 20 trying to make a plot out of young people chatting over coffee... then the story goes nowhere. On the other hand, with a plot, you have something relevant for them to talk about. I guess it's a tightrope just like anything else.

I've been easing up on the reigns lately and letting the characters stray off topic here and there, in the name of character development, but I still fear the editor's wrath if I write too long without getting back to the plot.




And, of course, the movie is filmed completely out of order. Things happen first that really happen last, the middle happens after the end, and God knows where the beginning is.


That part of it I loved. I've never had a problem with the disjointed time-line, or the sub-stories that all relate to the main story. There was some of that quality in the TV series, "Twin Peaks" that preceded PF by several years - and again with X-Files. The two TV shows were a bit too "obscure" I think, and the movie, by comparisson was fairly easy to follow and understand, at least on the surface.

It's that kind of scope I'm trying to capture in the novel I'm working on right now. I want that sense of... I don't know how to say it... think of a Ven Diagram, with overlapping circles. I'm trying to focus on that dark patch in the center, and show just enough of the surrounding fins and spitres to hint at the nature of these independant circles.

It's kind of - "Here's a huge mess, but we'll figure out what exactly is going on."

[Nateskate]

Some characters have no template. But sometimes I'll use an already developed character, and use them as my template. For instance, I used Gollum as the template for my bad poetry contest entry. I pictured a frustrated ADHD Gollum trying to do Dr Seuss. So he starts out with a demented Seuss like poem, then he gets sidetracked and breaks down into a ranting diatribe railing at the readers.

So, it winds up with Gollum sounding a little like a sicko Cat in the Hat. If someone doesn't know this, they might just think I was insane when I wrote this.

"Eye of a pig
Tick in a twiddle
Move over dog
you're starting to piddle

Eggs that have rotted
Boils filled with fungus
The tongue of a turd
Sprays bad poems among us"

Bad, you want bad? Well happy or sad-Why give you what you want? That would be good, which is bad in your twisted confusing world. I should give you my best, not my badest, my goodest, not my
stinking saddest..., that would serve you right!
Just a vendictively nice poem of love, and niceness,
and warm fuzzy stinking feelings. That would send you
bad-poem lovers a message,
"Go home! You're not going to get what you want...Ha, ha. So there!"

No, no bad, redundant, stinking vermin poems for you!

You wan 'em bad, don't you? Well, pigs eyes in a bowl of dove's dung, you got em!!

Scum from the plagurized pond of the belly lint of a
giant's rotting carcass, dripping on this page, and ooohhh
to think you love it, lick it, roll in it, and even come back for more.
No, don't pretend to have an ounce of sanity, because
if you are here reading this bane drivel, you are insane

"Always insult the crowd," that is what I say! "Always make them feel lower than the blisters on the bottom of an ant's toe."

Why are you reading this puss? Are you one of those puke for brains? What's the matter with you? Have you no dignity? Are you enjoying this displeasure?

Of course, "Yes, insult them, insult them...Gollum, Gollum
Yes, they want's the precious poem...Gollum, Gollum...well, they can't have it!
"No precious poems for you..." he rages,"Filthy Hobbitses...No...they're mine, my own, all of them, my precious." Ah, admit it! You are not stuck, glued here to your seat, doomed to read only rotting words carved by innocent fingers on the inside of this cesspool of filth, in the bowels of a wart-toad, but here you are anyway.

Breath the deep rising excriment as you read the words on the walls. You were tricked into coming, "Oh, poor Smeagle...master's tricksy, but Gollum will make them pay. He tells the masters he has a good poem for them, exciting..."Change the world with my words," he says! "Save the hobbits from Mordor," he says."Gollum! Gollum!"

No, his face is becoming clearer, it's not Gollum at all...now I see, it's you!
"Hannible, no not here...no, not here...I see your twisted mind again, and how you toy with poor Agent Starling. Go away, you can't have your way here. Oh, I see! She can't take her eyes off your poem. Makes sense. She thinks she'll solve riddles in the dark, solve mysteries, reading your sick pathetic words, which you calously write through the warden's pen. Oh, those sharks eyes.

No, the lambs are not silent in these halls, I thought as I watched, him, but he would not let go.
"No, Hannible, let go of its head...no, stop...

Is this bad enough for ya? If not, come again and be even more disappointed!

[triceretops]

I'm not saying that this is the end all but I start with character quirks, like my gelologist often starts his sentences with "Sir" or refers to young girls as dear or missy. My mechanic says "Boss, I think..." He always related things to mechanical solutions.

My zoologist has a habit (when he's excited) to start off his dialogue sentence with, "You wanna' know something?" The scientists speak in tech terms. My demolitionist (Italian) waves his arms and speaks about blowing things up, killing this, fireing that.

At least that is a start for me. But yes, it is very difficult to differenciate voice, especially when you have 5-8 characters all in the same discussion. They eventually let you know what their limitations are as far as education, dialect, taboos, propensity for swearing, and other things. It is something you have to be aware of all the time. Each time a characters speaks, you have to play-act and jump in their shoes. Then pull and do the same for another.
Very taxing.

Triceratops

[LightShadow]

My characters are real to me, so their voices come naturally. Granted, I will on occasion push a personality to an extreme just to make that character stand out a little extra (like the deep twang of a Barney Fife style character I have - mainly to get a giggle). The narrator is just that. The narrator. He's all knowing, but rarely a voice. The story and dialogue is a more important narration tool than the narrator. That's just an opinion, mind you.