Debate about Voice

[DonnaDuck]

I'm twitching with this one--

A direct quote from this post (http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/how-to-write-part-whatever-why-you-should-give-up-finding-your-own-voice/) titled -"How To Write, Part Four: Why You Should Give Up Finding Your Own Voice--

If you are someone who is trying to find their own writing voice, stop it. Take up a different hobby. Building models is fun. So is gardening. When it comes to pleasurable pastimes, you can’t beat wondering whether or not something growing out the ground is edible. So pick up that trowel and that pack of seeds, get out in the dirt, and stop pondering how to find your own writing voice. Do it now. Or buy a glue gun. Or a crocheting kit. Something. But do give up on finding your own writing voice.

And yet another quote from this post (http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/writing-roses-via-phones-geriatric-equipment-bigfoot-in-a-harem-and-its-not-about-you/) titled 'How To Write, Part Three--


Here’s the bottom line: Someone who is more interested in themselves than they are the world at large probably won’t make it as a writer. You have to be insanely empathetic to be a writer. To be a writer you have to think everything is more interesting than you.


Writing isn’t about exercising your ego. It’s about erasing your ego. It’s about getting out of the way of whatever needs to be said, so that it can be said in a way that does justice to the thing that’s telling you what you need to say about it.


Would-be writers are forever wanting to share themselves with the world. Fair enough; that’s a big part of writing, for sure. But if, in being totally honest with yourself, you find that you are more interested in sharing yourself with the world than you are with, in essence, sharing the world with the world, then save yourself the trouble, and stop imagining you’re a writer. You’re not.

And this guy is being entirely serious. Should we all thank this guy for attempting to turn would-be writers into hack-whores for the publishing world or bludgeon him with a blunt object?



So what say you? Would you tell any new writer that they should write what the readers want or write what they want? Would you say to a new writer, 'screw your own voice, write with the voice of your perceived readership'? Would you tell your budding new writers to channel their non-existent readers because they're the ones really writing the story, you're just a tool in which to put words on paper?

Or would you tell your little writer to never whore themselves out for the sake of getting published? To write what they want to write in the voice they deem fit and leave it up to the readers to read? Would you tell them they are not prostitutes and therefore should take pride in their work and tell their own story and not the story they think the readers would want to read?

What's worse, he's a published writer and NOT with PA (even though he is Christian) (see this post (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1986559&postcount=71) for clarification). Does anyone else see this as a huge disservice to writers everywhere, to tell them to give up writing in their own voice because readers only want to read their own voices? Eek--

*twitch*

[Devil Ledbetter]

He comes off a bit condescending, but really, writing that's "all about meeee" bores the hell out of me, which is why I can hardly stand to read the majority of blogs. Unless you have a wicked sense of humor and a really unusual take on things, which is to say, unless you're David Sedaris, I probably don't want to read about you. (That's the general "you," not you personally, Duck.)

I'm not really clear on what all this "finding my voice" business is about. Maybe because I've been writing my entire life, I almost can't help but write in my own voice - whatever that is. Finding my voice would be like "finding" the color of my eyes.

Someone who is more interested in themselves than they are the world at large probably won’t make it as a writer. You have to be insanely empathetic to be a writer. To be a writer you have to think everything is more interesting than you.I agree with this. Self absorption is boring. Being able to make a reader feel what a character is feeling is interesting.

I get really tired of the hey-look-at-me-I'm-so-clever-and-funky-and-quirky approach to writing. He's right. It isn't about you.

Would you tell any new writer that they should write what the readers want or write what they want?Of course you should write what you want, write about what interests you. But if all that interests you is the fuzz in your own navel, don't expect a lot of other people to be fascinated by it.

[Willowmound]

So what say you? Would you tell any new writer that they should write what the readers want or write what they want? Would you say to a new writer, 'screw your own voice, write with the voice of your perceived readership'? Would you tell your budding new writers to channel their non-existent readers because they're the ones really writing the story, you're just a tool in which to put words on paper?


I'm not sure that's what he means. I think he means, don't try to make your prose special and interesting, just tell your story -- and your story had better be about something bigger and more universal than simply you and your issues.

That's how I read those quotes.

[DonnaDuck]

I agree with this. Self absorption is boring. Being able to make a reader feel what a character is feeling is interesting.

While I agree that literary masturbation is insanely boring and pretentious, I was looking at it in the context of the rest of his post, that a writer needs to write what a reader wants to read as opposed to writing what they feel is a good story that others would want to read. I say 'I want to write a story about this because I have a solid basis for it and I think the readers would want to read it.' He says, 'No. It doesn't matter what you want to write. You have to write what you know the readers will read. They don't want to read what you have to say, they want to read what they have to say.'

I took his words to mean that he's sapping personal creativity out of writing and wants people to write what they think will sell, not what they feel would be a good story.


Of course you should write what you want, write about what interests you. But if all that interests you is the fuzz in your own navel, don't expect a lot of other people to be fascinated by it.

I agree but I think we read the quotes differently. I wasn't reading it as don't write about how fanglorious of a writer you are and making your story about how fantastic you think you are. I was looking at it more from the perspective of him saying people don't care what interests you. They care what interests them and they only want to read that. Why can't I write a story that's both interesting to me and to the reader? Am I not a reader myself? Why do I have to write solely for the reader and not for myself? In order for my work to work, I have to like it too, be it about naval fuzz or a government conspiracy.

If I don't like something I'm writing, if I think it's complete crap yet I know it's something that will sell because it has a good plot and people will read it, I will feel that I've sold out and equally lost my soul as a writer. I think all writers write with the intent of publication in mind but I don't think you need to give up on your own voice and focus on writing the next best seller based on what's in the market now in order to achieve that.

I realize I've put a rather negative spin on his quotes and what I got out of them but I was no peeved when he said to stop finding your voice as a writer that it tainted the rest of his work for me.

[Willowmound]

Having now had a look at this guy's blog, it appears he doesn't actually know what "writer's voice" means.

I think most of what he says can safely be ignored.

[Danger Jane]

It seemed to me that he wasn't talking about writing the story you think your readers will read, but rather advocating invisible prose. He makes a big point that you can't pay attention to both your inner voice and your readers'--they're two opposing interior monologues, it's like watching TV and listening to the radio. I don't agree with him, because I like to marvel at the way a writer phrased something or described something, even if that does technically take me out of the story.


What's worse, he's a published writer and NOT with PA (even though he is Christian).

That's not really the kind of thing you say when you want people to agree with you...there are plenty of intelligent Christians in the world, and lots on AW.

[Devil Ledbetter]

I still don't get the whole "trying to find your voice" thing. To me, your voice is your voice. You don't "find" it, it just is. Or if you can't find it, it's because your "looking" for it instead of just writing.

By way of analogy, your voice is as unique as your handwriting. If you're consciously trying to make your handwriting "stand out" and look "unique" and "special" it's going to have a very studied, contrived, unnatural look to it - kind of like what you see with 6th grade girls dotting their i's with hearts and adding extra curliecues to their capital letters. It's obviously phony. Writing is the same. If you're struggling to "find your unique voice" it's going to stands out like the handwriting in a 6th grader's mash note.

Your voice is what happens when you get out of your own way and just write. That's what I think he meant.

To me, the very idea of "finding my voice" smacks of an exercise in navel gazing. Here's what voice is to me: If I started posting here under another username, I think, unless I was deliberately trying to mask my personality, people would easily recognize me by the kinds of things I say and how I say them.

I was looking at it more from the perspective of him saying people don't care what interests you. They care what interests them and they only want to read that. Why can't I write a story that's both interesting to me and to the reader? I would say that if it's interesting to you (not to be confused with all-about-you) it will interest some other readers. I didn't get that he was saying write about what bores you just because you think it will sell.

[Devil Ledbetter]

I'd say that depends entirely on which people you are trying to attract.Meh, I'm an atheist yet I'm basically supporting what the guy said, I guess. I couldn't care less what his beliefs are. He makes a point that the sort of writing where one struggles to find oneself is best left to bedside journals.

[RG570]

What an effing moran.

Sorry, invisible prose is fine for novels you read in an airport, but despite all the animosity towards art, especially on here, there is still such a thing as "literature".

I really don't get guys like this and why they're trying so hard to destroy art and make people who experiment feel like idiots. This is the worst kind of conservative nonsense and it ruins the art. If you don't like it, fine, don't read it, but just because you won the commercial fiction lottery doesn't give you a licence to come down on people who want to push the envelope. I hope I'm reading this wrong and he's talking about something else, but I don't think so.

Jackasses like this are the reason literature is going the way of poetry. They make my blood run cold.

[preyer]

depends on what your definition of voice is. how i read those quotes is 'leave your ego at the door, don't try to be shakespeare.' by that, i get 'don't think you're so special that you can inflict such suffering on all readers and expect them to bow to you.'

i think it's put absolutely brilliantly in the statement 'people want to read about themselves.' that's entirely true, imo. true, few of us will ever be james bond, but the audience, those being guys, share enough of the same philosophy and interests as that character to make him relatable, even if it's a bit of roll-playing on the reader's part. the whole idea of making readers identify with your characters is based not on your ego and how that character should be, rather how to make the reader see himself in that character. it's the width and breadth of a character named harry potter. it's the cornerstone of romance, even with a touch of wish fulfillment tossed in.

okay, so we don't see the same conclusions from those quotes.

but, since you brought it up, how can a person live with themselves after they've decided to stand on the proverbial corner under the streetlamp in a vinyl mini-skirt and fishnet stockings while running the question 'hey, baby, want a date?' by every car that goes by?

i'd say most writers are more of a whore than they give themselves credit for. or like to think of themselves. do we not all run the same loose story structures of introduction, rising tension, and resolution/conclusion? of course we do, some of us do it a bit differently, but we all have this 'intuitive' storytelling method. duh, eh? it's not like we can get around that.

but, then we look at the genre we want to write in. it's got its conventions and rules and cliches. here's where the car starts to slow down and the guy starts eyeing us, wondering if we're worth the trouble, trying to determine if we're relatively disease-free enough to take to a motel with hourly rates. he drives around the block, wondering if he should spend his money, unsure if his fetish is something you're willing to do. after all, it's his money and the whore's job is to satisfy HIS desires. he doesn't give a damn if she has the best orgasm of her life. he doesn't care if she gets off at all. the best she can hope for is that he has a good enough time to return to her. even in the whoring game, perhaps especially in the whoring game, repeat customers are money in the bank.

satisfied that your main goal for the night isn't earning enough cash for crack, he's going to make another pass. he likes the genre you're in. that's why he's looking in the first place. he's not looking for a mystery cozy, he's needing his hard-boiled crime fix.

and your job is to give it to him. his fantasy involves whips and chains. you can dress up as a nun or a schoolteacher, your choice. a cop outfit if you have one. he may go as far as a french maid, but that's stretching credibility of the fantasy. leave the scuba outfit in the closet, it doesn't fit with the fantasy and it's not what turns the guy on.

so, okay, you've got him interested. you've promised him a genre and a sub-genre. he's coming back again, time to hook him. he slows down as his window is lowering.

'hey, baby, want a date?'

he smiles, but you know you've still got to reel this sucker in. it's his fantasy, you have to make it all about him. after all, you've got college loans to pay off. he knows what he wants and his money is still in his wallet. all you have to do is promise him his fantasy will be taken care of. it may not be 100% of what you had in mind, but, hey, you can still have a lot of creativity within the confines of his parametres.

this is where you make the character relatable to the reader. this is where you can fiddle with the plot. you can do a lot of things within this space. however, you're selling yourself here, and in the end you have to provide the customer with the service he expects. your satisfaction is last on his list. HIS satisfaction is what he cares about.

'need a ride?'

'thought you'd never ask, big boy.'

okay, so he wants you to dress up like his mother. weird, but whatever. and he wants to call you cherri. uh, okay. and he's got this 'ultimate sex toy' contraption he made in his basement -- uh, we'll pass on that. that's a niche market thing, pal, find someone else for that.

are we whores? you betcha.

[Polenth]

The main issue with his post is a terminology problem. He thinks a writer's voice is the voice (or voices) in their head. In that context, it makes sense that he doesn't think you can use your own voice. Writing out an unedited version of your thoughts wouldn't make for a good read for someone else.

Most writers talk about their voice as the filter between their thoughts and writing it down. It's how to make the thoughts understandable and entertaining, without losing what the author wanted to say in the first place.

As a result, it means he doesn't understand what people mean when they discuss voice... and other people don't understand what he means when he discusses voice. Generally I skip blog posts like that. There's no point trying to debate something when everyone has a different dictionary. Everyone can end up agreeing but nobody will realise they're agreeing.

[Toothpaste]

Exactly Polenth. This guy doesn't actually know what "voice" means.

As far as what Devil has been saying I would have to disagree. Voice in my opinion can be cultivated. I think it has to come from a personal place, it still has to be you, but it can be altered. Think of it as style. My body will always be my body, what I look like etc. But I look very different in jeans and a tee-shirt than when I am all dressed up. It's still me, I am being true to myself and I like how I look in both looks, but there are times when I have dressed up and others haven't even recognised me at first.

So too is it the same with my voice. The voice I use in my current writing (my MG novels) is very me. In fact when people who know me read it they comment how it sounds just like me talking. My blog again I've been told sounds just like me, but it is a bit more formal, a bit more intellectual at times. And if I write an essay or article, then I become all academic sounding. And yet people still tell me it sounds like something I would say. Now none of these is more me than the other, they just represent different aspects.

To me the key is finding the element in your voice that makes you you, which is very tricky considering we've been taught from a very young age what the "right" way is to write. We may all have a natural voice, but it doesn't mean we all know what it is.

Similarly, I think it is possible to write in very different voices on purpose. To write a detective novel with one voice, a fantasy in another, and a coming of age story again in a voice that is completely different. It is possible to play with voice, to try things out, to change your voice completely, or to emulate someone else.

But I do think it's a process, and something worth being aware about, just as we are aware of all the other aspects of our writing.

[Sarpedon]

Well, it seems to me that there are plenty of posers out there, but people need to learn how to write sometime. Back in the day they would have written literary criticism and newspaper articles. Now its all in blogs and forum postings.

I don't think one's writing voice just is there. When I write things on different days, they can seem very different.

[c.e.lawson]

I'm wondering if some of us have not quite understood what he was trying to say. I think he actually means the opposite of what the OP interpreted him to mean. Granted, I think his point could use more clarity. He explains it a bit better in this post #12.

I wonder if I was too abstruse about my point here? What I’m trying to drive home is how UTTERLY anyone who aspires to be a “creative” writer needs to break through the massive, intrinsic, almost instinctive desire to take seriously anything but their internal imperative to create art via the (increasingly archaic) form of printed words on a page. My point is that being a successful creative writer means you have to do what’s basically impossible, which is to never for a moment concern yourself with what anyone but you feels about your work. Because considering the needs, tastes, and interests of anyone or anything but your Inner Creative Genius is tantamount to telling that genius that even though he/she/it is pretty good, they’re not quite good enough — that they need the validation of outside affirmation before they’re really worth something. And that drive toward objective validation of what must be a subjective phenomenon is what rips out the heart of that phenomenon. Worrying about the end of art is what kills the means of art.
I’m totally fascinated by the relationship between art and commerce–that is, the area in which being an artist and making a LIVING being an artist become common. That’s a weird, difficult place. I’m trying to maybe help people not get swallowed up in that particular Bermuda Triangle. And the only way to do that is to ignore everything outside yourself, and go for the creative expression of pure, arrogant, indulgent, child-like, Up Yours art. NEVER worry about what anyone thinks of your work–and take seriously how nearly impossible it is to truly and consistently feel that way. MAKE yourself feel that way. Trust in the integrity of the true creative process. When creating art, pay heed to NOTHING but what that art is TELLING you it needs you to do. Worry about what anyone will think of the result of that art, and you’re hosed.
When it comes to doing the kind of writing that I personally find the most rewarding to do, it’s all about the free fall.
I'm interpreting him as saying we won't find our true voice until we stop consciously trying to find it. We have to let ourselves write from brain/heart to paper without letting any external forces change how we are saying what we want to say. IMO, this is an ideal, obviously, since it's near impossible to achieve, but it brings us closer to our true voice. Which is, in the end, what he holds as a good thing.

At least that's how I'm understanding it. And it makes some sense to me.

c.e.

[Danger Jane]

We've all taken something completely different from this guy's post. And from that, it seems to me...he might not be the greatest writer out there. He can't articulate his ideas well enough for an audience to understand his point clearly, and respond accordingly. That is not the mark of genius. It is a lack of clarity.

So...maybe we shouldn't take him as seriously as he takes himself.

[veinglory]

Writing is about writing. The rest seems rather optional, to me.

[KTC]

Yes...voice can be altered, Toothpaste. I agree on that one. I love an author who can spin out books with radically different voice. Michael Chabon (I know, I know...I bring him up far too much!) is a fine example. His voice is different in almost every book he creates. He's a real chameleon. But the part that come from 'his personal place' is always there.

[a_sharp]

To me, "this guy," John Shore, has a good grasp of honest writing. As to voice, that term to me implies how I use style, diction, syntax, dialogue, how I develop characters, all the choices I make in a consistent manner that a reader can recognize as my "voice." It is not in my head, it has come from years of practice at the craft, editing, listening to readers, and deciding how I want my story to work.

Regardless of my choice of tense, point of view, time period, genre (I hate that word), my interpretation of the story and characters in it should come across with my voice, the way I set it down on the page.

When I read other writers, I pick up their voice. Joan Didion, for example, strikes me as a unique voice I have not found elsewhere. Her style is tight, terse, masculine in many ways, and yet poetic. Her choices of plot device, telegraphing, characterizing, dialog, are crisp and original. I like that style, I enjoy reading it, and when I set down to write my own story after reading hers, some of her voice creeps into mine for a while, but not for long because it isn't me. It's Didion.

This voice business is such an esoteric thing that it really evolves from experience. It's the product of one's practice of the writing craft, and once it comes forth, you realize it was nothing you could engineer or "find" or concoct. It is just there, and it is you and the way you write.

I think this is what agents and editors talk about when they say they are looking for a new voice. It's not some snappy, artsy prose that stretches the language. It's more a way of story-telling that sounds original, moves the emotions. It still has to be a good story well told, but the way in which you express it is uniquely yours and cannot be borrowed or copied without it being recognized as such.

[BenPanced]

After reading his "clarification", if that was the guy's point, why didn't he say it first instead of 12th?

[preyer]

'We've all taken something completely different from this guy's post. And from that, it seems to me...he might not be the greatest writer out there. He can't articulate his ideas well enough for an audience to understand his point clearly, and respond accordingly. That is not the mark of genius. It is a lack of clarity.

'So...maybe we shouldn't take him as seriously as he takes himself.'

i'm onboard with this sentiment. what's funny here is these guys who try to sound oh-so-smart and *demand* artistic freedom will write the most banal, by-the-numbers trash you can find. that or it's so devoid of anything resembling a cohesive story that you could arrange the pages in any order you want and still wind up with the same mess. i think i smell a philsophy major here. they're easy to spot, but i recommend following them around only if you've got a wide-mouth shovel for all their bullshit.

so, his 'advice' is to write entirely what you want the way you want it with no outside opinion? is that the gestalt of what he's babbling about? if so, then he's got my permission. the slush pile is always hungry for more. if, on the other hand, you've got a brain in your head, then you surely realize that publishing is a BUSINESS that's trying to sell PRODUCT (i.e., your story, marlow). if you can sell a million copies of your book without 'lowering' yourself, great. you're one in a million.

if you realize there has to be a compromize between 'art' and commerce, you'll do good to do your own market research, find out what people actually buy, and do the best job you can. you want to be published, right? assuming for a second people know what they like, the more you can give that to them the more books you'll sell. ohmygawd, what a mean, viscious thing to say!

'oh, Preyer, are you saying you should sacrifice your ART to make money?!'

yes. up to a certain point anyway. what, you don't like money? i sure do. and if my editor feels i need to add some beef to the romantic subplot, okay, we can try it your way and see how that works.

what amazes me is how a person can enter into the commercial arena and expect to *not* bend their 'artistic vision.' but it's imperative the dwarf has a limp and the elf an eyepatch! yeah, right, whatever. eight pages worth 'imperative'?

this guy sounds as if what he writes has something to say.

i hate that.

the fact that a publishing house manage to stay in business is testament to their ability to produce sellable product. product, not art. if you can't differentiate between the two, or unwilling to 'sacrifice' a bit of your 'art' if and when you have to for the sake of making a living wage, hold on to that day job. PA exists in part due to 'artists' unwilling to have their 'work' 'tampered with' by money-hungry editors.

sorry, i also don't agree that after ten books you realize you know nothing. if you haven't figured out this writing thing for the most part after deca-books on the shelves, something's wrong.

[John Shore]

If I can just say, it is soooo weird to read this sort of dialogue about something you wrote. Which, I know, isn't saying much. But still. It IS ... odd. Kinda fun. Kinda not, too, of course, given the fairly amazing level of hostility evinced by so many here. What in the world is up with THAT, anyway? What are so many people here so royally pissed off about?

[Emily Winslow]

I didn't find the original quotes objectionable at all. I also didn't read into them any of what the original poster did. I haven't checked out the blog, so I don't have the context, but the original quotes seemed just to be saying "don't be self-indulgent." I think that's good advice.

I don't see anything in the quotes (which I've copied below) suggesting that writers should ignore their interests and write for the market. I do see advice that writers should expand their interests beyond themselves. Excellent advice. Why would I pull out a pitchfork??

Perhaps the OP read into that advice to expand interest beyond the writer's self to expand interests beyond what actually interests them (ie--write for the market not out of passion). Is that what you thought? I guess I could see getting that, in a very convoluted way, but I don't think it's what was said. I think the advice was that a writer should be interested in the world around them, in all kinds of people, curious about life, willing to challenge their assumptions. To stop, as someone upthread said, navel-gazing.

I honestly don't get the problem.

If you are someone who is trying to find their own writing voice, stop it. Take up a different hobby. Building models is fun. So is gardening. When it comes to pleasurable pastimes, you can’t beat wondering whether or not something growing out the ground is edible. So pick up that trowel and that pack of seeds, get out in the dirt, and stop pondering how to find your own writing voice. Do it now. Or buy a glue gun. Or a crocheting kit. Something. But do give up on finding your own writing voice.

Here’s the bottom line: Someone who is more interested in themselves than they are the world at large probably won’t make it as a writer. You have to be insanely empathetic to be a writer. To be a writer you have to think everything is more interesting than you.

Writing isn’t about exercising your ego. It’s about erasing your ego. It’s about getting out of the way of whatever needs to be said, so that it can be said in a way that does justice to the thing that’s telling you what you need to say about it.

Would-be writers are forever wanting to share themselves with the world. Fair enough; that’s a big part of writing, for sure. But if, in being totally honest with yourself, you find that you are more interested in sharing yourself with the world than you are with, in essence, sharing the world with the world, then save yourself the trouble, and stop imagining you’re a writer. You’re not.

[clearrr]

Few people love writing queries. Most prefer smashing their heads into brick walls whilst standing on shards of glass. When we're writing queries, we're attempting to write to satisfy the needs of the agent/publisher while writing about what we wrote.

For me, tucked in the security of my office, I write and love/hate/like what I've written but I'm the only audience I'm attempting to satisfy. With the query, there's the "other person" whose attention we wish to capture. For many, it's daunting. I wonder if this is what the blogger is addressing; paying as much attention to our reader when writing as we pay to our prospective agents/publishers?

[Willowmound]

paying as much attention to our reader when writing as we pay to our prospective agents/publishers?

What's the difference?

[clearrr]

When I'm writing a query, every word is measured to achieve a positive response in the agent, (stumbling along, as I might). When I'm writing the story, the words are tools in service of the story. The MC may have started out as a two-headed dragon with serious schizophrenic tendencies but I change the MC into a flower-loving werewolf. The agent's instructional sheet, his/her requirements, tone, word usage doesn't change and I have to keep aiming for that static target.

[Willowmound]

When I'm writing a query, every word is measured to achieve a positive response in the agent, (stumbling along, as I might). When I'm writing the story, the words are tools in service of the story. The MC may have started out as a two-headed dragon with serious schizophrenic tendencies but I change the MC into a flower-loving werewolf. The agent's instructional sheet, his/her requirements, tone, word usage doesn't change and I have to keep aiming for that static target.

I mean, what's the difference between writing for your reader, and writing for your agent/publisher?

[clearrr]

The freedom.

[Roger J Carlson]

I mean, what's the difference between writing for your reader, and writing for your agent/publisher?

The freedom.The point, I think, is that unless you can interest an agent/publisher, no one else will ever read your writing, so you are always writing first for a publishing professional.

[clearrr]

In my business writing, I am always writing for the client. In my fiction, I am first writing the story and it is the master I serve.

[preyer]

i'm not sure i get what you mean, clearrr. you're saying that writing for your audience contains more freedom than writing for your editor? how so? simply those things you mentioned? i mean, those things the editor is looking for, tone, certain structural elements, *not* screwing some things up, etc., isn't for their, the editor's, own gratification, rather to make sure the reader gets the best story they can, eh? so, yeah, i don't think it's too much to ask that the writer present a consistent tone, that certain words are taboo for their audience (again, i doubt this is their personal preference more than making the story marketable), and 'their' writing goals they expect you to meet (again, i doubt this is as much the editor's personal opinion as much as them expecting you to meet the reader's expectations).

writing for a commercial audience has some requirements and limits certain 'freedoms' in the sense that they probably shouldn't be there in the first place. for example, since the mystery cozy thread is around i'll use that, you can't have a bazooka wielding child rapist on the loose and depict graphic people explosions, blow-by-blow rape scenes, and all the while the bad guy screaming curse words at the top of his lungs. that's not a mystery cozy.

i'm not sure what freedoms you feel you're being denied that aren't meant to make the story better and help satisfy the reader's expectations.

[Sassee]

Here's what gets me about the two quotes in the original post. It's not what he's trying to say. That doesn't bother me. It doesn't even bother me that he might not know what "voice" is or anything else.

What bothers me is the condescending tone. He's managed to phrase it in such a way that the average reader will either be immediately offended or they will suddenly think themselves stupid for trying those no-no things such as finding one's own voice and not writing for everyone else. THAT is what I have a problem with. If he would care to explain in greater detail what he means and why it is bad, and not be so obviously hostile in his words, those passages might not be receiving such a negative response.

[preyer]

well, i'd amend that statement to say that i don't need anyone's recommendations on what *media*, as i know what media i like without anyone's 'help,' rather recommendations on specific items within a medium. like someone mentioning a good movie. i already know i like cinema.

[Willowmound]

I am first writing the story and it is the master I serve.

Ooo, spooky!

[James D. Macdonald]

I mean, what's the difference between writing for your reader, and writing for your agent/publisher?

Agents and editors are just more readers.

[Willowmound]

Agents and editors are just more readers.


That's what I thought.

[Elodie-Caroline]

Hmm, some points from me about the quotes in the original post:
Firstly, I never had a good education, as far as I'm concerned. I was top of the class in English, but, we never did grammar rules or proper punctuation at our school, so writing has been a good learning curve for me anyway.
I learned about some of the grammar rules by studying the French language; how could I know French grammar, if I didn't actually know the English rules to start with.

But saying all of that; I wrote my life story on the internet some years ago and got an e-mail from a lady on another site that I frequent. Her words to me were, 'boy, you can f*cking write!' and went on to offer to be my manager if I ever decided to take up writing.
So even though my punctuation and grammar suck/ed, I obviously already had my own voice in which to write with. I still never started writing until around three years later. Also, a friend of mine, who has been published himself, said that he liked my writing style after reading the first draft of my finished novel, which is something, to me anyway.

I personally don't write to *up* myself, I write to tell my stories and I write my stories from my characters own points of view, not mine; I wouldn't even put up with some of the people that my characters do.
I don't write what I would consider as commercial novels. I write what I want to, and if I'm ever lucky enough to get published, then so be it. If I don't get published, at least I've enjoyed what I was doing and proved to myself that I can do it when I want to, and like I said earlier, I have been learning the whole of the time. I would never sell my soul to write what I thought would be sold by the millions, I have to write what is in my mind's eye.

P.S. I take writing advice from others on the internet, the same as I would take advice about anything else; I take what I think is valuable and leave the rest.


Elodie

[clearrr]

Good grief. Am I the only one who just writes a story all by its little lonesome?

Am I to understand that other writers write with their phantom editors sitting in their offices? Let me clarify that - during the rough draft?

[clearrr]

Elodie, we were posting at the same time and you've made my point. Thank you.

[Willowmound]

Good grief. Am I the only one who just writes a story all by its little lonesome?

Am I to understand that other writers write with their phantom editors sitting in their offices? Let me clarify that - during the rough draft?

Since when were we talking about rough drafts?

[clearrr]

Willowmound, do you find queries difficult to write?

[Willowmound]

Why do you keep bringing up queries? What's this about rough drafts?

This is the quoute from you I was curious about:

Originally Posted by clearrr
paying as much attention to our reader when writing as we pay to our prospective agents/publishers?

Clearly, you must have been talking about something else.

[clearrr]

And the question I'm still asking is do you find queries difficult to write?

[Susan Breen]

For me, voice is the most important part of writing (and reading). It's how I connect with the author; it's what makes the writing unique. I love it when I give my writing students the same exact exercise and each one writes something completely different--not just the story, but the tone.
Also, I'm intrigued that the blogger says writers should have no ego. You have to have an ego to think that anyone will care about what you have to say.

[Willowmound]

And the question I'm still asking is do you find queries difficult to write?

Probably, when I get to that point. So?

[Elodie-Caroline]

You are most welcome Clearrr :)

Oh, and I hate writing the queries, it's a thorn in my side; it's not any of the fun that it is to actually write the story.


Elodie, we were posting at the same time and you've made my point. Thank you.

[CaroGirl]

I think part of the problem here is that the original advice, about we can't seem to agree, is a bit muddled. "Finding your voice" is a nebulous concept and to say that writers ought to stop cold trying to do it is a somewhat contentious stance. The "voice" is an ill-defined thing. Also, the blogger gave no alternative to NOT finding one's voice. Without a consistent voice to a particular piece, you can end up with a haphazard bit of writing that might sound both erudite and colloquial.

I agree with the poster who said writers need an ego and I agree with the poster who said that reading about another person is insanely boring.

I think the blogger's argument is just not fully fleshed out enough for us to effectively argue his points and that's where the problem has arisen.

[Birol]

And this guy is being entirely serious. Should we all thank this guy for attempting to turn would-be writers into hack-whores for the publishing world or bludgeon him with a blunt object?

What's wrong with being a hack? I'm quite proud to be a hack.


So what say you? Would you tell any new writer that they should write what the readers want or write what they want?

That really depends on their goals and objectives with this writing thing, but as others have already pointed out, it's not exactly an either/or proposition. It's quite possible to do both, to belend them, and find the balance between writing what the writer wants and what the reader will read.

Or would you tell your little writer to never whore themselves out for the sake of getting published? To write what they want to write in the voice they deem fit and leave it up to the readers to read? Would you tell them they are not prostitutes and therefore should take pride in their work and tell their own story and not the story they think the readers would want to read?

That's funny, because I've longed used the analogy that writers are prostitutes, and agents and editors are our pimps. I even have a quote around here about it someplace that made some people laugh.

What's worse, he's a published writer and NOT with PA (even though he is Christian).

This quote is nothing but disparaging and has no place in intelligent discourse. Religion has nothing to do with PA or the quality of one's writing ability.

I just meant I found it in poor taste. I don't think his religion has much to do with his dumb ideas about writing, and it was a cheap jab.

Agreed. It was a cheap hit and in poor taste.

Sorry, invisible prose is fine for novels you read in an airport, but despite all the animosity towards art, especially on here, there is still such a thing as "literature".

Of course there's still such a thing as literature, but here's the thing that so many people miss about literature: The writers still wanted to be read. They still wanted to reach out and inspire people. They wanted to touch people at the core of their emotions. And, most of the great literary authors, were really writing for the masses. They weren't trying to write above their readers, but for their readers. They just did it really, really well and managed to stand the test of time.

I really don't get guys like this and why they're trying so hard to destroy art and make people who experiment feel like idiots. This is the worst kind of conservative nonsense and it ruins the art. If you don't like it, fine, don't read it, but just because you won the commercial fiction lottery doesn't give you a licence to come down on people who want to push the envelope. I hope I'm reading this wrong and he's talking about something else, but I don't think so.

Oh, c'mon. Puh-lease. Art is not dying and no one is trying to destroy it. "Pushing the envelope" is not the exclusive domain of so-called art and literature.

Jackasses like this are the reason literature is going the way of poetry. They make my blood run cold.

Eh. In my experience, poetry is alive and well. I have several stellar poetry submissions for the literary journal I'm editing this semester from multiple up-and-coming poets.

depends on what your definition of voice is. how i read those quotes is 'leave your ego at the door, don't try to be shakespeare.' by that, i get 'don't think you're so special that you can inflict such suffering on all readers and expect them to bow to you.'

I read them the same way.

i'd say most writers are more of a whore than they give themselves credit for. or like to think of themselves. do we not all run the same loose story structures of introduction, rising tension, and resolution/conclusion? of course we do, some of us do it a bit differently, but we all have this 'intuitive' storytelling method. duh, eh? it's not like we can get around that.

but, then we look at the genre we want to write in. it's got its conventions and rules and cliches.... after all, it's his money and the whore's job is to satisfy HIS desires. he doesn't give a damn if she has the best orgasm of her life. he doesn't care if she gets off at all. the best she can hope for is that he has a good enough time to return to her. even in the whoring game, perhaps especially in the whoring game, repeat customers are money in the bank.

satisfied that your main goal for the night isn't earning enough cash for crack, he's going to make another pass. he likes the genre you're in. that's why he's looking in the first place. he's not looking for a mystery cozy, he's needing his hard-boiled crime fix.

and your job is to give it to him.

so, okay, you've got him interested. you've promised him a genre and a sub-genre. he's coming back again, time to hook him. he slows down as his window is lowering.

'hey, baby, want a date?'

he smiles, but you know you've still got to reel this sucker in. it's his fantasy, you have to make it all about him. after all, you've got college loans to pay off. he knows what he wants and his money is still in his wallet. all you have to do is promise him his fantasy will be taken care of. it may not be 100% of what you had in mind, but, hey, you can still have a lot of creativity within the confines of his parametres.

this is where you make the character relatable to the reader. this is where you can fiddle with the plot. you can do a lot of things within this space. however, you're selling yourself here, and in the end you have to provide the customer with the service he expects. your satisfaction is last on his list. HIS satisfaction is what he cares about....

are we whores? you betcha.

Exactly so. I want to make a living at this writing game. Do I want to tell the stories that I have to tell? Well, of course, but I also want to stay out of the corporate world, to be able to pay for my own insurance and my own rent and have enough money leftover for food and new underwear. Art's all fine and dandy when you don't have to worry about where your next meal is coming from, but when you want to be a living writer and not a starving one, you have to take into account what the market -- what the reader wants. In that case, compromise, balance comes in. I have to write not only the stories I want to write but also the stories people want to read.

It is possible to do both.

As far as what Devil has been saying I would have to disagree. Voice in my opinion can be cultivated. I think it has to come from a personal place, it still has to be you, but it can be altered. Think of it as style. My body will always be my body, what I look like etc. But I look very different in jeans and a tee-shirt than when I am all dressed up. It's still me, I am being true to myself and I like how I look in both looks, but there are times when I have dressed up and others haven't even recognised me at first.

So too is it the same with my voice. The voice I use in my current writing (my MG novels) is very me. In fact when people who know me read it they comment how it sounds just like me talking. My blog again I've been told sounds just like me, but it is a bit more formal, a bit more intellectual at times. And if I write an essay or article, then I become all academic sounding. And yet people still tell me it sounds like something I would say. Now none of these is more me than the other, they just represent different aspects.

Again, exactly so. People seem to think they have to find one and only one way of saying things. This is not true. You can have multiple ways of saying things, of using words and the tools of the trade, and still be true to yourself. The important thing is knowing how to use the tools and when each is and is not appropriate. Business suits typically aren't acceptable at a BBQ and jeans typically aren't acceptable at board meetings.


Don't waste time on this guy, or on most other books/articles on how to write. We have Uncle Jim here, with whom we all can get into two-way dialogue in near real time.

While Jim's advice is invaluable, his way of doing thing is not the only way of doing things. There's much more to writing and about writing than just what you will find on AW. There's no reason not to research other ways of doing things, other perspectives and opinions. Bring them back here if you want, but by no means should AW be considered the end-all-and-be-all of publishing and writing knowledge.

One thing is sure, however. There is no shortage of recently successful writers who are willing to share their special take on their own writing as if they have figured out how to make the subjective more objective. In fact, I find great irony in this guys's second quote (from the original post). He is totally full of himself while he suggests we should not write too much of ourselves into our stories.

The same could be said about many of the writers who post here. Be careful with generalizations. They can be more blanketing than you perhaps want. Just because a writer is not a member at AW does not mean we do not have to show them respect on this board.

If I can just say, it is soooo weird to read this sort of dialogue about something you wrote. Which, I know, isn't saying much. But still. It IS ... odd. Kinda fun. Kinda not, too, of course, given the fairly amazing level of hostility evinced by so many here. What in the world is up with THAT, anyway? What are so many people here so royally pissed off about?

Welcome to AW, John. Please, do come back and stick around. It's really not a bad place and most of the people are just people.

Some felt the suggestions on your blog were bad ones. Some thought they were all right. Most seemd to agree that, upon reflection, we weren't entirely sure what you meant. People had come away with different things from the exact same words.

So we bitched. We did so because it's fun, mostly, and because the author would never read it.

Well, at least I didn't expect you to show up.

Now that you have, I'd imagine the dialogue will be a lot more polite.

That's just the way of things. Again, welcome :)

No. It's not the way of things. This is what we've been trying to tell people for ages and ages now and you guys just refuse to get it. Or maybe you don't want to get it.

You didn't expect the author to show up? Why not? Writers google themselves. It's a pretty standard and widespread advice. Plus, most blogs have tracking features so they know where they're getting hits from. Someone suddenly starts getting multiple hits from a site they've never heard of (this thread) and you don't think they're going to track back to see who has linked to them and why? That's just plain being dense and not thinking beyond yourself.

How many times in the past week or two has Rllgthunder admonished people to own their words? No place on the internet is invisible. Everything you type here -- with the exception of password protected forums -- is googlable and can come back to bite you in the butt.

Be respectful. To everyone. Treat everyone with the same basic courtesy and respect that you would treat the stranger on the street. And never, ever assume that you know who might or might not see them or who might or might not be on the other side of the userid.

I honestly don't get the problem.

There's only a "problem" because people want there to be one.

I don't waste my time reading blogs. And what are the chances of anyone stumbling onto this one without a pointer?

Now, to me, this is condescending. What's the chances of anyone finding anyone or anything on the internet? What's the chances of someone finding AW? Or my blog? Or anyone's?

The internet is a fairly big place and you can never really know what is popular beyond your own small corner of it.

It can get quite messy otherwise, because people were posting under the impression they were talking about a third party, and while some of the statements were a bit over the top and probably wouldn't have been made had they been talking about a member, they nonetheless come from well thought out and logical places. So your fellow posters will in all likelihood either feel guilty or defensive over what they have said, and neither of those emotions are all that conducive towards having a good debate.

And all of this says much more about the members of AW and the participants on this thread than it does about John.

Own your words, people. And never assume that the person you are talking about won't see them.

The blog wasn't recommended to us, John.

Actually, it was. We were referred there by the links in the OP.

Considering the number of Internet users, a monthly figure of 20,000 is miniscule - as is the chance of anyone stumbling on any particular blog - but if that level of hits is translated into real cash sales.....Congratulations and I wish you well.

Bufty, as you well know, a monthly figure of 20K on blog hits is really quite impressive. This is really coming across as quite defensive on your part. Donna had to find the blog some way, didn't she?

And the question I'm still asking is do you find queries difficult to write?

No, I don't. But what does that have to do with anything?

[DonnaDuck]

Ah! I get to clarify!

I wanted to clarify my Christian/PA remark. As others were wont to read it, it was far from a jab but moreso my writing in anger than thinking to clarify what I say. I was going on the reference that PA has many Christian writers that come to them to get published. This guy, while Christian, is not one of them therefore he's not a Christian (or any other type of writer for that matter) published by PA that's spouting their propaganda to the writing world. It wasn't a jab at his religion or using his religion as a means to call him a bad writer. The two [religion in correlation to writing] hardly coincide in terms of whether it deems a person of a good writing calibre or not. Really, I may be on the bad side of religion (uh, avatar, anyone? yes, that is my dog chewing on a bobble head Jesus), but I'm not dumb. So instead of calling something 'in poor taste,' it might help to ask me just what was meant instead of perpetuating the problem and furthering the misinterpretation. Someone on the first page, instead of jumping to conclusions, did just that. I'm human. I'm allowed to have internetal brain farts when it comes to posting on a forum. It happens.

And I stand by my words. The man's advice is bunk and if he wants to run away because he can't take the criticism, that's his problem, not mine. It's not like I skimmed his posts. I read them, waited, went back and read them again to make sure I was reading them right before I posted here. It wasn't done out of haste to gather the mob. His advice, the way I interpreted, is ridiculous. Obviously many other people interpreted his work many other ways. Had he clarified (like I should have clarified with my own statement), a lot of this confusion could be remedied. Instead he chose to think himself being attacked (which some posts were doing, but many were well-thought out), turned a deaf ear to it and ran off. He had and still has, the chance to explain his reasonings behind his postings and I'm open to hear them. Just what is his definition of 'voice'? That in and of itself could clarify so much and mean a much different reading of his work. Again, he chose to leave, to leave us with our own interpretations and assumptions as to what he meant instead of setting the record straight. That's his choice and, in my opinion, a poor one. If he valued his opinions, he'd stand by them, not run away when they were criticized.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, nor do I have any problem standing by my words. I also have shame when I say something that should have been thought out in advance. In this case, I stand tall. Until John there explains himself, if it's nothing more than giving his definition of 'voice,' so be it, I stick with my opinions because that's how I read his work.

And actually, I wasn't recommending (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recommend) his blog, not by that sense of the word. I recommend things I like. I point out things I disagree with. I pointed out his blog because it was pointed out to me by another blogger. Where he got it from, I have no idea. It gets him hits, sure, but factor in the sources. Both in my case and my source's, they were both pointing him out in the negative sense. Hits, yes, but not favorable.

[IceCreamEmpress]

Mr. Shore, may I politely say that I disagree with your comments, but I'm glad you put them out there? They certainly made me think.

[CaroGirl]

Mr. Shore, may I politely say that I disagree with your comments, but I'm glad you put them out there? They certainly made me think.
And if Mr. Shore would care to return and clarify his viewpoint I promise to keep all knots out of my knickers and be civil (although I hope I have been civil thus far, if opinionated).

[Bubastes]

I didn't agree with or didn't understand much of John's posts, but I wholeheartedly agreed with this part:

Writing isn’t about exercising your ego. It’s about erasing your ego. It’s about getting out of the way of whatever needs to be said, so that it can be said in a way that does justice to the thing that’s telling you what you need to say about it.

I often say "the writing is not about you (the generic you)." When it's about the story and the characters and NOT about me, it gets rid of a whole host of writing no-nos (Golden Word Syndrome, defensiveness in critiques, anger over rejections, etc.). My writing and my attitude improved tremendously once I took myself out of the equation. My job is to serve the story and make it the best it can be. It's quite humbling. JMHO.

[Rolling Thunder]

If the responses remain civil, and the topic stays on track, I think there's a lot to learn here in this discussion. Opposing opinions can bring new insights to how we each view our own ideas.

[IceCreamEmpress]

I'm interested by the folks who have the philosophy that they're "serving the story", etc. To me--and this is totally my own experience, not meant as a pronouncement on The One True Way--there is no "story" except the one I made up in my head. I've never thought of myself as "serving" anyone or anything but potential readers.

Am I a hopeless literalist? (Yes, probably.) I'd love to hear more about the other point of view. For myself, I think of the process of writing as me making things up in order to divert, entertain, inform, or enlighten other people.

[DonnaDuck]

Am I a hopeless literalist? (Yes, probably.) I'd love to hear more about the other point of view. For myself, I think of the process of writing as me making things up in order to divert, entertain, inform, or enlighten other people.

Not only other people, but myself as well. I have to like what I'm writing first and foremost because, if I don't, it won't get written, proof positive in my month-long lag in my WIP because I hated my MC. I can't write something I don't like simply because the readers will.

[Bubastes]

For myself, I think of the process of writing as me making things up in order to divert, entertain, inform, or enlighten other people.

I don't think we're that far apart in the way we think. I think of writing in this fashion too. But again, your readers (not yourself) are part of your thought process. And in doing that, you're probably more relaxed about doing what's necessary to make the story shine so your readers will enjoy it.

[IceCreamEmpress]

I don't think we're that far apart in the way we think. I think of writing in this fashion too. But again, your readers (not yourself) are part of your thought process. And in doing that, you're probably more relaxed about doing what's necessary to make the story shine so your readers will enjoy it.

Very good point. On the other hand, I tend to imagine what my potential readers might like based on what I like as a reader. I try to write books I would want to read--books I'd see in a bookstore and just have to have.

I'm not sure how broad my understanding of what other people want to read is, which is one of the reasons I love boards like this one, not to mention real-life writers' groups.

[clearrr]

Is the original blog still being discussed?

[Devil Ledbetter]

Originally Posted by Toothpaste http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1983803#post1983803)
As far as what Devil has been saying I would have to disagree. Voice in my opinion can be cultivated. I think it has to come from a personal place, it still has to be you, but it can be altered. Think of it as style. My body will always be my body, what I look like etc. But I look very different in jeans and a tee-shirt than when I am all dressed up. It's still me, I am being true to myself and I like how I look in both looks, but there are times when I have dressed up and others haven't even recognised me at first.

So too is it the same with my voice. The voice I use in my current writing (my MG novels) is very me. In fact when people who know me read it they comment how it sounds just like me talking. My blog again I've been told sounds just like me, but it is a bit more formal, a bit more intellectual at times. And if I write an essay or article, then I become all academic sounding. And yet people still tell me it sounds like something I would say. Now none of these is more me than the other, they just represent different aspects.
Again, exactly so. People seem to think they have to find one and only one way of saying things. This is not true.
GMAB. I never said that there is "one and only one" way of saying things. I never said that the style we use cannot be altered to suit a particular piece of writing. I never said a writer is being phony if she doesn't compose a business letter the exact same way she does a children's book.

If you want to disagree with me, have at it. But don't cram words into my mouth then bobble your heads in agreement about how wrong I am.

It's disrespectful.

[DonnaDuck]

Is the original blog still being discussed?

In a round about way, yes, in the context of discerning voice, I think.

[clearrr]

"there is no "story" except the one I made up in my head." Of course. My comments were not suggest that I was some conduit for something in outer space. :)

When I am writing fiction, I want to be true to the story coming from inside me. That entails whacking out large chunks that were wrong, recognizing I turned left when I should've gone right, etc. However, and I speak only for me and not as The Great Pronouncement, I don't have readers in my mind. They come into play when the story is the best I can do and have sent it to betas.

When writing a query, the agent is there from the very first word.

That's the only distinction I've been attempting to make.

Personally, I find writing the story easier than the query.

[Willowmound]

"there is no "story" except the one I made up in my head." Of course. My comments were not suggest that I was some conduit for something in outer space. :)

When I am writing fiction, I want to be true to the story coming from inside me. That entails whacking out large chunks that were wrong, recognizing I turned left when I should've gone right, etc. However, and I speak only for me and not as The Great Pronouncement, I don't have readers in my mind. They come into play when the story is the best I can do and have sent it to betas.

When writing a query, the agent is there from the very first word.

That's the only distinction I've been attempting to make.

Personally, I find writing the story easier than the query.

If that post was partly an answer to my questions, thanks for clarifying.

For me, what's for me and what's for the reader, is the same thing. I write for myself -- but I'm not satisfied, or feel it's finished, until it's as close to perfect as I can get it. Perfect as a reading experience.

This has nothing to do with how crappy I allow my first draft to be, or how I'll tackle the query when all's complete.

[Toothpaste]

Devil: I was commenting on these statements of yours "I'm not really clear on what all this "finding my voice" business is about. Maybe because I've been writing my entire life, I almost can't help but write in my own voice - whatever that is. Finding my voice would be like "finding" the color of my eyes"

"still don't get the whole "trying to find your voice" thing. To me, your voice is your voice. You don't "find" it, it just is. Or if you can't find it, it's because your "looking" for it instead of just writing"

"To me, the very idea of "finding my voice" smacks of an exercise in navel gazing. Here's what voice is to me: If I started posting here under another username, I think, unless I was deliberately trying to mask my personality, people would easily recognize me by the kinds of things I say and how I say them."

You seemed to imply that voice was something that just was, that just existed, it wasn't something that could be found. I disagreed and felt that it was something that could be cultivated and changed. I then gave an example of how I actively change my voice to suit different writing styles. That was all I was saying. I thought I said it in a very logical unemotional way. I am sorry if I upset you that much, but to accuse me of disrespecting you and cramming words into your mouth when maybe I just merely misunderstood what you were saying (which is not a malicious thing, just an innocent mistake, and if I did I am very sorry for it) is kind of disrespectful in and of itself.

[Danger Jane]

I'm sorry if my posts came across as overly judgmental (not accusing anyone of accusing me of anything). I thought Mr. Shore's blog entry was pretty easy to misinterpret, and since he's a member now he can further clarify his point (although I did read his comments on the entry), which would lead to a better discussion. It's hard to have a debate about a point someone made when every debater thinks the point was something different.

[Devil Ledbetter]

Devil: I was commenting on these statements of yours "I'm not really clear on what all this "finding my voice" business is about. Maybe because I've been writing my entire life, I almost can't help but write in my own voice - whatever that is. Finding my voice would be like "finding" the color of my eyes"

"still don't get the whole "trying to find your voice" thing. To me, your voice is your voice. You don't "find" it, it just is. Or if you can't find it, it's because your "looking" for it instead of just writing"

"To me, the very idea of "finding my voice" smacks of an exercise in navel gazing. Here's what voice is to me: If I started posting here under another username, I think, unless I was deliberately trying to mask my personality, people would easily recognize me by the kinds of things I say and how I say them."

You seemed to imply that voice was something that just was, that just existed, it wasn't something that could be found. I disagreed and felt that it was something that could be cultivated and changed. I then gave an example of how I actively change my voice to suit different writing styles. That was all I was saying. I thought I said it in a very logical unemotional way. I am sorry if I upset you that much, but to accuse me of disrespecting you and cramming words into your mouth when maybe I just merely misunderstood what you were saying (which is not a malicious thing, just an innocent mistake, and if I did I am very sorry for it) is kind of disrespectful in and of itself.The thing is, I actually agree with you that style can be cultivated, and I certainly agree that not everything we write is going to have the same style. But that's a discussion of style, not "voice" which, as has been pointed out ad nauseam in this thread, is a term we don't all seem to be in precise agreement on the meaning of.

When you said this: In fact when people who know me read it they comment how it sounds just like me talking. My blog again I've been told sounds just like me, but it is a bit more formal, a bit more intellectual at times. And if I write an essay or article, then I become all academic sounding. And yet people still tell me it sounds like something I would say. Now none of these is more me than the other, they just represent different aspects. You pretty much made the same point that I was trying (perhaps clumsily) to make, which is, the writers voice comes through naturally in her writing. This is what I meant when I said I almost can't help but write in my own voice - whatever that is. Finding my voice would be like "finding" the color of my eyes.

So, we are largely in agreement, so far as I can tell. Which is why I didn't say anything initially when you "disagreed" with me - I think we were using terminology ("voice" vs. "style") differently, and to me it wasn't worth quibbling over.

However, when Birol quoted you saying "As far as what Devil has been saying I would have to disagree" then jumped in with "Again, exactly so. People seem to think they have to find one and only one way of saying things. This is not true." I admit, I took umbrage. Because, as I pointed out, I didn't ever say there was "one and only one way of saying things." That did feel like she was putting words in my mouth, although she now says this wasn't her intent and I take that at face value.

I do think we are mostly in agreement except that you are using the word "voice" where I would use the word "style." And I wouldn't even hazard to say which of us is using the terminology correctly.

to accuse me of disrespecting you and cramming words into your mouth when maybe I just merely misunderstood what you were saying (which is not a malicious thing, just an innocent mistake, and if I did I am very sorry for it) is kind of disrespectful in and of itself.Agreed. I apologize for that, Toothpaste. Most sincerely.

I'm as entitled to my opinion in discussions about writing on this board as anyone else is. Kindly point me to the post where I said you weren't, and I will apologize for that too.

[John Shore]

Okay, see if this works for any of you:

http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/my-last-best-10-tips-on-how-to-make-it-as-a-writer/

[DonnaDuck]

Okay, see if this works for any of you:

http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/my-last-best-10-tips-on-how-to-make-it-as-a-writer/

John, believe it or not, I agree with about 95% of the things you said here. Most of it is good advice that I've heard plenty of times over my seemingly short writing career.

However, this doesn't pose any answers for us in regards to this thread. Just what is your definition of 'voice' as you have it on your blog? Just what, exactly, are you telling your readers to do? While those are interesting tips, they don't really help us (or me, at least) understand your previous posts any better since, really, they're pretty different from this most recent one.

[Shweta]

Meanwhile, does anyone want to take another shot at a working definition of voice? :)

[DonnaDuck]

Meanwhile, does anyone want to take another shot at a working definition of voice? :)

I've always taken voice to mean your particular writing style, as opposed how you write each MC in each book. I think that voice, or those voices, are different from your own. Gah! It's one of those things that you know it when you see it but you'll be damned if you can explain it! With me, for instance, regardless of what I write, regardless of the critique I get, I've never had anyone say anything bad about my descriptions. I guess part of my voice is being a good describer. I can portray surroundings, regardless of the story I'm writing to such an extent that even if my name weren't on the page, they, if they were familiar with my work, would know that it was my writing. Was it Devil that said that if he signed up under a different screen name that people would still know it's him typing? It's like that. You know a Stephen King book when you read one. You know a Terry Prachett book when you read one.

I think voice and style are somewhat mutually exclusive but you can also have them independently of each other.

[clearrr]

Let's play a game. Someone write a line and then, write it as some well-known authors would write it.
Ex: It was a dark and stormy night.
Hemingway. The night. It was dark. It was stormy.
Rice: Blackness covered the landscape as would the cloak of a vampire. Lightning, silver claws of unremitting beauty, carved through the cloak.
Charles Schultz: "Good grief. It's raining cats and dogs tonight."

[Danger Jane]

Definition 3 from Dictionary.com offers some interesting insight:

A range of such sounds distinctive to one person, or to a type of person or animal

I'd call a writer's voice their distinctive way he expresses himself. A range of expression distinctive to one person. That voice may be very distinctive or not very distinctive at all, but every writer, like every human, has a different filter and perspective on the world, and to some degree that shows in all writing. With practice and a critical eye, we can hone our writing to better illustrate our unique thought processes.

To me, that's one of the most fascinating things about reading prose with a really clear, unique voice. I like that bit of insight into the author's mind--and it helps me grasp tighter my own interior monologue (it's really hard to observe your thought process while thinking, huh?? :tongue).

[Shweta]

Hey guys,

I've tried to split out everything that's not directly related to voice. If I messed something up there, please let me know (whether I moved something you think is relevant, kept something that isn't, or made the thread incomprehensible somehow...)

Edited for update
The off-topic posts have also been split into things that should stay in Novels and things that should be moved out of Novels. Willowmound, sorry that it looks like you started a closed thread -- that's just housekeeping at the moment.

[JJ Cooper]

This one was moved.

I'm not pissed off. You (John) expressed an opinion. You can't always please everyone.

Welcome to AW.

I say - write whatever you want to write.

If anybody wants to make money to sustain a decent living through writing, then write something commercial that will sell. Keep pumping out those bestsellers.

JJ

Can we leave it in. I think it is still applicable here.

We like certain books because we like that writers 'voice' - they way they write. Then they write another book and we buy that one too. And so on. How often do editors and agents take a punt on something 'out of the blue'? A new writers unique voice untried and tested that isn't caparable with someone who has been tried and tested. It has to be commercially viable. In fact, some submission rules encourage writers to compare their work with established writers. I would even add that critics compare new writing with something that has been tried and tested.

If this post is no applicable here then please delete.

JJ

[GerriB]

To me, voice is simply this: you can tell who wrote what by reading a bit of the prose. If you can't, then the voice blends. If you can, then the writer has voice. It's not necessarily something that writers find, though. It's something they develop.

Take Steven King for example. He's tried to write under pseudonyms, but even then, people recognized his style/voice.

Me, I took the time to develop my voice. I didn't do it out of ego or pretentiousness, and I don't insert myself into my prose any more than any other author does. However, I've been told by some of my readers that they could tell what I wrote just by glancing at a few sentences. I still pat myself on the back for that. :D But that development didn't come overnight, and it wasn't an easy task. I had to do a heck of a lot of reading and writing to find out what voice works best. And even better, I can use slightly different voices for different kinds of writing.

Tell the story, yes. But tell the story in the voice that comes naturally. Don't try to be like someone else. Copying another's voice is actually a bad thing in the long run. In the short run, writers may learn about voice, but in the long run, it's better to be distinctive than imitative.

Good luck!

[Shweta]

This one was moved.

Er, um, you're right, I should have left it in, but misread it. But now I'm not sure I can move it back. Are you okay with leaving it quoted above?

My apologies.

[JJ Cooper]

No dramas, Shweta. Thought that may have been the case. All's good as is. Thanks.

JJ

[Roger J Carlson]

I've always taken voice to mean your particular writing style, as opposed how you write each MC in each book. I think that voice, or those voices, are different from your own. Gah! It's one of those things that you know it when you see it but you'll be damned if you can explain it! With me, for instance, regardless of what I write, regardless of the critique I get, I've never had anyone say anything bad about my descriptions. I guess part of my voice is being a good describer. I can portray surroundings, regardless of the story I'm writing to such an extent that even if my name weren't on the page, they, if they were familiar with my work, would know that it was my writing. Was it Devil that said that if he signed up under a different screen name that people would still know it's him typing? It's like that. You know a Stephen King book when you read one. You know a Terry Prachett book when you read one.

I think voice and style are somewhat mutually exclusive but you can also have them independently of each other.I see "voice" as a subset of "style". It's how the words sound to the reader's inner ear. In a first person narrative, the voice is obviously the MC's voice. We can instantly hear the difference between Philip Marlowe and Dr. Watson. But there's also a difference in voices in third person narrative that is similarly easy to distinguish.

But style is not entirely voice. The way a writer creates a character is also part of style. Certainly, the character's voice is one part of characterization, but so are what they do, how they react, and so forth. I don't see those things as "voice".

That's what I think voice is, but it doesn't sound like that what Mr. Shore means. I think he's saying voice is "what the writer is trying to say". That puts a different complexion on things.

I think each writer must find his own voice (my definition).

However, Mr. Shore might be right to caution a new writer against having his or her say without any regard for the reader. Writing is communication, and it's foolish to say I'm going to try to communicate with someone else, but I don't really care if they understand it. I just have to have my say. If you're going to try to communicate, you must consider how your words will be interpreted.

[Toothpaste]

But if he knows what voice is, why did he misuse the term in his blog entry? Why, if he believes he has a unique one, did he advise others not to cultivate their own? I know he wrote what he did to you in rage, but I truly do wish he'd come here and answer some questions, because I think some of what he says is quite apt. I'm just confused.

[Willowmound]

So is he.

[KTC]

Voice, for me, is what comes across from the writer that does not relate to the story. It is the way in which he/she uniquely tells the story...their patter, the way they 'sound'. It touches style, but it goes beyond style. More of a finger print really. Whether a writer tells a ghost story or a detective story or a literary story or a fantasy...they are going to have this voice follow them throughout. They can tinker with it, adjust it...they might make slight changes unique to each genre they write in, but the voice will trail them like popcorn along the path...a reader with an ear for their particular voice will hear it echoing throughout their pages. King...I think part of his charm is his voice, which is shaped by where he comes from geographically and his certain campfire storytelling prowess. His voice is unmistakable, whether he is scaring the bejesus out of you or making you cry over lost youth. Pick up a Bachman and you will find King's voice. You will find a slightly different style, mayhaps, maybe not...but the voice is the same. Toothpaste said early on that voice can be altered/adjusted...I do believe this to be so, but I also think it's a hard thing to get away from. You can swim away from home, but the river'll bring you back.

[KTC]

oops, now. Meant to preface that blather with the fact that I really don't know anything about anything.

[aruna]

'Scuse me digging up an old post, was browsing this morning and found this discussion.
I wanted to say this:
Here’s the bottom line: Someone who is more interested in themselves than they are the world at large probably won’t make it as a writer. You have to be insanely empathetic to be a writer. To be a writer you have to think everything is more interesting than you.
Writing isn’t about exercising your ego. It’s about erasing your ego. It’s about getting out of the way of whatever needs to be said, so that it can be said in a way that does justice to the thing that’s telling you what you need to say about it.
.

This is EXACTLY how I feel about writing fiction. The less of ME (as ego) in my writing, the better it is! :)

I'm interested by the folks who have the philosophy that they're "serving the story", etc. To me--and this is totally my own experience, not meant as a pronouncement on The One True Way--there is no "story" except the one I made up in my head. I've never thought of myself as "serving" anyone or anything but potential readers.



I am one of those who believe in "serving the story". It;s as if the story exists, before me, somewhere deep inside, and my job is to find it down there and let it out in as clear and vivid a way as I can. That means standing back, not interfering, in truth erasing myself. Then my characters speak in their own voice. That for me is serving the story.

"there is no "story" except the one I made up in my head." Of course. My comments were not suggest that I was some conduit for something in outer space. :)

That's the thing: with my best writing, I do not have the feeling that I made it up in my head. It was there already; somewhere deep inside. I did not think it out. It came through me.

But this has nothing to do with "being a conduit from outer space". I just believe that the real writer is the unconscious mind. Something inside me that is supremely intelligent and knows how to create stories. I trust in that, and try to access that. It is composed of every single impression, experience and emotion I have ever had in my life, since birth. THAT is the real storyteller.

That is only the first draft, though. The storyteller phase. In phase two I do get involved and try to prod it into shape. I suppose you could call it right brain/left brain writing.

When I am writing fiction, I want to be true to the story coming from inside me. That entails whacking out large chunks that were wrong, recognizing I turned left when I should've gone right, etc. However, and I speak only for me and not as The Great Pronouncement, I don't have readers in my mind. They come into play when the story is the best I can do and have sent it to betas.

Yes, this I recognize. I don't get it right the first time, so I need to stand back even more, go yet deeper, find the true story.,

And now I suppose people will say that this is all pretentious crap, but that's the way it was, most of all with my first book. I wrote it without thinking of myself, my readers, getting an agent, getting a publisher. I just dropped everything and let the story out. With the two next books it was far more difficult; I felt I was writing these stories, perhaps that's why I was never happy with them!

(sorry for the deletes. This did not post for ages and I kept retrying; seems it DID post after all!"

[Sean D. Schaffer]

I'm twitching with this one--

A direct quote from this post (http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/how-to-write-part-whatever-why-you-should-give-up-finding-your-own-voice/) titled -"How To Write, Part Four: Why You Should Give Up Finding Your Own Voice--



And yet another quote from this post (http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/writing-roses-via-phones-geriatric-equipment-bigfoot-in-a-harem-and-its-not-about-you/) titled 'How To Write, Part Three--



And this guy is being entirely serious. Should we all thank this guy for attempting to turn would-be writers into hack-whores for the publishing world or bludgeon him with a blunt object?

...Snipped.



Well, I think he has the right to his opinion. And whether or not his opinion matches up with mine, is irrelevant to my worth or my abilities as a writer.

In other words, try not to get so worked up about it. :) People say lots of things that set us off, when they're only speaking their opinions. Someone's viewpoints on voice or self, should not have the power to ruin your day.
;)


--Sean

[ishtar'sgate]

So what say you? Would you tell any new writer that they should write what the readers want or write what they want? Would you say to a new writer, 'screw your own voice, write with the voice of your perceived readership'? Would you tell your budding new writers to channel their non-existent readers because they're the ones really writing the story, you're just a tool in which to put words on paper?

Does anyone else see this as a huge disservice to writers everywhere, to tell them to give up writing in their own voice because readers only want to read their own voices? Eek--

*twitch*
I agree with this sentence but not his conclusions. He says, "If you are someone who is trying to find their own writing voice, stop it."
I agree with this statement as it stands. Your voice develops as you write. Sooner or later it emerges without you even being aware of it. You don't FIND it, it in effect, FINDS you. I didn't realize that until I'd completed my novel and was shopping it around. Almost every response referred to my 'voice' as poetic. I had no idea. I simply wrote as I pleased. I think he's dead wrong when he says we try to adopt the 'voice' of the reader - for the most part because it can't be done. Just like every person on earth has a literal voice, a sound, that is unique to themselves, so do we have a 'voice' that expresses itself uniquely when we write. It may be similar to some other 'voice' but it will never be the same. And I sure wouldn't want it to be.
As far as the ego thing goes and your focus being on sharing yourself with the world, his comment has some merit. A totally inward view is boring. I write historical fiction and his statement that "you have to learn to wipe out all your ideas and preconceptions and let whatever it is that has your attention tell and show you what it is", is quite true. If you are to make a reader believe that your characters are individuals, the characters cannot all have your disposition and ideas about the world. They have to have their own view of the world. My WIP is set in ancient Babylon. Part of my research has to do with empathy. I want to try to understand and feel what it would have been like to be a Babylonian citizen, to be a slave, to be a woman or man in that society. In that sense, I agree.
Linnea

[aruna]

Well, I think he has the right to his opinion. And whether or not his opinion matches up with mine, is irrelevant to my worth or my abilities as a writer.

In other words, try not to get so worked up about it. :) People say lots of things that set us off, when they're only speaking their opinions. Someone's viewpoints on voice or self, should not have the power to ruin your day.
;)


--Sean


The thing is, we all do what works for us. There are different ways of writing novels. People interpret the words of others according to their own experience, and thus can totally misread and even twist the other's intentions. That is why I try to be so careful with words, weighing each one carefully--because I know that others hearing or reading them will fit them into their own world view, and maybe jump to conclusions that are light years away to what I really mean. I think this is what happened here. I am sorry the blog's author did not return.

Would the people so critical of his opinion have been so outspoken if he'd been an AW member BEFORE they posted? I doubt it.

I also do not believe that respect has to be earned. Respect is (should be) the default setting. It is, after all, what we would all like to receive like from others.

[Shweta]

I also do not believe that respect has to be earned. Respect is (should be) the default setting. It is, after all, what we would all like to receive like from others.

Me, I'd say feeling respect is something that doesn't come immediately, without any reason, but behaving respectfully should be a default in civilized interaction. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is sort of what we're built on here.

And guys, I think you're quoting posts from early in the thread, aren't you? We already had a discussion of respecting fellow writers, based on those :) So in order to not pick on anyone, I think it'd be better if we stick to talking about the content and not the tone of the earliest posts.

[timewaster]

I'm not sure that's what he means. I think he means, don't try to make your prose special and interesting, just tell your story -- and your story had better be about something bigger and more universal than simply you and your issues.

That's how I read those quotes.


Me too. I thought he was saying you should concentrate on telling the story the best way - that it is about the story not the writer. I agree actually. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to write in an invisible way. Sometimes the story requires a particular approach which is noticeable but I think it should be noticeable in the way that best serves the story, not the author's ego.

[aruna]

Me, I'd say feeling respect is something that doesn't come immediately, without any reason, but behaving respectfully should be a default in civilized interaction. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is sort of what we're built on here.

And guys, I think you're quoting posts from early in the thread, aren't you? We already had a discussion of respecting fellow writers, based on those :) So in order to not pick on anyone, I think it'd be better if we stick to talking about the content and not the tone of the earliest posts.


In my case, it does come immediately; it's about holding a respectful inner attitude to everyone I meet, regardless of who they are or where they come from. I assume that everyone, to begin with, is worthy of respect, for the mere fact of being human. Behaviour follows on from attitude; the respect is initially there, and automatically so is the behaviour.

Well, I wasn't here for the early part of the discussion and so didn't get to pu in my 2c regarding respect at the right time! Sorry!:)

[bluntforcetrauma]

I assume that everyone, to begin with, is worthy of respect, for the mere fact of being human.

That's a dangerous stance.

[aruna]

That's a dangerous stance.

No, it is not. See, this is exactly what I meant earlier, that everyone interprets another person's words according to their own experience and understanding. Behind my own stance is an entire lifetime of my own experience, and this I have figured is absolutely the best way FOR ME. You put my words into your own context, and there they fail. They do not fail for me.

[Shweta]

In my case, it does come immediately; it's about holding a respectful inner attitude to everyone I meet, regardless of who they are or where they come from. I assume that everyone, to begin with, is worthy of respect, for the mere fact of being human. Behaviour follows on from attitude; the respect is initially there, and automatically so is the behaviour.

Clearly you are a much nicer person than me. But I knew that already :)

I don't much feel anything about people when I first interact with them, unless that first interaction is memorable. They're people. However, I owe it to myself to act like a decent human being and treat people with respect.

That's how I see it. I admire your way, but I'd be lying if I said I was that nice.

Well, I wasn't here for the early part of the discussion and so didn't get to pu in my 2c regarding respect at the right time! Sorry!:)

No worries! I'll stop derailing, myself, now.

[aruna]

Clearly you are a much nicer person than me. But I knew that already :)

.


I should have said try to... it doesn't always work! But that is for me the ideal, having known a couple truly amazing people who could really do it, who remain my models...

[Pup]

That's a dangerous stance.

What do you mean? Seems just the opposite to me. Assuming someone is of no consequence or able to be disrespected with impunity is a good way of discovering what sort of influence they might have, anything from a concealed weapon to connections with people who do have power over you.

Cynicism and respect aren't mutually exclusive. :)