And my point is what writer isn't already trying to do that?
It's a useless request since clearly it's all subjective.
'Be fresh. Be original. Put a new twist on it. Don't trot out the stale.'
Has any writer ever mentioned, admitted or gone on record as saying "nah, I decided to try to write in a tired, worn-out, stale voice and repeating the same old tropes and cliches with no unique or new twist and spin on it".
I understand agents and publishers want it. It just seems ridiculous to ask for it as if it's going to thin out their slush pile by writers going 'oh, well, that agent isn't for me, then since I write stale and worn out and clearly have no voice of my own'.
I don't think many writers at all are trying to do this. Slush piles just don't indicate it. Most writers are just copying what they've read, thinking that's what agents and editors want.
I really don't encounter many new writers to are actively trying to find a fresh voice, a fresh story. It isn't something that crosses their minds. They're trying to write a swell as they can, tell a story as well as they can, yes, but it is not the same thing.
Of course asking for a fresh voice is not going to cut the size of the slush, but it might make a few talented writers see things differently, spend some time asking themselves just what a fresh voice is, and what changes they can make to give agents and editors what they want. It may add a few manuscripts to the slush that are fresh, new, and exciting. It won't thin the slush, but it might make some of it better.
Agents and editors have been asking for fresh voice forever. It's not like this is anything new, or anything writers shouldn't already know. It's a common request, and always has been, and I do think it helps. If writers aren't thinking about what they can do to give agents and editors a fresh new voice, they're unlikely to achieve it.
Would it help if they said,
We're looking for good, new voices unlike the ones we've heard a thousand times. We're look for good stories unlike the ones we've seen a thousand times, stories only that particular writer could tell, told in a way that only he can tell it. We're looking for characters unlike those we see every time we go through the slush.
I think most new writers, short story or novel, read fifty, or a hundred, or five hundred stories in their genre and think, Okay, that's the kind of story they want, that's the kind of plots they want, that's the kind of characters they want, etc., and then give them same old, same old. I know I did.
Do it well enough, and you can get published this way, but the stories won't go anywhere, even if you do sell them.
It took me ten years to realize the reason to read everything possible in a genre was to avoid giving them a voice like all the others, stories like all the others, characters like all the others, etc. When they advise writers to read everything possible in a genre, they aren't saying," This is what we want," they're saying, "This is what we've already punished, give us something new, something fresh, a story only you can tell, told in a way only you can tell it, and that isn't filled with characters we see everyday."
Maybe it's just me, but I had to start actively thinking about how to be fresh, new, and original. I had to start actively thinking about how to give agents and editors a story only I could tell, told in a way only I could tell it, and that wasn't like everything I'd read in a given genre.
Sorta...