Anyways, to avoid hijacking that thread, I figured I'd start a new one. I wanted to discuss how voice works - in third person writing.

Voice in first person is easy for me (to comprehend... not necessarily to write...) We have narrators who can be sarcastic, funny, unreliable, deadpan, etc... But for third person, how powerfully can one have a voice?

I've had boring prose, of course. I've also had stuff where people have told me I'm trying to be too clever and it distracts from the writing. For instance, and I don't remember who came up with this famous example, but I love it:

"Shut up" he explained.

Sometimes I try to be clever like that, and it works. More often it sounds forced and ends up distracting.

When it works, it works wonderfully. But in order to function towards establishing voice, it has to be linked with a viewpoint, I think. Mostly, I have to rely on the limited third person to get my voice out. For instance, if I am writing from the viewpoint character, and that character is someone who tends to be arrogant, then his assessment of the situation will reflect that in the writing, even though I don't use first person.

Does this mean when voice is weak that I'm not writing using strong characterization? Or that I'm not really getting into their viewpoint?

Our characters have voices that should, at least at times, be disinguishable from each other. Your grizzled warrior should not speak (or think) in the same way your pampered princess does, for example.

But the kind of voice I think the editors are referring to is much more subtle. It's what makes your writing (whatever you write) different than anybody else's. It's connected to the character voice, but not limited to it.

Even those writers that try to explain it (Browne and King, for example), ultimately can't except by pointing at particular works of authors with their own distinctive voices.

To me voice is putting words on the paper that perfectly describe how I see the story in my mind. We all have a unique way of looking at things and our stories reflect this. But it is really hard to put the story in our heads on paper. I struggle with this, but I think I am getting better.

That said, not everyone is going to like your voice once you develop it, but I don't know if it is something that can be changed.

I think there can be at least 3 subtypes. Theres each writers basic narrative voice, theres the voice of individual characters and related to that I think some of us also have different voices for different types of stories. For instance, I write high fantasy, what might be called "contemporary" or "urban" fantasy and also "industrial"/horror type stuff and in each one, while there are similarities, I use a different voice or style, and within even those there are subdivisions.

I think voice can even relate to subject matter as well. You can have style-voice but also a broader authorial voice incorporating both what you say (themes, morals, messages, ideas) and how you say it (style, word choice, structure.)

Impersonal voices have a place in creative writing voices for narrators and characters' voices and for their rhetorical effects.

The principal types of teachable voices are, the widely-deprecated passive voice, implied imperative or imperative second-person voice, the obviative voice, and other impersonal voices.

Passive voice is the voice of scientific and technical writing disciplines for its depersonalization of the writer of those types. Sixteen samples were tested quantitatively. Eight samples were tested qualitatively.

Impersonal voice is the voice of liberal arts academic disciplines for its deliberate depersonalization of a thesis author's persona, using impersonal pronouns when neccessary. 'Any given reader' might disagree with whether or not dialect plays a persuasive role in literature. However, In the considered opinion of 'this responder', Marjorie Rawlings captures the delightful essence of being in her characters' unique dialects. 'One' is transported into the presence of the peoples, the places, the conflicts of her stories by her characters' dialects.

Implied imperative second-person voice is the voice of instruction for its impersonal softening of commanding imperative voice. An audience interested in instruction acquiesces to be commanded indirectly, and each to their own selves readily chooses for one's self optional preferences, or an uninterested audience ignores instructions altogether. Incorporate dry and liquid ingredients in a two-quart mixing bowl. Blend on low speed for two minutes or whip by hand with a whisk until the mixture is smooth.

All the above are each in their means and ends obviative voices. An obviative voice depersonalizes a writer and other persons who are not expressly subjects of a narrative. An obviative voice also depersonalizes an audience, which has either a positive or negative influence or purpose intended for a rhetorical effect.

Negative obviation overheard while waiting in a queue, 'Some people' shouldn't be allowed out in public. Negative obviation overheard in a meeting, When 'one' doesn't know what 'one's talking about, 'one' should shut up and listen instead.

Positive obviative voice examples are given above. Another, though, for illustration purposes, depersonalized imperative second-person plural voice (plural pronoun "you" depersonalizes, intended to avoid embarrassingly singling out individuals), addressed in person to a live audience, You don't have to agree with an outspoken person's opinions, nor condone that person's poor delivery methods to understand the point being made and have respect for the underlying principles under discussion. After all is said and done, it is your inalienable right to choose what you accept or reject.

Anyone capable of speaking or writing has a natural narrative voice, every user or listener of which regularly speaks and writes and experiences obviative voices. The crux of the matter for a creative writing voice is whether it engages or alienates audiences. An unimaginative voice doesn't incite engagement by itself. A dynamic topic or theme, milieu, idea, character, or event-oriented narrative trumps the need for a personal narrative voice, and benefits in many cases from an impersonal narrative voice.

Voice in the creative arts has one overt purpose, to engage and hold an audience on a personal, intimate, emotionally meaningful level.

extrinsic's natural narrative voice is an impersonal one. Study and application are needed for extrinsic to locate the attributes of imaginative narrative voices, in order to discover underlying natural narrative voices suitable for creative writing purposes.

Those voice attributes include but are not limited to tone, tenor, mood, and register. Spoken narrative voices rely heavily on verbal intonations and nonverbal gestures to convey those voice attributes. Written narrative requires creative arts to substitute for aural and visual communications.

Methods used in creating a narrative voice have numerous and complex attributes. Rhetoric is one of several creative disciplines that holds a power to envigorate written narratives, particularly the tropes and schemes of the rhetorical arts. Irony, a much misused term, frequently artfully applied in many admirably engaging narrative voices, is a rhetorical method that is at times simultaneously a scheme and a trope.

As pertains to narrative voice, tone is the attitude a narrator takes toward a topic or a theme. An objective attitude presents the semblance of an unbiased, nonjudgmental narrative point of view toward a subject, topic, or theme. A subjective attitude takes an interpretative stand toward a subject, topic, or theme, makes a credible point, and supports the point. An imperative attitude commands. An obviative attitude depersonalizes. A reflexive attitude contemplates and questions. Use of context-appropriate adverbs and adjectives are a contributing feature of subjective narrative voices.

Tenor is the emotional intonation of a narrative voice: angry, sad, happy, eager, optimistic, deadpan, etc. Again, adverbs and adjectives are a contributing feature of tenor in narrative voices.

Mood is the emotional effect of tenor: ominous, exciting, depressing, woebegone, forelorn, etc.

Register is the relational-standing levels of narrative discourse: covert or overt narrator, direct or indirect address, formal or informal address, convivial or neutral or judgmental or commanding voice, superior addressing a subordinate, subordinate addressing a superior, peer addressing peer, etc.

Emotionally meaningful creative narrative voices cannot be taught; they can be uncovered, discovered, recovered, learned.

Either way, I'd like to tackle that last part you wrote first:

"Emotionally meaningful creative narrative voices cannot be taught; they can be uncovered, discovered, recovered, learned."

As has already been said, and is oft said, one must write constantly to develop a voice. I'll compare it to a sculpture. The voice is already there in the writing, but hidden by a multitude of mistakes and poor writing that cover it up. By writing alot, the author eventually gets rid of all the other stuff, and soon the pure voice is left, the same way the statue is already there and the artist must chip away the excess.

As in all metaphors, it isn't an exact match for the referent. But it makes me wonder, if voice can be "uncovered, discovered, recovered (meaning it must have been lost?), and learned," then there must be insights that the author has while writing. Perhaps they learn how to use metaphors well. Maybe they learn subtlety. Maybe they, as I am trying to do, learn to use third person limited as a way of bringing each character's point of view as a way to make each viewpoint have a different tone. And if the author can discover them, there must be some solid points there to bring out.

Maybe it would be more fruitful to ask:

Why can't voice be taught? Is it because it can't be defined, so there is nothing there that is a constant? Or is it as extrinsic pointed out, since "voice attributes include but are not limited to tone, tenor, mood, and register," that attempts to teach voice devolve into discussions about the component parts?

I personally think voice can be taught. Imagine someone who is so well versed in rhetoric (maybe they are a Ph.D in oratory or linguistics or both, for example). I would argue that person could learn voice much more quickly, because they'd spot those aspects of language use in their writing and could flesh them out, polish them, and use them more effectively than, say, me. Likewise, if a great teacher and writer like OSC was locked up in a cabin with you for months on end, and the only way you could escape is when you learned to improve your voice, well you'd probably learn pretty quick.

"Emotionally meaningful creative narrative voices cannot be taught"

quote:

---

Maybe you could change your name so nobody knows its you?

---

quote:

---

I personally think voice can be taught. Imagine someone who is so well versed in rhetoric (maybe they are a Ph.D in oratory or linguistics or both, for example). I would argue that person could learn voice much more quickly, because they'd spot those aspects of language use in their writing and could flesh them out, polish them, and use them more effectively than, say, me. Likewise, if a great teacher and writer like OSC was locked up in a cabin with you for months on end, and the only way you could escape is when you learned to improve your voice, well you'd probably learn pretty quick.

---

I think voice cannot be taught in the same sense grammar or spelling can be for two main reasons. One its to subjective. Two, its to personal. You can't teach me my voice. However, you can help me develop it. This is kind of the crux of my whole deal about critting in context and stuff...its a real careful thing to walk trying to offer someone criticism without quashing the person's voice. Its why I like to know as much as I can about what a person is doing when I offer crits and stuff.

I do think a person such as you describe would have a greater ability, as a writer, to consciously write in voices other than their own because of the knowledge you describe. But your narrative voice is much like your speaking idiom. You don't "learn" it, it grows with you.

quote:

---

Truly, could you read one of extrinsic's posts and not know immediately it was one of his, regardless of the name?

---

If you're comfortable writing in first-person, say, you might write most of your stories that way. Steven Pressfield does, but, Xeones from Gates of Fire tells his sroty with a decidedly different voice than Alexander in The Virtues of War, which is different again than that of Mathias in The Afghan Campaign--yet they are all first-person. Xeones is a slave who found honor in serving his Spartan masters; Mathias is a calvary soldier--from a line of cavalry soldiers--under Alexander; and Alexander is telling the story of his rise to command to Itanes (his "bride Roxanne's younger brother).

Another good study--third-person example--is our forum's benefactor. Orson Scott Card writes Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow in a different voice, both which are far different from Hart's Hope and Seventh Son, but they are all unmistakably OSC.

That's sort of what I meant. An author can be guided, led down the garden path towards their own voice. I propose that would be done in two ways:

1) Positive critiques: giving examples of their writing that really worked, whether on stories as a whole to individual word choice.

2) Negative critiques: giving examples of their writing that were unsatisfying as a reader.

So, if a critiquer (read: teacher) is critiquing, knowing the author is intending to develop their writing voice, wouldn't they tailor their critiques to that? Isn't that teaching? And, to take it a step further, if someone is working on voice, and a reader really likes how they use similes, for example, then couldn't working on similes as assignments, or having someone teach how to create effective similes be considered teaching voice?

Last, to redirect towards my initial motive in posting this, how does one develop a good voice in third person? It seems much harder to me than the first person stories I've written. In first person, everything is colored through the narrator's eyes, and you can basically write their whole persona into the scene. In third person, though you have a veiwpoint character, it is harder to do. By removing yourself one step from the narrator, the writing moves more into telling, rather than showing.

And while I know that viewpoint is not the same as voice, I DO think that voice grows out of viewpoint. I'm not sure I can put my finger on what I am trying to say here... Take OSC, for example. I think he writes characterization better than any other author I've read. I really feel I'm in his character's heads. But his style is totally different when I'm in Ender's viewpoint compared to Bean, for example. His writing CHANGES based on the character. I get a different feel from it. As I understand it, this is voice.

If I'm wrong about this being voice, could someone define it for me? That should make the conversation stay on track a bit...

"And that's perhaps the best definition of voice. You can read it and know who wrote it without looking."

I wouldn't say that. If I took five novels of a similar genre and ripped the covers off, it may be pretty tough to assign who wrote which... For instance, if we had a Hatrack challenge for everyone to write a post about writing as extrinsic would, and then posted it anonymously with one of his, I think we'd be pretty hard set to say which one was really his. Why? Because as authors we'd be trying to imitate his style. We may even be able to pull it off if we used the lingo properly, had a valid point, and wrote confidently as he often does.

Ok. I think I'm rambling now. I'm going to sit back and stew on this for a while...

Here' what i always thought - which is def not completely in line with what's discussed above lol

There's POV, 3 general POVs - 1st, 2nd, 3rd (with it's sub-POVs, limited, omniscient, etc)...

There's voice, which has to do with the features of the character or narrator - i.e. child/adult, male/female, rich/poor, smart/idiot, liberal/conservative, aggressive/passive, etc, etc, - so, you can combine a lot of features into your character and have that combination influence the voice of the character.

There's style, which has to do with the way the prose is written, it can hardboiled, meloncholy, dark, bubbly, humerous, sterile and logical, etc, etc.

There's tone, which has to do with...??? What's tone of a story? How a story comes off. Is it like an overall effect brought about by style, and voice, and POV?

Obviosuly these aren't the normal view of looking a voice, style tone ( I think)...but I find they help me.

quote:

---

There's style, which has to do with the way the prose is written, it can hardboiled, meloncholy, dark, bubbly, humerous, sterile and logical, etc, etc.

There's tone, which has to do with...??? What's tone of a story? How a story comes off. Is it like an overall effect brought about by style, and voice, and POV?

---

I thought style was more the variation of short and long sentences or being verbose or concise and stuff like that.

I think tone is what you described as style, dark, upbeat, melancholy, etc.

Your writing style probably doesn't change much from story to story, but your tone would depending on what story you chose to tell.

ok, i've resorted to asking the wiki-gods (see below)...

=================================================================
SO...WHAT HAVE I LEARNED?
- VOICE consists of terms used (by literary guys) to describe STYLE.
- TONE consists of terms used (by literary guys) to describe the writer/character's(?) attitude in the prose
- MOOD consists of terms used (by literary guys) to describe emotions evoked in the reader.
- POV consists of terms used (by literary guys) to describe, well, point-of-view.
- STYLE is the way a writer uses words, phrases, sentences, and POV to create a VOICE, TONE, and MOOD.
=================================================================

sources:
VOICE

quote:

---

Writer's voice is the literary term used to describe the individual writing style of an author. Voice was generally considered to be a combination of a writer's use of syntax, diction, punctuation, character development, dialogue, etc., within a given body of text (or across several works). Voice can be thought of in terms of the uniqueness of a musical voice. As a trumpet has a different voice than a tuba or a violin has a different voice than a cello, so the words of one author have a different sound than the words of another. One author may have a voice that is light and fast paced while another may have a dark voice.
In creative writing, students are often encouraged to experiment with different literary styles and techniques in order to help them better develop their "voice". This aspect varies with the individual author, but, particularly in American culture, having this asset is considered positive and beneficial to both the writer and his or her audience.

---

STYLE

quote:

---

Writing style is the manner in which a writer addresses a matter. A style reveals the writer's personality or voice. It is the result of the choices the writer makes in syntactical structures, diction, and figures of thought.

---

nonwiki

quote:

---

STYLE is the way the author uses words, phrases, and sentences.
The author’s
* personal word choice/vocabulary,
* types of sentences,
* point of view from which the text is told,
* organization of the text.
These 4 components will reveal his/her style.

---

TONE

quote:

---

Tone is a literary technique that is a part of composition, which encompasses the attitudes toward the subject and toward the audience implied in a literary work. Tone may be formal, informal, intimate, solemn, somber, playful, serious, ironic, condescending, or many other possible attitudes.[1] Tone and mood are not interchangeable.
Without tone, a piece of literature would evoke no emotion, and may seem very dull. It would likely be an official document.

---

nonwiki

quote:

---

TONE is simply the author’s attitude toward the subject.
You can recognize the tone/attitude by the language/word choices the author uses. His language will reveal his perspective/opinion (that is, whether it is positive/negative) about the subject.
Tone must be inferred through the use of descriptive words.

---

MOOD
non-wiki

quote:

---

MOOD is the overall feelings or emotions that are created IN THE READER.
Authors “move” their readers’ moods through their choice of words and level of detail.

---

POV
nonwiki

quote:

---

Point of View?
First person: (I, me, my)
Second person: (you; instructions/directions)
Third person – limited: (he/she/it/they/them told thru 1 character)
Third-person Omniscient (‘all knowing’):
(he/she/it/they/them told by the author; all characters’ feelings/thoughts are revealed)

---

quote:

---

That's sort of what I meant. An author can be guided, led down the garden path towards their own voice. I propose that would be done in two ways:
1) Positive critiques: giving examples of their writing that really worked, whether on stories as a whole to individual word choice.
2) Negative critiques: giving examples of their writing that were unsatisfying as a reader.

---

From my perspective, the thing here is you appear to be treating it as a somewhat objective quality, or at least one that is determined by the reader. For me, the concept of voice, especially root authorial voice, isn’t rooted directly to the idea of “good” or “bad” writing or whether it works or not.

When it comes to this, I think, essentially a person who enjoys your voice can perhaps help you to develop it…and avoid obscuring it…but if someone dislikes it, chances are their suggestions will simply be to change it to something else, rather than strengthen it as what it is.

quote:

---

So, if a critiquer (read: teacher) is critiquing, knowing the author is intending to develop their writing voice, wouldn't they tailor their critiques to that? Isn't that teaching? And, to take it a step further, if someone is working on voice, and a reader really likes how they use similes, for example, then couldn't working on similes as assignments, or having someone teach how to create effective similes be considered teaching voice?

---

Yeah you could put it that way. A person can tell you what they like about your voice and why and that can help you isolate and nurture it. I guess I just see “teaching” something as “passing on the knowledge of how to do a thing” and since voice is individual, I don’t think that can really be done.

However also I think outside help can be very useful when you are developing the voice of a specific character or a particular voice/tone for a certain story. Because then you know specifically what you want and so can communicate that to others, and use that knowledge to filter the feedback.

quote:

---

Last, to redirect towards my initial motive in posting this, how does one develop a good voice in third person? It seems much harder to me than the first person stories I've written. In first person, everything is colored through the narrator's eyes, and you can basically write their whole persona into the scene. In third person, though you have a veiwpoint character, it is harder to do. By removing yourself one step from the narrator, the writing moves more into telling, rather than showing.

---

Well, that’s what narration is. Telling. Its what all writing is, really, but that’s another thing. Your last statement indicates the whole “showing>telling” type line of thinking, but generally especially in 3rd person a certain amount of narration is more or less unavoidable and not at all a bad thing. However, we are often encouraged to write in a 3rd person POV so close as to be almost 1st person…where the non-character narrator nearly disappears or largely takes on the “voice” of the POV character. And that may be your answer, or part of it. Write in very close 3rd person, almost as if you were writing 1st person, but with 3rd person pronouns.

Or even when using a slightly more distant 3rd person with more of a non-character narrator, don’t worry so much about trying to make it invisible. It is basically you, and your voice will, most likely, come through if you allow it too.

I think of voice like the wiki bit that was quoted above - it's like someone's singing voice. Many singing voices sound alike, but many have some unique tone, some component or quality that makes them different. I think these different voices, so long as the differences are compelling and not annoying (e.g., a nasally singing voice, or a screechy one) are what separates out the real success stories from the so-sos. But I think a lot of popular fiction today is written by people who have adequate, but not spectacular voices.

I also think there are people with spectacular voices but who have limitations in other realms that interfere with their ability to break out with success.

I have an in-person writer's group I've been going to for 2.5 years. There's a core group of about 8 writers. I can pick out each writer's work just by hearing a snippet that they wrote in a free-write exercise of 5 mins. It's not subject matter, though there's a running joke in the group that my work is distinguishable from others because there's usually a space ship in it (not everyone writes speculative fiction in this group.) It's not grammar. It's not accent. But to me each writer's voice in this group is as distinctive as their speaking voice. It's a cadence, word choice, sentence structure, some element of not subject matter, but specific narrative quirks (one writer universally has a love triangle or quadrangle.)