Sunday 15 September 2013

On hearing voices on the page.

I'm following on, from sockpuppets, to talking to myself (my last two posts), to ... writing. And the thorny topic of 'voice.' There is a logic, I think - something about being heard.

I never offer writing advice - there are many far more qualified than I to do that. (And many unqualified who also put in their five-pennyworth, but let's not talk about that.) I'm in the learning game, and can only talk about what seems to work for me. So this is definitely not about 'finding one's writing voice'. Instead it is a tentative exploration of how I think of it.

Writing, for me, is not the same as talking to myself on paper. For a start, in my mutterings while stirring the soup I rarely use complete sentences; I might throw in a little blasphemy, call myself a prat for burning it again (yes, I burn soup; and occasionally indulge in a little gratuitous swearing).

If I'm writing, incomplete sentences are deliberate. Words with no main verb just for emphasis. A passing swear word is deliberate, used sparingly and with thought for the reader. I hear the rhythm of a sentence - playing with word order until there is a music to it. Even when I write dialogue, I try to keep myself quiet and let the character express him/herself.

And then I read it aloud. Clunky bits are obvious when you read them to the plants (plants are a great audience. They can't answer back, nor run away). Tedious bits are obvious - because you race through them, skip over useless words. It is in the reading aloud that I 'hear' my own writing voice - and begin to explore the conversation between what I think I'm trying to say and the words I'm using to say it.

So that, for me, is what I mean by a 'writer's voice' - the rhythm of the words and their relation to meaning. But, as I said, that's my understanding of the term. What's yours?

12 comments:

  1. I wish I had an understanding, wish I had a voice. I think mine includes understatement and other humour. I must still be British, after all! I agree about incomplete sentences for emphasis. Repetition, used sparingly, also does this. I don't think I'm ready to define voice yet, not even my voice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure it's definable, Miriam - or if it is, I've not seen a definition that's unequivocally clear.

      Delete
  2. Yes..in a way, one is trying to define the undefinable ..it's the arrangement of the words, but also the way the writer perceives the thing they're writing about. And the sentence length. Some writers have a very unique way of expressing both of these...Dickens..Robert Harris etc and you could be given a book by either (if you liked them) and know it was by their hand.I think a ''voice'' can ultimately only be recognised by a reader .... what is mine? Dunno. But enough people say they do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Carol - and I think we can get so caught on working on our writing voice that we lose track of what we want to say, it gets lost in attention to the way we say it.

      Delete
  3. I also don't know what my voice is although others say they can 'hear' me in my writing. Sometimes I'm not sure that's a good thing as I don't want everyone in my stories to be me! On the other hand I'm always telling my students to keep their own voice and not listen to tutors who want them all to write in a certain way! It's very hard to define what it is. But yes, the rhythm of the words of the page is something I work for. I'm no poet, but I try and pay attention to the ebb and flow of the words.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a great tutor you are, advising your students to pay more attention to their own voices than trying to please their tutors!

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The visual arts have this debate about voice too. I always liked the view of Shoji Hamada who said if people couldn't tell if a pot was his without looking for a signature he would rather they didn't know. Consequently he never signed anything. I have never signed anything through pure laziness but sad to say I often don't recognise my own work years later.
    If your voice becomes so distinctive people can recognise your work do you not run the risk of being caricatured? Or even becoming a caricature? There are benefits to being nondescript. I wonder if the less identifiable the authors voice is the stronger the voice of their characters is. Not something I have ever had to worry about with pots and photographs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting, Mark, that this crosses over into the other arts - but, thinking about it, I can usually recognise a Henry Moore or Barbara Hepworth, but hadn't given that recognition a name. But I don't think of them as caricatures ... this obviously need a lot of thinking about!!

      Delete
  6. Hmmm, interesting. I think a writer's "voice" is the heart and soul of a work that shines through the words. It could be evidenced in the cadence, in the word choice, and even in the length of the sentences. It's definitely hard to define, much like the soul of a person, but when we read a book, most of us immediately recognize the voice, and know whether or not we like it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like your description, Susan, and Jo, I also find reading my work out loud incredibly helpful. As for my own voice, I find it hard to describe yet I know when I've strayed from it.

      Delete
  7. I gloriously burnt soup when the entire family were visiting last year. *twitches at the memory*

    I love your interpretation of 'writing voice' and I shall bear it in mind. I do agree that reading out loud is invaluable. Cats are just as good as plants for this purpose, or so I have found.

    ReplyDelete