I have so many thoughtful comments to my last post about writers' voices that I've come back to it - I've obviously stuck a chord.
I hadn't realised that the concept of 'voice' is used across the arts - so sculptors, photographers, knitters, are all encouraged to think about what makes them distinctive - to look at the way their work reflects them and what they are trying to say. (Thank you, Mark - I never knew that.) I'd not thought of it in terms of 'voice' but I can recognise a Henry Moore or a Barbara Hepworth, a Modigliani or an Ansell Adams, and will go out of my way to see them. They have a distinctive way of expressing themselves that speaks to me - and I'm not sure I can put that into words except to say that they make me feel good; they are satisfying on a deep level (if that makes any sense).
But in writing - does this familiarity extend to writing? I take Carol's point about Dickens (thank you, Carol) - his work is instantly recognisable. But modern writers - Bring Up the Bodies and Wolf Hall could only have been written by Hilary Mantel. But Beyond Black - that's a completely different book, written in a different style and with a different use of language, with no hint of drowning in wonderful historical detail, and also written by Hilary Mantel. Crime writers have their pet detectives - but they, too, spread their writing wings from time to time. I've not read Kate Atkinson's Life after Life but understand that the contrast with her crime novels couldn't be stronger.
I'm probably thinking round in circles - I'm not sure I'm any closer to a definition than I was three weeks ago, when I decided 'voice' is something to do with the dialogue between what we are trying to say and the medium (whether that is words or paint or plaster) we use to tell it.
And then I wonder - and this might be a heretical idea so please, those of you who know better, do shout me down - maybe the concept of 'voice' is an academic construct, used to promote discussion among students and give them headaches when they have essays to write, but of limited use to anyone with a blank screen in front of them, or paintbrush in hand. What do you think?
(It's hard work, all this thinking - I think it's time to go and burn soup!)
Burn on dear soup - good writing Jo - cheers
ReplyDeleteThank you Tony - do call over again before you go walkabout - won't offer soup, but maybe a takeaway?
DeleteI have enjoyed the posts about the writer's voice - but couldn't think of an intelligent comment! I know my own writer's voice changes, which probably means I am still searching for the authentic me. And with the visual arts, it definitely also applies, and the works of many great artists are instantly recognisable, even if you have never known that painting before.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Patricia - I think 'voice' is such a slippery construct - and must easier to get a hold on in the visual arts!
DeleteHi Jo, I think voice is an important concept for writers, and readers, to understand, and it is far more than dialogue. Writer's voice (voices, in fact, we all have more than one)..character voice..narrator voice...and how does it relate to point of view... It does take a bit of thinking about and this is why I wrote a whole long chapter on the topic in Inside Stories for Writers and Readers. What I have written on my blog and guest posts recently only scratches the surface, but it's a rewarding subject to work through.
DeleteI think I've thought round in circles with it, Trish - I take your point that's it's important, but if we're too stuck on 'finding it' that can get in the way of actually writing - and that's where it appears, often when we are least expecting it!
DeleteHmm...you are probably right..we are attempting to describe the colour blue.....and also right, maybe we should stop academisizing everything and just enjoy reading the books/listening to the music/admiring the paintings.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you Carol - I think we can 'overthink' it - and sometimes too much attention to theory and our practice gets too stilted.
DeleteI don't think it is made up at all. But you're right, voice is an elusive thing that can be confusing. What kind of soup are you burning?
ReplyDeleteMy 'made-up' thing is a bit tongue in cheek - but I do think we can drown in theory and sometimes it's best to just write and see what happens!
Deleteps - I can burn anything. It's a miracle my children grew to be full-sized adults.
DeleteI suppose it depends on what you mean by 'voice' in the end. I think I mentioned last time I encourage my students to 'keep' their own voice when they write assignments. The thing is, I know who's essays are whose because of the way they express themselves, so my feeling is that it's just that. Even when writing fiction, everyone has their own style and, I suppose, voice. I still don't know *what'* makes voice, but I do know I recognise the way people write. I've just finished reading a Donna Leon book. I've read several of hers and I love them. I'm guessing this is partly because I just like the way she writes. If that's her voice, then it works for me! Sorry, I've been rambling again here Jo. I'll shut up now...
ReplyDeleteI wonder if it's impossible to stop rambling when we thing about 'voice' Val - because it's such a complex construct. You're right, we know it when we read it. So I think that the only way to really find our own is to write, write, write - and theorising can get in the way. If we think to hard we stifle the creative bit, and that's where the voice is hiding.
DeleteJust -re-reading these comments and see I committed one of those cardinal apostrophe sins…sorry Jo. That 'who's'…pfff.
DeleteThe argument about thinking versus creativity is misleading: they are not mutually exclusive, Jo. People who follow creative writing courses for example are thinking and learning the craft and producing creative work as well. The point is why do people write? It’s a personal thing. If writing is purely recreational then none of this need matter. But whether attending a course or not, anyone who wishes seriously to develop their writing skills must learn the craft of writing by one means or another and understanding voice is an essential part of that craft.
ReplyDeleteThanks for coming back again, Trish. I agree that thinking and creativity are not mutually exclusive - but sometimes I feel (and I'm speaking personally here) I can have such a lovely time with the thinking-bit that creativity goes on the back burner. I've spent years in academia, so that comes naturally to me, and can have a lovely time playing with theory.
DeleteI've also done creative writing courses, and began an MA (my registration is currently suspended - that's a long story). The OU course, in particular, played close attention to the idea of 'voice' - so I get where it fits in the notion of developing the craft.
But when I want to be truly creative I find it more helpful to put everything I 'know' on the back burner and move into a different headspace and just go for it - that's the joyful, playful bit. And the editing - this is where I work on the relation between what I want to say and the words I'm using to say it. If I were analysing it, that's where I'd think about 'voice.' But I'm more likely to know, without always knowing why, that something just sounds wrong and to play with it until it works.
These comments are all so interesting I almost feel like reading more about 'voice'. Oh for more time, though! I shouldn't even be reading this now!. But I read Trish's post about *voices* in writing, and that's something different again! Thank you for this very thought provoking post, Jo!
ReplyDeleteI just saw this quote from Somerset Maugham: "The best style is the style you don’t notice."
ReplyDeleteAnd don't we all wish we knew how to do that!!
Delete