It seems to me, with all the differences in opinions one way or the other, whatever way you write will be liked by some and disliked by others. Even if you're a pantser who uses a little passive writing, maybe not a lot of description and head-hops occasionally, there are people who will enjoy it. If that is the way you have the most fun writing, stick with it. Make it your voice as a writer.
I've seen too many novice writers pick up a book on "The Rules of Writing", try to change their voice to follow those rules, and get so frustrated they want to quit. The joy of writing is gone. I wish they would change the word 'rules' to 'guidelines'. The only rule I try to pay attention to is proper grammar and word flow. This is also where a good editor is priceless. As far as I'm concerned, content and voice are separate from grammar.
Then there are those folks who are physically unable to visualize what they're reading or writing. These writers have to plot because they need a very detailed outline describing every aspect of the story to be able to picture it. I visualize everything as if I'm right there with my characters and write what I see. Setting, descriptions, feelings, thoughts and discussions are put down on paper together as a whole as they happen. Several writers I know have to write in layers. They can't visualize the entire scene and have to build it up one layer at a time. It works for them, and the end result is complete.
It may take me weeks to write several thousand words, but other than a few minor tweeks, it's done. Others may write two thousand words a day, but have to re-write ten times to get it completely fleshed out. The end product is the same.
The point is, find your voice and the method that works best for you and stay with it. Not everyone will like it, but eventually you'll find those that do and then target that audience.
Maybe next week I'll tackle another point of discussion.
Thanks for reading.
Good observation, Roland. In addition to what you say, an author may have several different voices. It depends much on what is being written about. The same author will establish one voice for creative non-fiction, a different one for a novel, again another voice for short stories an so on. The mechanics of the writing might be similar but voice will change. That said, I think a consistent voice is necessary for an author within a work and across all like works because that is part of what engenders the reader to that person's work.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a base line voice is set for each writer when they first start out and it can be honed by the grit of critique until that voice sings to the reader (hopefully in tune).
I agree with you whole hardly that not everything written is going to work for everyone. I will confess;I have read a couple romance novels that were wonderfully written and i didn't particularly like them. By the same token, I've read some dystopia and fantasy that needed a professional editor, but for the strength of the writing and imagination I forgave the occasional wrong word use and sentence fragments as an example. Yet, I wouldn't find legs with that author's work and buy more because the read was a struggle. So,there we are - get it as good as can be before putting it out to the world.
As usual, good insights, Roland. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks Jerry. To many times writers try to please others but don't please themselves. Your voice is how you enjoy writing and is natural for you. If you try to change that , you won't please anyone.
DeleteAlso, they make the mistake of trying to write the way the "experts" tell you, but when it goes against your natural voice, it won't work either.
I think people make writing harder than it needs to be.
There's a dangerous line on a slippery slope here. Thru my life, I've heard so very many creative wannabes defend their sloppy painting, their tinny music, their half-assed writing with "it's my voice".
ReplyDeleteThere is a baseline for technique and skill that cannot be ignored.
Oh, I agree. That's where a good editor comes into play.
DeleteStanley Schmidt, longtime editor of "Analog Magazine", tells a tale where he was accosted by an Intense Young Man. The time period was about 1999. The Young Man was maintaining that the internet would grant unlimited freedom to print without editors and publishers stifling ideas with their stuffy rules.
ReplyDeleteSchmidt apparently replied "Buddy, what you're describing will require more editors than any other time in history."
He was so, so correct.