Sheherazade Versus the Parrot

Let's back up for a second, because I mentioned something in that post down there about betas that's probably worth discussing as a separate matter: the authorial voice. What is it? Why do I need it? Who has one, and where can I find one?

In the plainest possible terms, an authorial voice is the way you tell a story. Pick two of your favorite mass-market-published authors. Got 'em? Okay, then: if you read one chapter by the first author, and one chapter by the second author, you notice that both of them are telling stories you love, but they sound nothing like one another. One writer might use a strict economy of words, while another one is happy to spend some time laying out minute details in front of a reader. And that's an authorial voice. Your characters (if properly developed) will all sound distinct as well, but it's the stuff that goes in-between the dialogue that determines your authorial voice.

Take an exchange between a man and a woman out to dinner at a restaurant. The first author might say something like this:

"I don't know why you bring me here," she said. "I don't like it, and you know that."

The rich red tablecloth reminded her of blood, of bloody steaks on order, because he would insist that well-done meat was money wasted. In the distant past, she might have argued her preference, but lately, fatigue called the shots, and so she offered the weakest, most obvious truth she had, then sat back to observe how he'd go about organizing her life for her.

The second author might say something like this:

"I don't know why you bring me here," she said. "I don't like it, and you know that."

He always did this, taking control and assuming things. It was annoying and obnoxious, and now he'd probably just order her dinner for her without even asking what she wanted first. Why couldn't she just say 'no' for once? Why was everything with him such a fight? She was so tired of being good, and yet too tired to be anything else at the moment.

The same thing is happening in both examples, but the authorial voice behind them is completely different. The first is a more lyrical voice, while the second is a more emotional and personal voice. And both of those styles are perfectly fine, along with an untold million other styles. Your task as an author is to figure out what your voice is, and how you convey the "facts" in the most persuasive and authentic way possible.

We've all read things that were written in a style we'd love to be able to reproduce. For me, nothing is more gorgeous than the Spartan prose of Margaret Atwood, because she is the most brutal self-editor I've ever seen, and every single thing she leaves on the page absolutely must be there. She doesn't cart around one superfluous word. That's quite a trick, because she still has to tell a story in a compelling way, but she doesn't let herself hide behind her words.

As much as I love that about her, I could never hope to reproduce it in my own writing, and the fact that I can't doesn't make me (or you!) incompetent. We just need more words to tell our story than she does.

Trying to emulate a style of writing you admire usually leads to either sad or just plain comical results. Instead, spend your time really considering how you are most comfortable telling a story. Analyze your writing to discover what you feel compelled to reveal, and the rhythm and tone you use to reveal those things. Do you focus on external details, or do you camp out in a character's feelings? Is your style poetic, or is it gritty and steeped in raw data? Your responsibility as an author is to tell a story in the most compelling possible way. Pretend that you are Sheherazade, and that telling this story is the only way you can stop the King from killing you. Obviously, if your life is on the line, you're going to make an effort to spin an engaging tale, right? Unless you listen to a lot of Depeche Mode and Morrissey, in which case, you'll keep it simple and welcome oblivion.

You want to be Sheherazade for your readers. You want to draw them in and mesmerize them, and make it impossible for them to click the little "x" at the top of the browser tab. If you're wearing a costume when you write, and trying to be something inauthentic, the reader KNOWS it. Be yourself— your most engaging and mesmerizing self. Don't be a poet if you're not a poet. Don't be "street" if you're not street. Don't use words you don't understand just to sound "smart". Be yourself. I promise, you're more than good enough all on your own.

We've all read stories that have left us with the feeling that the author is merely transcribing and reciting "facts" without injecting any soul or life into the prose. I don't care what's happening in the story—if the authorial voice is flat and dull, no amount of plot action can compensate for it. An author who is just parroting action is deadly dull to read, in the same way that an author who is parroting another writer's style is difficult and occasionally embarrassing to read. Having no authorial voice is as bad as having a false authorial voice.

As I said elsewhere in this blog, you are the sole source of oxygen and life for your story. If it's going to feel like a living, breathing thing, you need to inject your soul in there somewhere. It's what makes writing so difficult, because you are forced to expose bits and pieces of your innermost self in order to do the thing and do it well. You have to actually feel the action, and express that feeling in a visceral way. There's a world of difference between saying Bella quietly closed her bedroom door and cried hard because she was upset, and Bella quietly closed the bedroom door and sobbed until every muscle in her body ached from the effort. Both statements might be true, but in the first one, you're only getting facts. In the second, you're getting the actual experience for the character. We've all (presumably) cried. We know what it feels like, right? You need to use those experiences when you're writing; it involves risking something personal, but the reward is a story that actually rings true.