Use your character voice!

[I, Brian]

aka, stop writing as if you're watching a film!

I've noticed a number of posts come up on here and the critiques board, where the story is written as if we're just watching a film. Somehow characters telling us that they are upset, angry, there are wars, there is danger, is supposed to convey a sense of drama and tension.

It doesn't.

The one thing a novel can do that a film cannot is get us deep into a characters thoughts - present their motivations, fears, hopes, aspirations. How they deal with any individual situation.

Tension comes not from telling us that things are happening, or talking about that things are happening, but instead from the characters internal reaction to what is happening.

This applies regardless as to whether you are writing in a limited or omniscient POV.

The temptation to write as if watching a film I think comes from watching films, rather than reading books, and is a common mistake.

I've done it myself - I put up a piece for critique years ago, and the best feedback I got was exactly the point I am making now - that all the tension and conflict you want to drive your readers to plough through the story comes from sharing in the character experience, not from simply watching them from afar.

I appreciate I am neither published nor an expert, but I feel this is a profound insight that - once realised - can only make a writer write better.

If you are writing, pick up any modern novels that are in a similar genre to your own work, and read for yourself. Keep aware of the points that draw you in, and how the author does this.

Primarily, the story will be character driven, and even where the story is written in an omniscient POV, you will almost certainly find the tension within the story is shown by contrasting character thoughts with one another to set up conflict.

I'll provide a simple example with a book I've just started now, "The Heroes" by Joe Abercrombie, written in third person limited.

The scene involves telling that a man, an experienced northern warrior, is carefully approaching a small enemy encampment. It would be easy to wax lyrical about the landscape, the moon, the "thick shadows", and similar laboured descriptions - or even throw in a few superficial POV sentences such as "his heart pounded in his ears" and similar. It would be even easier to just info dump about what's going on.

Here's how Joe actually writes it:

He found his way through a gap in the tumble-down wall, heart banging like a joiner's mallet. From the long climb up the steep slope, and the wild grass clutching at his boots, and the bullying wind trying to bundle him over. But mostly, if he was honest, from the fear he'd end up getting killed at the top. He'd never laid claim to being a brave man and he'd only got more cowardly with age, Strange thing, that - the fewer years you have to lose the more you fear the losing of 'em. Maybe a man just gets a stock of courage when he's born, and wears it down each scrape he gets into.

Better, yes?

The character experience is what distinguishes a novel from a film and any other media. As a writer, it's important to be aware of that, and use it as best fits your art. Because if you are not writing character experience in any way, the danger is that you have nothing more than a padded film script.

Simply a little piece of feedback I wanted to share, because it feels like too many people recently are missing this general point.

Of course, I could be wrong, in which case I am happy to be corrected.

[Coragem]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'll provide a simple example with a book I've just started now, "The Heroes" by Joe Abercrombie, written in third person limited.

Actually, Joe's writing is very interesting given his "extreme" form of 3rd person limited. All good author's vary dialogue and monologue to fit characters' unique language use. However, Joe actually writes his 3rd person narrative using his POV characters' language styles, so the 3rd person narratives almost become 1st person, often slipping into present tense (as if in dialogue).

Joe's style is very interesting in general, IMO. Often short fragmentary sentences, and lots of grappling commas/sentences that cut on words and up the pace.

Speaking more generally, there are so man things to think about when people first take the leap from reader to writer; so many aspects of authorship that can seem obvious to an experienced writer, but never occur to a reader. Deciding on how we're going to use POV is one of the first, and most crucial things we all need to contend with.

Coragem.

[Bowler1]

I think you’re right Brian, but it could also be seen as the starting point for new writers,

1 We’re a media rich culture these days and images might be what starts our imagination off.
2 Inexperience in writing, confusing description with telling.

From my own personal experience I was telling too much when I started. These first drafts never got passed my partner, who quite rightly brought me up to speed with the quality of that writing, using mainly four letter words that caused a minor (I’m still scarred!) barney. Not everyone will have people to share with, which is why Chrons is filled with members.

So I’m not going to correct you, I Brian, as you’re right. Instead, point these errors out where you see them, as directly or indirectly as you like. The critiques rules makes it clear that it is open season when you post in the critiques section of the forum, but have some patience when dealing with inexperienced writers, we’re all here to learn.

[Venusian Broon]

Hey IB,

Great little manifesto - it's really got me thinking about my output and where it would be regarding character thoughts (yep, I'm not sure!)

It would be interesting to know if anyone can point out a published writer that doesn't utilise this approach - so that we can sort of compare and contrast.

A similar type of discussion, or at least it wandered about this area, came up in the 'show not tell' thread quite recently. Perhaps such a inward-looking PoV is much more difficult to successfully pull off when your character has a deep secret or when you want to have an unreliable narrator?

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Bowler1

I think you’re right Brian, but it could also be seen as the starting point for new writers,

I agree, hence why I started this thread, to alert to the issue.

Originally Posted by Coragem

Actually, Joe's writing is very interesting given his "extreme" form of 3rd person limited.

Indeed, there is that as well. The reason I chose that excerpt was simply because I've just started The Heroes, and that paragraph was at the beginning. And there are so many ways that part could be written superficially, losing the character experience. That Joe does it more extreme I think underlines the point of character experience even more.

[springs]

Sowing the seeds of dissention here - isn't it about both? If I have a great visual image then I want to get that across, and that might be the time for a paragraph of eg

The office was small and cluttered, books heaped around her, a tea on the fileblock beside her. (taking inspiration from what's around me there....)

and then it might be time for the character bit:

Springs slurped her tea, yelping at its heat. She felt the warm sunshine on her back and thought she must be mad to be indoors. Still the compulsion was too strong, and, hand shaking, she reached out and logged into the Chrons...

It's just, like Bowler said, we are a generation who are used to visual images, perhaps there is a balance to be found.

[I, Brian]

I think the difference with visual images is to simply state them without relation to the character experience.

I'm talking generally about when the writer thinks they are writing a film, ie: "The sunset streaked red and gold on the breath-taking view of the mountains behind them". If it's behind, the characters aren't looking that way - it's written for a director, not a character.

[Coragem]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I think the difference with visual images is to simply state them without relation to the character experience.

I'm talking generally about when the writer thinks they are writing a film, ie: "The sunset streaked red and gold on the breath-taking view of the mountains behind them". If it's behind, the characters aren't looking that way - it's written for a director, not a character.

Absolutely.

Personally, as with Joe Abercrombie, I believe it's always best to put as much character as possible in description.

The rules were different in the past (i.e., 3rd person objective was common, rather than 3rd person limited), but with recent works I hate reading description and thinking "this could be seen from any character's POV, or even no character's POV (i.e., the author's)."

For us (writing today, given recent POV trends) description comes alive if it contains the character's unique/subjective way of seeing things. What does the way they see things tell us about them? And what to we learn from how the environment affects them? A sunset might be lovely to one character, while it might be a reminder of age, of time passing, of little time left, to another character.

Coragem

[Ursa major]

I fully agree with this: while many forms of storytelling - TV, films, radio, (mime? ) - make it hard to represent inner feelings and the effects of experience on perception (sometimes having to resort to things such as intrusive voice overs, or asides to the "fourth wall"), we aspiring writers are lucky: readers expect it in books (and ebooks), to the extent that they permit us to treat time flexibly to fit our characters' thoughts in.

(And for those writers who don't like writing lots of description, they should just let the reader know - with subtlety, obviously - that one or two of the PoV characters are not the most acute of observers of the state of the furniture/landscape/fashions/buffets/architecture/etc.)



By the way, given we're going through a period when sparkly vampires and werewolves are well represented in fiction, would the latter creatures, in their canine form, be affected by dogs' lack of one type of cone in their eyes, i.e. would a werewolf suffer from some form of colourblindness?

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I think the difference with visual images is to simply state them without relation to the character experience.

I'm talking generally about when the writer thinks they are writing a film, ie: "The sunset streaked red and gold on the breath-taking view of the mountains behind them". If it's behind, the characters aren't looking that way - it's written for a director, not a character.

Two things. First, that depends entirely on the POV character. If you have a 3rd omni narrator, they can comment on the sunset the characters in the scene aren't actually looking at. Second, with that specific example though, I would assume the writer is implying they saw the sunset without going through the tedium of writing 'and they turned around', or some such. I get your point, but it's a lot finer hair to split that most people seem to think.

This also touches on the admonition 'show don't tell'. With 3rd omni you have access to all the characters' thoughts and feelings, yet writers are told to 'show don't tell' so instead of writing "Joe was angry" they'd describe his pulsing veins, his raised voice, use exclamation points in his dialog, etc. However, that's an explicitly more visual (and more film) style of writing. It distances--or, it can distance--the reader from the characters by showing their emotions instead of stating them.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Coragem

The rules were different in the past (i.e., 3rd person objective was common, rather than 3rd person limited),

Omiscient/objective viewpoints are still valid - but understanding how to use them best I think is very important.

I think Frank Herbert's "Dune" is a superb example of writing third person omiscient - you don't get much direct character introspection, but when it appears it is immediately contrasted with a *conflicting* one (ie, Paul, Jessica, and Dr Yueh at the beginning). And the invasion near the start explodes with tension: you feel like you've seen it, experienced it. But as a reader, all you actually did was read about a couple of people in a room away from it all. Very, very, clever.

Originally Posted by Ursa major

By the way, given we're going through a period when sparkly vampires and werewolves are well represented in fiction, would the latter creatures, in their canine form, be affected by dogs' lack of one type of cone in their eyes, i.e. would a werewolf suffer from some form of colourblindness?

I think other creatures will perceive the world in extremely different ways, full stop. I'm always minded of a Terry Pratchett story where Angua berates a poodle that styles itself on a wolf, that wolves do not even have names. It was a small but fundamental point that wolves think very differently to dogs.

Originally Posted by Fishbowl Helmet

This also touches on the admonition 'show don't tell'. With 3rd omni you have access to all the characters' thoughts and feelings, yet writers are told to 'show don't tell' so instead of writing "Joe was angry" they'd describe his pulsing veins, his raised voice, use exclamation points in his dialog, etc. However, that's an explicitly more visual (and more film) style of writing. It distances--or, it can distance--the reader from the characters by showing their emotions instead of stating them.

Absolutely - that's why I really like Abercrombie's example above. Instead of the now almost cliched "his heart pounded" we get "heart banging like a joiner's mallet". A simple use of words keeps us within the character experience, rather than drawn out.

[Grizzgreen711]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I think the difference with visual images is to simply state them without relation to the character experience.

I'm talking generally about when the writer thinks they are writing a film, ie: "The sunset streaked red and gold on the breath-taking view of the mountains behind them". If it's behind, the characters aren't looking that way - it's written for a director, not a character.

When I first began writing this was my biggest issue. Giving all this description the reader doesn't need to know. And the reason that the reader doesn't need to know is because technically the character doesn't know.

As in your example, the character doesn't know what the sky looks like behind him, so why should I bore the reader with that? I sticky-noted your example for good measure.

Good topic, I Brian.

[hopewrites]

RP is a great way to get practice writing in voice.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

aka, stop writing as if you're watching a film!

The problem is when I close my eyes I am watching a film; I write what I see.

I know I have to learn to get closer into the action, to see the story from the characters POV. But for now I enjoy watching the movie in my head and writing it down like that.

If I'm honest I didn't like the extract you quoted; perhaps because it was taken out of context.

However I do agree with your point!

[Cynric]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Here's how Joe actually writes it:



Better, yes?

I've not read any JA, and I know he's highly esteemed, but I have to say that the quoted section was tough to read. I personally found the "joiner's mallet" a bit of a jarring metaphor, and I had to read the first three sentences three times to understand that he was just messing with punctation for effect.

If that was the opening to the book, I'd have put it back down.


But, your point about describing the world in the character's voice is an excellent one.