User: mistri Date: 2006-11-15 14:24 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

This is all too true.

Back when I still worked in book publishing as a lowly editorial assistant (for Harlequin UK), I read hundreds of over-polished partial (and full) manuscripts.

They were all just so oddly competent. There was nothing necessarily wrong with the text, but it was just dull. Many of them could've been written by the same person.

Polishing can work of course. But often it can go too far. I've seen this happen in writing groups, where every crit on a piece takes a little bit of original voice off it. Too many people look at it and suddenly the piece is dead (if the author follows all instructions).

Being a bit rougher around the edges can certainly help retain voice, so long as it doesn't mess with the reader's flow.

Right now I'm sort-of polishing my own work. But I like to think I'm doing it with a light touch.

User: mistri Date: 2006-11-15 14:26 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

btw, I don't think editorial assistants are lowly, as such; I just don't want people mistaking my comments as having the authority of editor-ness. :D

User: slithytove Date: 2006-11-15 14:44 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: writing

I've seen this happen in writing groups, where every crit on a piece takes a little bit of original voice off it.

What pnh calls 'crit burn'. Like freezer burn. A piece of writing is burned when the writer tries to respond to too many crits. Patrick says that crit burn the mark of doom: it says that the writer is no longer in control of their own prose.

I know some folks argue against voice as a primary characteristic of fiction, but for me it continues to grow in importance of how I look at my own fiction as well as the work of others.

Yeah. Me, too. I don't now what is cause and what is effect. Does good fiction have strong voice because a good writer can't but help to have a strong voice? Or is it the voice itself that makes the fiction good?

I don't know. But I do know that virtually all good fiction has a clear, powerful, intriguing, and unique voice.

User: katfeete Date: 2006-11-15 14:45 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Hmm. Reading this, I'd say I revise a lot more heavily than you. But I don't necessarily disagree with you that polishing can be the death of voice.

I have to revise heavily, because I am absolute crap at plot and exposition. Left to myself, I would write a series of white rooms containing unexplained technology in which things only happened so the characters would have something to talk about. (I adore writing dialog.)

But until I hit the end of the book, I don't know how it begins.

So when I'm done a book I do a hot revise to make the bits in the beginning that I *know* contradict the bits at the end fit, and I fix some of the really blatant problems, and I send it to my first readers. And they write back and tell me all the bits that contradict each other or plain don't make sense that I missed. Since I'm bad at exposition, I do very minimal amounts of it on the first draft -- what I think is necessary for the story to work -- and then wait to see what my first readers scream about not knowing.

Then I stew for a few months. Then I revise.

Since I'm also revising for all the grammar mistakes, clunkiness, etc. that you're talking about, this tends to be a really, really heavy revision. I delete large swathes of novel and put in entirely new swathes. Scenes get moved, rearranged, rewritten. I print out to revise, and generally by the time I'm done no one but me can read the printouts.

This revision will get one more quick pass, for grotty errors, and then I send it out.

So for me it's less about the depth of the revision than the number of times I revise. I have, in the past, revised stories into dullness and obscurity. For me, at least, as long as I confine myself to three passes or so (only one of which is really in-depth) then I can fix the story without breaking it.

(It's worth noting that I'm only talking about novels here. I've never gotten the hang of short stories....)

User: jlundberg Date: 2006-11-15 14:51 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Keith Brooke (of Infinity Plus fame) recently did an interview with Jeff VanderMeer at SF Site, and gave an answer along these same lines:

"There's a lot of very competent fiction around these days -- we're a very professional bunch, us SF writers. And sometimes I'll come across a story that's perfectly-paced, which has clearly-distinguished characters, strong settings and lots of surprises, written in sentences that are never badly-formed, with not a single word out of place. And they're soulless. Sometimes I think writers can be far too good, if you see what I mean. But then I'll come across a story that might be full of rough edges but which just leaps out from the page: a distinctive voice, a quirky take on the world, a way with words that's like no other. I'd choose spark over polish every time."

User: desperance Date: 2006-11-15 14:56 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

...And yet, I could show you a two-year MA in Creative Writing, right here at my local university, where the whole tenor of the course could be summed up as "Writing is rewriting". I know, I taught that course a while.

Which is not to say that I think you're wrong, because I don't. My own practice is much like yours. Growing up pre-computers, where every new draft meant retyping every word, I learned as far as possible to get it right the first time.

However, every case is different; there are writers whose work only acquires character in later drafts. Christopher Isherwood, eg: his first drafts were dull, lifeless frameworks, like a sculptor's armature (he once let Auden read one; the sheer disappointment of Auden's reaction meant he never repeated the experiment). All the colour and texture he added later, much as a painter would, building on top of a basic sketch.

By me this is weird, but it's another way to work.

User: slithytove Date: 2006-11-15 16:15 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: writing

All the colour and texture he added later, much as a painter would, building on top of a basic sketch.

Tim Powers says that his first drafts are very white room: almost nothing but dialog. All grounding, atmosphere, and everything else are added in later drafts.

User: kristine_smith Date: 2006-11-15 16:12 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

I know some folks argue against voice as a primary characteristic of fiction, but for me it continues to grow in importance of how I look at my own fiction as well as the work of others.

I see more and more that voice and style, indefinable imprints of the author, seem to be taking precedence over plot and character. As someone who reads for character, I find myself surrounded by books and stories that I have a hard time finishing and with which I cannot connect as a reader. When I do manage to finish something, I tend to think "well, that was interesting," then go reread Pratchett or Bujold.

A lot of this stuff just leaves me by the side of the road.

User: jaylake Date: 2006-11-15 16:16 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

FWIW, Pratchett and Bujold are two of my favorite authors. I find Bujold's work to be almost utterly transparent with respect to voice, while incredibly engaging at the character and story level. Pratchett on the other hand has a very strong voice and style, along with character and story. (That latter state is my aspiration...)

Note that when I'm on about voice I'm not discounting or dismissing the other elements of writing craft. Rather, I think voice is the hardest thing to nurture and the easiest thing to kill, so for me, at least, it deserves the most attention.

User: kristine_smith Date: 2006-11-15 17:21 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

I'd argue that to attempt to nurture it...ok, I believe in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as it applies to Voice and Style. The mere act of authorial observation changes the thing observed. I'm just not convinced that in the case of V&S, it will change matters for the better. To me, Voice and Style are characteristics best left to evolve on their own because any attention paid to them on their own detracts from their usefulness as tools in the service of the Story. I know one can argue that they are part of the Story as much as Plot and Character and to a lesser extent, Theme, but I believe they differ in that too much attention being paid to them can have an unfavorable effect on the overall Story. This is because they are the medium, not the message.

If someone told me that my work had aspects that defined it as mine, I would be glad to hear it, but I'm not sure I'd want to know the details. It's like when someone says you have a nice smile, and your response is to grin like a Cheshire for the rest of the day. Once you know, you can't not know, and I guess I would just prefer to not know. But that's just me.

User: jaylake Date: 2006-11-15 17:24 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

I don't think we disagree significantly, we're just approaching the question with different vocabularies. When I say "nurture voice", what I mean is "write more new stuff."

Like you, I am very serious about not thinking about my writing while I'm doing it. My best work always comes from deep inside. I do enjoy whacking it about while I'm not deep within.

User: juliabk Date: 2006-11-15 18:31 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Part of using voice is to know when to let the the 'singer' convey the 'song' and when to let the song support the singer.

User:	shawn_scarber
Date:	2006-11-15 16:48 (UTC)
Subject:	(no subject)

Well, here's a question. At what point in your editing/revision stage do you take into account critiques? I understand you're involved with a local workshop and you use first readers--what exactly do these outlets do for you that you couldn't accomplish on your own? I'm curious, because I happen to be struggling with revisions at the moment. I'm trying to determine just how useful critiques are to my work and what are some of the best ways to integrate these into the process. Honestly, so far, I seem to be learning more of my overall craft weaknesses from critiques, which is great stuff to know, but when it comes to basic story stuff, what I'm hearing just isn't clicking. And I'm a bit worried that there are certain elements of voice that come into play at the fundamental storytelling level. I mean, can voice be reflected in the structure as well as the style?

User: jaylake Date: 2006-11-15 17:45 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Here you go...my comment got verbose, so I switched it to another post.

http://jaylake.livejournal.com/789473.html

User:	blzblack
Date:	2006-11-15 17:24 (UTC)
Subject:	Once more! (Lost post--grumble)

I wasn't dissing your method. In fact, I recommended it.

I don't know how you differentiate editing and polishing. If you mean finding the right word is important, then yes I think polishing is crucial. I like stories that hit all the right notes that reverberate off each other into a beautiful whole. I don't like stories that end when you read the last word. I like them to send in my mind and continue to unravel. If that's what you mean by sweaty or what Brooke means by soulful, then I'm all for it. But we may be talking about something else entirely. I don't think you've ever defined sweaty. If you can't, you can't. But it'd be more helpful to us if you could show us what you mean.

User: jaylake Date: 2006-11-15 22:22 (UTC) Subject: Re: Once more! (Lost post--grumble)

You make an excellent point.

I've put "sweaty" on the list for an upcoming post.

User: davidlevine Date: 2006-11-15 20:21 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Although I can't disagree with what you've said here, I have to say that it is more true for you than for some other writers. Your stories are heavily stylistic -- heck, just look at the titles -- and your voice is a big part of what makes you, you. (I suspect your writing speed and your voice-based, revision-light work style are related.) But many other writers, such as Asimov and Heinlein and G. David Nordley and Larry Niven, and, perhaps, me, put much more emphasis on plot and idea, and in an idea-based story a straightforward, unadorned voice is not necessarily a problem. And if the voice of a story is straightforward and unadorned, polishing might be exactly what that voice needs to make it more of itself.

Nine and sixty ways.