|
|
Post by whdean on Apr 26, 2014 11:01:00 GMT -5
Stephen King said something to the effect that people come for the voice. I've experienced one case of that. Just finished Craig Johnson’s The Cold Dish, the first in the Longmire series. It’s written in the first person. And it is so well-written, so richly written, and the dialogue and characters were so good that I wasn’t the least bit disappointed with the rather bizarre ending. I won’t reveal it, of course, but it seemed barely foreshadowed and even a little hackneyed. But I didn’t care because Craig as Sheriff Longmire has such a fantastic voice and there was so much more there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Apr 26, 2014 11:21:37 GMT -5
Being able to create that kind of voice is a wonderful strength.
|
|
|
|
Post by shawninmon on Apr 26, 2014 12:39:47 GMT -5
I put myself in that camp. If someone has a wonderful, rich voice, I am much more forgiving over plot contrivances and the like, because I just can't work up the effort to care. Most of the time (11/22/63 is a great example)that is true for SK's books. What I really envy him is his ability to make me care about a character so effortlessly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Suzy on Apr 26, 2014 12:43:45 GMT -5
I sometimes read books just for the voice and the wonderful prose. But authors often have a different voice if they write in different genres, which is interesting. One particular author I have read writes wonderful prose in his short stories and I loved those but that voice is not present in his full-length novels at all.
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on Apr 26, 2014 13:52:04 GMT -5
I agree with this completely. I read several writers because their voice is entertaining, and I don't give a damn about their plot or characters. Terry Pratchett is an example of this for me (I know thousands of Pratchett fans would disagree wildly). His world-building is great and so are many of his characters, but his plots are often terrible. I've stopped even paying attention to them. I come for the laughs, and those are in the way he writes. I couldn't care less what actually happens in his books. Douglas Adams was similar.
Ultimately I think that's how I'd like to write too, but I can't seem to manage it in third person, only first.
With some writers, who are skilled at plots but whose voice is nothing special, I guess reading them is about the destination: you want to know what happens at the end. With writers with a fantastic voice, it's all about the journey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 14:33:21 GMT -5
I agree with this completely. I read several writers because their voice is entertaining, and I don't give a damn about their plot or characters. Terry Pratchett is an example of this for me (I know thousands of Pratchett fans would disagree wildly). His world-building is great and so are many of his characters, but his plots are often terrible. I've stopped even paying attention to them. I come for the laughs, and those are in the way he writes. I couldn't care less what actually happens in his books. Douglas Adams was similar. Ultimately I think that's how I'd like to write too, but I can't seem to manage it in third person, only first. With some writers, who are skilled at plots but whose voice is nothing special, I guess reading them is about the destination: you want to know what happens at the end. With writers with a fantastic voice, it's all about the journey. I'm pretty certain that no one reads Pratchett for plot!  As you say, it's ALL about the voice and the world-building, and the latter primarily for what it has to say about fantasy world-building in general. I think this is why his stuff would be pretty hard to translate successfully to film and television, although I know it's been done (though I don't know how successfully). Most of his characters are fun but fairly weightless, although there are some delightful exceptions, ranging from the obvious (DEATH, Vetinari) to those that are clearly personal extensions of Pratchett himself (Vimes and Granny Weatherwax). Oh, and my son and I named our gray cat Carrot because his unself-conscious exuberance and self-confident attitude reminded us of Pratchett's creation. |
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Apr 26, 2014 15:20:02 GMT -5
I'll admit to being less cultured than the rest of you. A great voice is nice, but the story is everything for me. Beautiful prose without a plot (or with a poor plot) leaves me completely dissatisfied. On the other hand, a great story makes me happy for days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 15:23:07 GMT -5
I'll admit to being less cultured than the rest of you. A great voice is nice, but the story is everything for me. Beautiful prose without a plot (or with a poor plot) leaves me completely dissatisfied. On the other hand, a great story makes me happy for days. I want to clarify that, for me at least, it's not about beautiful prose - it's about the distinctive voice of the MC, or voices of the viewpoint characters, and how much they intrigue or delight me. If your voices are fairly standard, yes, you damn well better have a story that hooks me and doesn't have lots of logical gaps, but if your voices rock my world, well... I have some room for forgiveness on plot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 15:51:02 GMT -5
I want to clarify that, for me at least, it's not about beautiful prose - it's about the distinctive voice of the MC, or voices of the viewpoint characters, and how much they intrigue or delight me. For me there is a difference between the author's "voice," and how well I can connect with the characters. Since the only way of doing that is through their words, that means I have to like their voice. Characters trump plot (for me at least), plot trumps author's voice, author's voice/style trumps grammar. If I can't connect with the characters I will never read far enough into a book to become aware of a plot if there is one. There are exceptions. Golding was one. Pullman wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by vrabinec on Apr 26, 2014 15:55:41 GMT -5
I'll admit to being less cultured than the rest of you. A great voice is nice, but the story is everything for me. Beautiful prose without a plot (or with a poor plot) leaves me completely dissatisfied. On the other hand, a great story makes me happy for days. Yeah, I might be a LITTLE more forgiving, but it's a jot, and no more. Besides, the voice has to please me in the first place for me to pick up the book, so they've all crossed a certain threshold to begin with. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 16:08:40 GMT -5
I'll admit to being less cultured than the rest of you. A great voice is nice, but the story is everything for me. Beautiful prose without a plot (or with a poor plot) leaves me completely dissatisfied. On the other hand, a great story makes me happy for days. Yeah, I might be a LITTLE more forgiving, but it's a jot, and no more. Besides, the voice has to please me in the first place for me to pick up the book, so they've all crossed a certain threshold to begin with. Let me get this straight: You hear the book's voice before you pick it up? Because that might actually be a sign you need medication. |
|
|
|
Post by scdaffron on Apr 26, 2014 18:30:33 GMT -5
I agree with LeeBee that the voice doesn't have to be "beautiful" but distinctive is good. For example, Janet Evanovitch's books don't have gorgeous prose, but the main character's voice (Stephanie Plum) in the number novels is often hilarious, so it's memorable  |
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on Apr 27, 2014 7:59:15 GMT -5
I'll admit to being less cultured than the rest of you. A great voice is nice, but the story is everything for me. Beautiful prose without a plot (or with a poor plot) leaves me completely dissatisfied. On the other hand, a great story makes me happy for days. I want to clarify that, for me at least, it's not about beautiful prose - it's about the distinctive voice of the MC, or voices of the viewpoint characters, and how much they intrigue or delight me. If your voices are fairly standard, yes, you damn well better have a story that hooks me and doesn't have lots of logical gaps, but if your voices rock my world, well... I have some room for forgiveness on plot. Exactly what LeeBee said. Beautiful prose without plot is not my bag, baby. For me, the maths looks something like this: Voice > Plot > Quality of writing All three are nice, of course, and every so often you come across a book that has them all and run out into the street dancing and heartily recommending it to passers-by. But that's the order in which I prioritise them. If the narration is entertaining (and for me it's usually about how funny it is), I don't really care what it's saying. If the plot is good, I'll overlook a slightly pedestrian writing style. I do enjoy a well-constructed sentence, but not enough to slog through a weak plot to find them. |
|
|
|
Post by vrabinec on Apr 28, 2014 10:04:01 GMT -5
I want to clarify that, for me at least, it's not about beautiful prose - it's about the distinctive voice of the MC, or voices of the viewpoint characters, and how much they intrigue or delight me. If your voices are fairly standard, yes, you damn well better have a story that hooks me and doesn't have lots of logical gaps, but if your voices rock my world, well... I have some room for forgiveness on plot. Exactly what LeeBee said. Beautiful prose without plot is not my bag, baby. For me, the maths looks something like this: Voice > Plot > Quality of writing All three are nice, of course, and every so often you come across a book that has them all and run out into the street dancing and heartily recommending it to passers-by. But that's the order in which I prioritise them. If the narration is entertaining (and for me it's usually about how funny it is), I don't really care what it's saying. If the plot is good, I'll overlook a slightly pedestrian writing style. I do enjoy a well-constructed sentence, but not enough to slog through a weak plot to find them. Wouldn't voice and quality of writing be synonymous? |
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on Apr 28, 2014 10:09:08 GMT -5
Wouldn't voice and quality of writing be synonymous? I see what you're saying. I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it. And I guess also it depends what "a good voice" and "good writing" mean to you. I favour a humorous, possibly sarcastic tone, which I would call the voice, whereas to me good writing is well-constructed sentences, vivid descriptions and clever turns of phrase. So a book could have one but not necessarily the other. Does that make sense? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 10:45:36 GMT -5
Exactly what LeeBee said. Beautiful prose without plot is not my bag, baby. For me, the maths looks something like this: Voice > Plot > Quality of writing All three are nice, of course, and every so often you come across a book that has them all and run out into the street dancing and heartily recommending it to passers-by. But that's the order in which I prioritise them. If the narration is entertaining (and for me it's usually about how funny it is), I don't really care what it's saying. If the plot is good, I'll overlook a slightly pedestrian writing style. I do enjoy a well-constructed sentence, but not enough to slog through a weak plot to find them. Wouldn't voice and quality of writing be synonymous? No, not at all (IMO). The narrative can be of good quality without that extra something that makes you sit up and grin as you read it, or that makes you ache a little every other paragraph. Voice is what does that; it's that extra combination of seasonings that takes the dish from good to memorable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 12:49:08 GMT -5
Exactly what LeeBee said. Beautiful prose without plot is not my bag, baby. For me, the maths looks something like this: Voice > Plot > Quality of writing All three are nice, of course, and every so often you come across a book that has them all and run out into the street dancing and heartily recommending it to passers-by. But that's the order in which I prioritise them. If the narration is entertaining (and for me it's usually about how funny it is), I don't really care what it's saying. If the plot is good, I'll overlook a slightly pedestrian writing style. I do enjoy a well-constructed sentence, but not enough to slog through a weak plot to find them. You can have the most riveting plot, if I don't care about the characters it might as well not be there. If I do empathize with the characters the plot isn't even all that important, and the author's voice even less. If I like the characters you can have them grocery shopping and I still will love it. Of course, a brilliant book would have characters I care about, which doesn't even mean they have to be likable in the strict sense, a spellbinding plot and a masterful author's voice. Characters → Plot → Author's voice/Quality of writing → → → → Grammar peculiarities. |
|
|
|
Post by lindymoone on Apr 29, 2014 6:01:51 GMT -5
Well, I think everything's been said, above. Everything except the screaming: WILL SOMEBODY HERE PLEASE READ MY BOOK(S) AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK OF THE VOICE, CHARACTERS, PLOT, QUALITY OF WRITING, AND GRAMMAR PECULIARITIES?! There. I said it. Now you don't have to...  |
|
|
|
Post by Pru Freda on Apr 29, 2014 6:33:33 GMT -5
Well, I think everything's been said, above. Everything except the screaming: WILL SOMEBODY HERE PLEASE READ MY BOOK(S) AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK OF THE VOICE, CHARACTERS, PLOT, QUALITY OF WRITING, AND GRAMMAR PECULIARITIES?! There. I said it. Now you don't have to... Such a lot of screaming. Bet you've lost your voice, now. |
|
|
|
Post by lindymoone on Apr 29, 2014 6:47:44 GMT -5
Never! |
|
As you say, it's ALL about the voice and the world-building, and the latter primarily for what it has to say about fantasy world-building in general. I think this is why his stuff would be pretty hard to translate successfully to film and television, although I know it's been done (though I don't know how successfully).
