"Giving parenting advice is a lot like giving writing advice. You can say a lot of things that sound very intelligent and thoughtful, but when it comes down to the actual act, it's mostly intuition and the inescapable fact of who you are." - Michael Agger
I'm both 100% sure this is dead-on correct, and at the same time 100% sure its wrong.
It seems to me you have a "voice" that is yours and that is hard to jump out of or alter without sounding affected. Sure, in a chapter or character, you may be able to ignore that style or voice you write in. But generally, itsn't that voice the sum of your years of writing and reading and learning and accumulating.? Plus, its probably somewhat inborn. Don't we arrive at our voice or style by adopting the voice or style that happens to coincide with that which we find pleasing and like ourselves? Even if don't conciously realize it?
If you have a talent for writing biographies, or crime thrillers, for fantasy fiction, you'll probably like those things because you'll succeed at them. Perhaps that isn't exactly on point, but I think it speaks to the "innateness" of the voice.
OTOH, there is a certain amount of work that goes into writing. By by "certain amount," I mean giant, brown, steaming, heaping piles of the stuff. Its not exactly like walking, is it? No. Walking, well, just about anyone can do it and there really isn't a "proper" way to do it. Its innate in us. We don't have to watch film of ourselves walking or study to learn to do it better. But only the most select of authors can write good, clean copy straight through without the need for revision. But is that because the author's innate voice fails, or because enough effort hadn't been put in? Certainly, the written word, even after self editing, can be improved by the "very intelligent and thoughtful" comments of others. Then again, I've seen editors change a perfectly fine story to conform to some entirely arbitrary "standard" that amounts to not liking the "voice" it was in. Both stories were fine - the first just didn't have the "voice" the editor expected/liked.
I really do think that sometimes editors go overboard. Sometimes their style becomes the style. Its not bad, per se. But I think it does limit creativity and deprives readers of another voice. Maybe not a familiar voice, but a voice. Not everyone has to write the same way, and forcing them to do so to comply with an arbitrary standard insults the reader. But that's another story for another time.
So which is it? Is there an innateness to writing; or is the intuition bit just a lazy cop out? Is it a choice between "you've got it or you don't" and "with enough work, anyone could do this?"
- Incidently, the quote is from a story written by a Slate writer who has traded places with his writer wife. She's going into the office, he's staying home and writing. Its interesting, and almost worth a read, even if its not really related to this post.
I think anyone can eventually write well but some people are born with a natural knack for capturing the audience's attention.
ReplyDeleteReally as writers there are two audiences: the I of the writer and the them of the reader. We write to satisfy the I, and most people hope that somewhere along the way the them is satisfied too. Editors are supposed to help that along by taking what I wrote and having it make sense for them. Editors shouldn't change your voice (especially in creative works) unless your voice is a garbled scream into a pillow.