Getting the voice right

[pegkerr]

I've been thinking about the (short) scene I wrote this morning and e-mailed to kijjohnson. It was an acceptable scene, I suppose, but I realized after I sent it that I probably didn't have Solveig's voice right. I had her getting emotional, and if I want to make her thinking oriented rather than feeling oriented, I have to approach it differently.

'Course, I can change my mind if I want to. But I think I do want to stick with trying to make Solveig thinking oriented, because that ties more closely into the heart of stone theme I'm exploring. I must think about how to handle this technically. She doesn't cry. She doesn't get upset. So how do I signal that something is a big deal for her? All my usual writing tricks (tears, big angst-y heartfelt speeches, yelling, etc.) won't work with her, if you will.

I realize that I don't have either Solveig or Jack's "voice" quite right yet. By this I don't mean whether they are soprano or baritone, but a confidence I can snap off a line of dialogue as either of them without thinking about it, and know that what comes out will be truly what their character would say. Solveig's much closer than Jack. With Jack, it gets back to my uneasy feeling I can't write a smart ass. Does he have to be a smart ass? What if he isn't?

This technique I'm using, of writing a lot of little scenes without worrying (yet) whether they'll even be in the book is quite useful for this process. It's like focusing a camera. Or stalking the wild wildebeest, or something (not this direction. Okay, turn and go this direction. No? Hmm. Try this direction.)

What I tell beginning writers, over and over again, is that the mistake that so many of them make is to think that writing is liking sculpting marble: one slip of the chisel, and you've lopped off Venus de Milo's arm. No, what writing is really like is sculpting on the potters wheel. You slap a bunch of clay on the wheel, you pour water on, you shape it, squeeze it, take a chunk off, put a large chunk back on, and what you're working with is very pliable. You just have to be sure to put enough clay on the wheel to start with. This writing method I'm using is like playing. I'm still trying to find the "shape" of the piece I'm working with, playing with different possibilities for Jack and Solveig's voices. Rather like an actor might try out several possibilities before settling on the interpretation of a character. Hopefully, I'll get closer and closer to what I want as I go along.

Cheers,
Peg

Comments

[pameladean]

I can't quite tell if you are talking about dialogue, viewpoint language, or both, but ways to demonstrate that something is a big deal to somebody who doesn't yell or get angsty are to show the focus and concentration, the amount of attention and effort expended upon the important thing. You can also look at word choice; it may all seem pretty unemphatic to a more emotional person, but it will change anyway if the person is talking about something that matters, or looking at something that matters, or trying to figure out what to do about it.

Pamela

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

A non-demonstrative, non-emotional character could be demonstrated by various physical reactions or behaviours. She doesn't engage but removes herself from such confrontations as quickly as possible. She's got some "nervous habit." She becomes quiet and doesn't respond to questions. She disappears (emotionally, physically, both?)

K. [likes suggesting things; you don't mind, do you?]

[porcinea.livejournal.com]

Some people who don't get demonstrably upset get very polite when they're angry. Is she angry, or grieving?

[aome.livejournal.com]

Sometimes people will make mistakes if they're actually upset, or if something "big deal" is on their mind, even if they're not showing it. Go through a stop sign, break a pencil because they're pressing too hard, misses something someone says to them because their mind is somewhere else....

As for 'smartass' -- read fanfiction involving Draco, and you'll see a lot of smartass. :-D Seriously, though - might that help you get a feel for it?

My husband is a bit of a smartass, btw. The pattern I see is that - you ask a question or ask him to do something, and half the time you don't get a useful answer.

[queerasjohn.livejournal.com]

With Jack, it gets back to my uneasy feeling I can't write a smart ass. Does he have to be a smart ass? What if he isn't?

Here's the question turned on its head: what is a smart ass? What does it involve? Can you narrow it down to three or five or ten personality traits, and then see if Jack matches those traits? What are the alternatives to smart arse? How does it differ from "sarky git", "rude bugger", "know it all", "clever clogs" and so on?

--J

[misia.livejournal.com]

Just a thought about Solveig: a former girlfriend of mine was a bit like that -- not very externally emotional under most circumstances. But over time I noticed something fascinating, namely, that normally she was a kind of rambly, thinking-while-talking speaker, very informal, with a tendency to use a lot of synonyms in a row while she sorted through words to find the right one for what she wanted to say (a la "...and then we saw this huge, enormous, big, massive... MASSIVE dog...").

But when she was very upset about something, the syntax of her speech changed enormously and became very terse, clipped, precise, and formal, and she would take long pauses in her speech to pick the right word before she said it. I could tell how upset she was by how brief her answers/responses to things became, and how carefully she was choosing her words.

I think it'd be eminently possible to convey a drastic shift in tone/style of speech like that, if you chose to explore that route.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

But when she was very upset about something, the syntax of her speech changed enormously and became very terse, clipped, precise, and formal, and she would take long pauses in her speech to pick the right word before she said it. I could tell how upset she was by how brief her answers/responses to things became, and how carefully she was choosing her words.

Oo. I'm a thinking-oriented person, and this is exactly what I do when I'm upset about something important. (Upset about minor things, I rant.) Peg, the mental aspect of this involves running rapidly through branching trees of consequence - kind of like a chess player thinking three moves ahead. If I say this, it will play out that way - if I say that, this other thing will happen - and so on until I select something. The thoughts have much greater volume and velocity than the words.

Actually, that's a key indicator of how important something is, with me: how many thoughts it generates, how fast they follow one another, how rich the strands of connections are between them.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I've posted something related to this in my LJ. It's long. I hope it isn't completely incomprehensible.

Thanks, Jo

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

I have printed it out for my book file and will ponder further.

Cheers,
Peg

[kishmish.livejournal.com]

From the way you talk about Jack, I've always thought he was rather silent and had a sort of wall around him that some might call mysterious. I'm not denying he's a smartass, but he could be one of those people who don't mince their words and never make small talk. He may not talk a lot but when he does it could be sharp and to the point, which comes across as sarky smartass. I dunno, I'm just throwing ideas out.

[peacockharpy.livejournal.com]

As a thinker rather than a feeler myself (I'm an ISTJ), I note that my reactions are:

Small anger: Rant, say things I don't mean (i.e., "I will take that cat to the POUND the next time he does this!). I work out my anger through words.

Big anger: Quiet, still, thinking hard around the issue. Afraid that if I give in to even one iota of the emotion, the dam will break and I'll go into a berserker rage -- so I work my reactions around the emotion.

Fear: Analyze, analyze, analyze. Think of all possible ways to save oneself from potential "bad situations." (For instance, fear serial killers, read every book I can find on serial killers so I can learn all about it and thus save myself.)

Shock/grief: Silent, analytical, focused on "what to DO" rather than on feelings. If the shock is big enough, this manifests as trying to ride my horse off in too many directions. (Sometimes have a big cry afterward, but won't do it in front of anyone.)

I'd think that Solveig would be a person who would cope with things admirably and would inspire comments like "she can certainly keep her head in a crisis" but also "If it were MY child who disappeared, I'd certainly be upset -- but she doesn't seem to care at all!"

I think it's not that the emotions aren't there -- they are -- but giving in to the emotion is too much, too revealing -- so I overcompensate with other reactions.

- Darice

Oh!

[pameladean]

Peg, Peg, Peg! Two words -- Harriet Vane!

Not the only way to do such a character, but the great thing is that you have both analysis of what being this kind of person in a particular mileau is like, and actual demonstrations of how she thinks and behaves.

Pamela

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

All of these suggestions are interesting, but I'm not sure they will convey to the reader that Solveig is angry. The reader isn't going to be living with her long enough to pick up on these subtle clues. Using them is fine, but I think you're going to have to also tell the reader explicily what's going on. (It occurs to me that what I just said is obvious. I don't know; I've never written fiction.)

B