Technically correct, but…

[JS Wiig]

@Guttersnipe that’s a good idea, I’m going to focus more on characterization and emotional expression for a bit and see what shakes out. Thanks!

 

[W Collier]

I wouldn't worry about it. Technically correct is, as we all know, the best kind of correct.

 

[The Big Peat]

Like the comparison and think it's accurate, and that voice is indeed a key thing.

I am also unsure how much it can be consciously developed - and would also add that connecting with characters isn't always about voice (or at least, not voice as in how the prose reads), sometimes it's about finding the right actions (although in a way the actions you tend to choose for your characters will be part of your voice).

I guess if I were to try and develop it I might try imitating writers who I think had a good voice, or paying careful attention to distinctive sounding people on TV or the like. Voice is yours so you can't steal it (that much), but seeing the cadence of how people add observations their own way might spark something.

 

[Andy Hauser]

Read a lot. Write a lot. Repeat!
I'm a musician of 10 years as well and can definitely relate, having only started my writing journey this year.

It'll take some time before we're as unique in our writing as we are in our playing.

 

[DLCroix]

Read a lot.

That is not an important point, but a decisive, fundamental one. You also have to bear in mind that, like it or not, as a writer you are evoking the original role that began with Sophocles, Homer, that is, as a thinker, for which it is recommended that some of these readings be in fact philosophy.
However, here I must make a clarification, it is not about studying or reading philosophy to preach, but due to the premise or idea that is always behind a work. For example, one can say that the idea of his novel is the eternal fight of good against evil, like Star Wars or Dune, since it is fashionable, but if the author does not know philosophy, or life itself in short, If he does not know people and how they think or act, his story will only be a little battle of spaceships, it will lack substance. Because, although we know that Star Wars was a space rehash of the Lord of the Rings, the analogies are unquestionable, the elephants and their analogs in the AT-ATs, the empire just an evolution of the army of Sauron, etc., anyway it has the mysticism of force, a certain criticism of the weakness of democracies, a much more evident criticism of fanatical militarisms.
On the other hand, anyway the author has an opinion column or editorial part; the author, whoever the narrator he chooses, and although it is clear that the epistolary and well-intentioned but rather naive style of yesteryear is no longer accepted (that that was to preach in a blatant way), by the very way in which he designs the events of story, whether he wants to or does not he gives his opinion. Therefore, since he will do such a thing, it is appreciated that he knows what he is talking about, that at all times he is a conscious sender of the message that he is delivering, if possible it is even appreciated that he knows symbology of the image or Semiotic. The author cannot say, "Ah, I had no idea that I was communicating that."

Another important point is knowing the humor. The tricky thing about humor is that it is based on a shared wisdom and in fact it works only if his analogies find a reference that the public knows. That already begins to delimit the field in which a writer moves, for example I can say, regarding a character that does not expect anything good: "Maria Antonieta had more future" in clear allusion to the French queen who went through the guillotine. As for the author, it is a mixture of a joke, black humor and analogy, but I also know that not everyone knows who Maria Antonieta was and therefore I am accepting that those who do not know will not understand it and will be left out of that field. Because you as an author also speak to a type of reader, they are decisions that you make, in my case I am speaking to a type of reader who has a certain cultural baggage. You should not fear this, your readers are the ones who will accompany you on this kind of boat or journey.

 

[Toby Frost]

My short answer would be "Don't worry about it: keep writing and it'll come".

My longer answer is this: ultimately, how does fiction writing work? Well, at bottom it's basically telling the reader what happened next - preferably in an enjoyable and stylish way, but mainly saying what happened next. Too often, we are encouraged to treat writing like some kind of seance, as if we have to unconsciously commune with the spirit of the story and produce genius in a kind of artistic trance. I don't think it works like that at all. First, get the story down. Then improve it in editing.

Obviously, you need to obey the rules (except for moments of breaking them for effect): grammar, logic and so on. After that, it's often a matter of thinking "What do I want to say now? What's the best way of describing it?". At some level, the reader needs to think "Yes, in the circumstances, this rings true". I find that this trying to clearly express what is happening, and what the story and setting would be like, leads towards good prose (unlike the rest of this paragraph, which isn't my best).

The more you write, and the more used you get to editing, the better you'll get at putting down prose that just feels correct. In the meantime, I wouldn't worry about your writing being stilted or awkward. I think it's often less noticeable to the reader than it is to the writer.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Characters can be vague (as in their personality, not their realisation), but narrative/direction has to be clear.

Oh Gods yes! This! Vague waffly descriptions and ambiguous stage directions have killed more books (and movies come to that) for me that anything else. If it's obvious the author (director) doesn't know where her characters are, what they are looking at and doing in a scene (even if she doesn't tell the reader or deliberately hides things) then what's the point?

 

[Deke]

I know what you are talking about with wanting that depth and color in your book. A lot of books I read I can see the world in my mind and it’s colorful and lush and other, less well written books everything seems flat and grey.

I’m working on this in my own stuff, one of the tricks I have tried is building a book that has all of your lore, people, and places. I call it my Codex, but I’ve seen other people call it their books bible or guidebook. It helps to have that well made tool to fall back on and engraves it in your mind that this is city A or character B and here is what it looks and smells like on this street that I want to be a scene.

Another trick I am trying is to sit down with my wife and hand her a list of questions and more or less interview each of my characters and I record the answers and write them down. Stuff like “why did you join this organization?” “Tell me about your parents or childhood” ect.

I do that for all my characters I mention by name and I hope it will make them seem more three dimensional.

Hope that helps.

 

[DLCroix]

And don't forget the trip, all the stories have a sense of going from A to B both psychological and geographical, otherwise the travel diaries market would not have exploded. But in a police story it will obviously be more psychological. Even so, it always gives some references to the reader, if it is a city, explain in a sentence or two what kind of city it is, the same if it is a jungle or a forest. So that it does not seem like an infodump, you can make the protagonist have some thought about that like Ismael in Moby Dick, "let's see what kind of place is this" harpoon tavern "or something like that, or some character talking to the protagonist about what the city is like or the village.

 

[JunkMonkey]

And engage all the senses. Not just what it looks like. What does it smell like? sound like? taste or feel like? cold? hot?

Someone opening an inn door and being hit by the stench of unwashed locals is going to tell you more about the place than any number of descriptions of low, beamed ceilings, chipped drinkware, or limited menu choices.

 

[DLCroix]

That's how it is. In that sensory sense, let's say, Robert Conrad is second to none.