Storytelling vs. Writing

On a fantasy writing forum that I have recently joined, a member posted a question:

I know both the story and the way it's written is important, but if you had to pick one above the other, which would it be and why?

First, of course, I have to pause to sigh at the imposed false dilemma. Why is it that humans have such an urge to force ourselves and others to choose "one or the other" when there is no real need to do so? There is absolutely no reason to make one aspect of storytelling more important or more of a focus than another, unless that is your personal preference.

Second, one has to ask what the questioner means by "story" and "the way it's written". This is the missing element that bothers me in so many debates. Terms are seldom defined even though we all tend to mean different things by what we say. To be on the same page in any discussion it is important to understand how we are using certain words, to agree on how to define the terms being discussed. For instance, to me "story" includes the whole package. Story includes the individual elements of the particular story being told (plot, characters, setting, theme, etc.) as well as how it is told by the author (exposition, dramatization, characterization, description, foreshadowing, etc.). So in my opinion there is no such thing as "story" vs. "the way it's written".

However, if you define "the way it's written" as "the technical aspects of writing" such as sentence structure, word choice, and techniques based in the words themselves such as alliteration then I think there is a very important difference between "storytelling" and "writing". A difference that one has to think back to the oral storytellers of other eras to fully appreciate.

I have a book called Hibernian Nights which is a collection of the stories told by Seumas MacManus, a real Irish shanachie (storyteller), often called the last. In his preface he laments the lost art of the told story. There are certain qualities of the told story which the read story can never possess, he says. For one, the told story is a living story. The storyteller can alter it each time he tells it, adding details or flourishes or whatever he wishes in the moment. The read story, he says, is dead on the page. He describes the told story as "glowing, appealing and dancing with energetic vitality- the personality and inspiration that the good storyteller can always command into the tale he tells." In addition, he says that the read story possesses alone the value of the story its self while the told story also benefits from "the golden worth of the good storyteller's captivating art and enhancing personality- trebling its worth."

Now I agree with him to an extent. These are real problems with the written down, read story. However, I disagree that these are unchangeable qualities of the read story. I don't think it has to be that way. I think authors have been taught to write that way. Yet I have read many stories in books where the author's voice came through so well that I did feel I was being told a story and it felt alive. I love those stories more than any others. Yet across the internet I see the advice to stay far away from the feeling of the "told story", to keep yourself separate from the story. I think this is terrible advice. I think it is a real detriment to literature. In addition, the advice I see across the internet focuses on technical aspects of writing. We are told to improve our storytelling by avoiding certain types of words to avoid any storytelling technique that presents even the slightest challenge. Our tools are removed from our hands by the so called experts and we are patted on the head and told to be a good little author and write things that appeal to critics (agents and editors) instead of readers.

Seumas MacManus

But, as I said, I don't think it has to be that way. I think most of the great things about the told story can still come through a written story, if the author has the art of it. And what is lost, for instance the changeableness of it, I think is outweighed by the good. I think in many ways the written story in this day and age can move above and beyond the told story, but not if we abandon the value to be found in the told story. You build on a good foundation, you don't tear it down before putting up your walls.

We have certainly all but lost the art of good storytelling, which, as Seumas MacManus says, "was ever a propagator of joy". I think that in losing the art we've also lost the joy. My goal, at least, is to try to find it again and do what I can to propagate it a little. That's what's important to me as a reader and a writer.

My Anime: The Book of Bantorra

Last night my husband and I finished watching the anime The Book of Bantorra. It was good. Really good. The first anime we've tried in a while that made me want to stay up way longer than I should to keep watching. It also made me question some things about my story preferences that I thought were true.

First, let me give you a quick summary of the show's premise. In Bantorra's universe when people die their bodies slowly turn into books (which look like vaguely book sized slabs of rock) which other people can touch to read and learn the deceased's life story. Bantorra Library is home of the Armed Librarians (how cool is that?) whose job is to collect, organize and protect the books. The Armed Librarians are in conflict with the Church of Drowning in God's Grace (also called the Shindeki Church) who believe that being human means that you have the right to seek happiness at all costs. The top ranks of the Church are the True Men, who use others to gain happiness and thus create the most beautiful books of their lives that they can. Then there are the Mock Men who serve the True Men. Lowest of all are the Meats who the True Men have brainwashed to forget their humanity. Meats are used as cannon fodder and guinea pigs in various experiments the Church carries out.

To say more would be to give away too much. The anime is full of intrigue, of world-changing secrets and interesting plot twists. It's well worth the watch. So what assumptions did it call into question?

1. I thought I hated character death.

Of course I don't mean ALL character death. Sometimes it's appropriate or even necessary to the story. But I have firmly hated and condemned the kind of character death that G.R.R. Martin engages in: where characters seem to die right and left and the only purpose of it seems to be either a glorification of violence or "Ha! You thought you could root for him? You never know whose going to die or when in this book! Don't get too comfortable, reader. Muahahahahaha!" OK, that may be a bit of an exaggeration but I think you know what I mean.

Many characters die in Bantorra and only some of them are bad guys. The first episode introduces a group of Armed Librarians. As typical in anime they are all given a unique look and unique abilities and unique personalities. They are presented as whole characters. Only a few of them will survive to the end. And while it hurt each time one of them died, somehow it fit into the mood and theme and direction of the story perfectly. And perhaps this is the key to why it worked for me: (semi spoiler) the climax involves a two layered fight involving the still surviving characters and all the characters that had died thus far all working together in their respective realms to win the conflict. It was awesome.

Three of these characters die.

 So while many of the deaths seem pointless at the time, ultimately they have meaning.

2. I thought I hated unsympathetic, morally questionable main characters.

In truth, there's not really one main character in The Book of Bantorra. But Hamyuts Meseta, the acting director of Bantorra Library, is certainly one of the most important characters. (She's the one in the image above with the ridiculous cleavage.) She's also a terrible, terrible person.

In the very first episode she uses her power to blow up a ship despite all of the people that are still on it including her own Armed Librarians. The rest of the series establishes that she is ruthless, bloodthirsty and extremely deadly. She is clearly keeping some ominous secrets and no one really knows who she is or what her goals are. And at first I didn't like her. But then...

One of the things I love about anime is how EVERY SINGLE character is far deeper and more complex than they appear in the beginning. But animes tend to take their time about revealing the full picture of their characters. Each new storyline will deepen your knowledge of the characters. It's like each character is a puzzle. In the beginning of the series the frame of the puzzle is intact and slowly new pieces are added with each arc the character goes through until you can finally see the whole picture. It's fantastic. Hamyuts is no exception.

One of the other characters, Minth, has an ability called Sacred Eyes which allows him to look into people's souls. He once used it on Hamyuts. He expected, he says, to see nothing but evil and villainy in her soul, but was surprised. He finds that her main trait is self-loathing, her thoughts are void, and she wishes for love.

By the end of the series I could believe that, even though in the beginning she had seemed a villain. Slowly, gradually, so that you barely notice it consciously, she is deepened. And in the end it is possible to sympathize with her and even root for her to win. It is expertly done.

3. I thought I wanted romances to have a happy ending.

Tragic romances are all well and good when you are young. But being a wife and a mother has made me prefer seeing a good happy ending for lovers. It's gotten to the point where I'm likely to shun a story if I think it's going to be too heartbreaking. And yet...

There are several romantic or semi-romantic couples in The Book of Bantorra. The only couple that has something like a happy ending are never at any point physically together (they live hundreds of years apart). Three couples are separated by death. Two of those three never consummated their relationship. It was always on the brink of something more. All four of these relationships were beautiful, each in different ways. And they were heartbreaking and I loved them.

I would totally ship Noloty and Enlike. 

So what's the moral here? I think it's that there are no rights and wrongs when it comes to story telling. Anything can work. It just depends on how well you implement it. But you can't know how well you might or might not be able to carry out a particular technique or trope until you try it. At that point, you should let the readers decide whether it's good or bad.

What is an Epic?

Ok, I'll let this one go.

The word "epic" gets bandied around a lot on the internet these days and I admit that it makes me very sad to see the meaning of the word watered down and used in ridiculous ways. The truth is that the word epic comes from the Greek meaning "word, story, poem" and was traditionally used to refer to a lengthy narrative poem. Homer wrote epics. The word does not refer to something you think is neat or impressive. It is not an adjective to be shoved willy nilly in front of the words "win" or "fail" as if they weren't opposites.

Of course, we've appropriated the term for things other than narrative poetry that aren't so stupid. I'm a pretty big fan of Epic Fantasy. But then, I think we've been defining Epic Fantasy too loosely. If we're going to use the term "epic" for prose rather than poetry, that's understandable. Long narrative poems just aren't really a viable method for storytelling these days. But I do think that our prose version of the epic should at least participate in some of the other characteristics that set the epic poem apart.

This definition of the epic is from A Handbook to Literature by William Harmon and C. Hugh Holman:

Epic: a long narrative poem in elevated style presenting characters of high position in adventures forming an organic whole through their relation to a central heroic figure and through their development of episodes important to the history of a nation or race.

Let's look at some of these elements. 

An Elevated Style 

Within the context of poetry, that's pretty self explanatory. Poetry is an elevated style. But what would this mean in the context of a prose tale? The idea brings to mind passages from certain works that express ideas and emotions so strong, so grand, so glorious that you want to shout them into a thunderstorm or while swinging a sword above your head. Words that stir you. For instance, it used to be that whenever we had a storm around here my husband would feel the need to go outside and proclaim into the gale:

And thou, all-shaking thunder,
Strike flat the thick rotundity o’ the world!

Which is, of course, a line from Shakespeare's King Lear. Just the other night I read some lines from the classic fantasy novel The Worm Ouroboros which gave me distinct chills:

And now, let the earth be afraid, and Cynthia obscure her shrine: no more words but mum. Thunder and blood and night must usurp our parts, to complete and make up the catastrophe of this great piece.

Or this from Time and the Gods by Lord Dunsany:

Far over the waters, and on the wings of the prayers beats the light of an inaccessible star. No hand hath touched it, none hath journeyed to it, it hath no substance, it is only a light, it is the star of Hope, and it shines far over the sea and brightens the world.

An elevated style, I think, is using the power and the sound and rhythm of words to conjure up in our hearts things of grandeur and beauty. Things greater than anything we are likely to experience in our day to day lives. 

Central Heroic Figure and Characters of High Position

Achilles. Beowulf. Odysseus. Gilgamesh. Rama. Siegfried. 

The great epics feature huge casts of characters, but the nexus of the story is the Hero. The character whose words and actions can move mountains and ultimately drive the story. The Hero of an epic is a larger than life character and usually embodies the values of the culture from which the epic is born.

The Hero is not, of course, the only character of importance. Given the vast scope of most epics there will be many other actors in the drama having their own adventures and escapades either with the Hero or on the side. But all the parts of the tale come together through their relation to the Hero. He is, in other words, the glue that holds the epic together.

But why, one might ask, should an epic specifically be concerned with "characters of high position".

Well, keep in mind that the art form of the epic goes back thousands of years to times and places where it was only those of high position who would have participated in adventures on a scale grand enough to influence the history of a nation and justify an epic. Everyone else was too busy wondering where their next meal would come from. Also, which type of tale would you rather be entertained with at the end of a long day toiling in the fields? A story about Joe who lives in the next village and has the exact same cares and faces the exact same conflicts as you? Or the tale of mighty Achilles overcoming the great Hector outside the walls of Troy? I know which I'd prefer.

Still, we live in a different world now. People of "high position" who can change the course of a nation or influence a culture can come from anywhere. To incorporate this idea into a modern prose epic one can choose to focus on the individuals in a story that have the most at stake and the most influence over their world. The characters whose actions and words have powerful ramifications within their culture are the characters of "high position".

Episodes Important to the History of a Nation

My husband suggests that a better choice of wording in this part of the definition would be "episodes important to the identity of a nation or race". In other words, epics are born out of a culture as well as helping to shape the culture. Reading the ancient epics gives us insight into the mind and heart of the cultures of the ancient world. These epic poems developed from the tales told by the people as part of their cultural identity. They reflect what was sacred to the people, what made them Greeks or Romans or Anglo-Saxons, etc.

Stories don't have quite the same relationship with culture these days. Not only because there are hundreds of thousands of books published every year allowing us to be really picky about which ones we readers turn into successes, but also because culture just doesn't mean the same thing these days. The world has become, at the same time, a much bigger and much smaller place. Bigger because we're not confined to villages anymore. Smaller because the unknown and unexplored has all but vanished. Which is why, I believe, a lot of us have turned to the realms of fantasy and science fiction for those things which once would have been part of the cultural epic.

To achieve the same kind of importance and meaning in a prose epic today an author almost has no choice but to create their own setting. An epic should involve circumstances and events that have far reaching consequences and it should be played out across a vast and lofty canvas. 

Artist's rendition of mythological Ireland, where the sagas of the Age of Heroes happened.

I'll be honest. I think there's too much "epic fantasy" out there that doesn't count as epic in any way. I think we need more truly epic works of fiction. And the reason I am exploring this topic is because it is my goal to write some. Toward that end, I'll probably spend some time talking about particular epics and examining some of the other common elements of the ancient epic here in future posts. Wish me good fortune!

Insecure Writer's Support Group: The Importance of Storytelling

Sometimes we get caught up in storytelling as entertainment and forget how essential it is to our development as human beings and our relation to others. So today I have a story from my personal life to help remind us of that important truth.

This little lesson on the importance of storytelling was impressed on me by my 5 year-old son with Asperger's. To set it up a bit, my son, Maedhros, has a very hard time going to bed at night. He has some ADHD as well, which commonly goes along with Asperger's in children, and so it's very hard for him to just shut down when bed time comes. He gets a lot of leniency because of that. One night, my husband and I had allowed him to stay up late with us. When we finally insisted that it was time for all of us to go to bed it was around midnight. He still fought us about it. But I put my foot down and insisted he had to go to bed in his room. We went into our room and left him outside in the hallway having a tantrum.

As we lay in bed listening to his shouts for the moment when he would start bringing himself under control, we noticed something interesting. He was shouting something very specific.

"Come on, you guys! You can't!" and "Mom! Dad! Come on, quit eating! Get out of here!" followed by "Mom! Dad! Where are you?" We could tell that he was moving around a lot while saying these things too. Eventually it all clicked, and we realized that he was completely acting out a scene from one of our family's favorite movies: Spirited Away.


(Which, by the way, is a brilliant movie by Hayao Miyazaki that everyone should see regardless of age.)

The particular scene he was quoting word for word is when the heroine, Chihiro, and her parents wander into a sort of resort for the spirit world. The mom and dad find an empty shop full of appetizing foods and start gorging themselves, thinking they can just pay later. But as the sun sets and the spirit world awakens, Chihiro's parents turn into pigs, a punishment for their gluttony, and Chihiro is left scared and alone while strange beings appear all around her.

The connection is obvious. Maedhros was acting the part of Chihiro and my husband and I were obviously the parents who did something stupid, something their kid warned them not to do (in this case, going to bed), and ended up getting into trouble and abandoning their child in a strange and scary world.

But he didn't stop there. He continued the scene up to the point where Chihiro is helped by Haku, one of the few good and friendly spirits in that world.

"Where are my mom and dad? They didn't really turn into pigs did they?"

"You can't see them now, but you will."

He was doing lines for both Chihiro and Haku now, but still clearly identifying with Chihiro. And he finally started to calm down and bring himself under control. His parents may be missing, but he wasn't alone after all. Soon after Haku came into the scene, Maedhros stopped quoting and quietly went into his room and went to sleep.

We couldn't reason with him, we couldn't comfort or reassure him, but the story did. By putting himself in Chihiro's shoes and placing himself inside the story he knew well, he was able to feel the comfort of knowing that Haku would help Chihiro and Chihiro would eventually save her parents and everything would be all right in the end. When nothing else could ease the chaos of his feelings, the story did.

And stories do that for all of us. Not in such a literal and exaggerated way as how a 5 year-old with Asperger's experienced it. But placing ourselves inside the stories we read and watch and participate in helps us to deal with a lot of the daily strife and stress that is part of life. When the characters overcome their obstacles, we feel like we've been there along side them, we get the same thrill and sense of accomplishment and maybe we learn something from how the characters acted and dealt with their problems. Experiencing stories helps us to live life.

That's why being a storyteller, no matter what medium, is an important vocation. It's an integral role in society and deserving of respect. It doesn't even matter that kind of story you're writing. Spirited Away is pure fantasy, but it helped my son in the real world. Stories help people live.

Why Anime is Some of the Best Storytelling

That should probably say "Why Manga is Some of the Best Storytelling" since most animes I have seen were based on manga. However, I don't read manga, but over the past couple of years I have somehow become a huge fan of anime.

(Why, if I love anime so much, don't I read the manga? Isn't the book always better than the movie? Well, I just don't like the graphic novel format compared to the animated series format. And anyway, by all reports, anime tend to follow their manga far, far more closely than any movie ever followed a book.)

It started with InuYasha, a story about 15 year-old Japanese school girl Kagome who goes through a magic well and finds herself in the Feudal Era where she meets and teams up with a half demon called Inuyasha to find all the shards of the Shikon jewel before the evil demon Naraku can use it it make himself more powerful. In one sense it's a pretty straightforward action/adventure fantasy story. There's lots of fighting and lots of people with cool powers. (After watching and loving nearly 200 episodes of InuYasha I still cannot bring myself to swing a sword without shouting the name of Inuyasha's signature move: "Wind Scar!!") But on another level it's the very emotional journey of a group of people whose lives have been irreparably altered by the power of the Shikon jewel which inspires terrible acts of hatred and greed wherever it is found, even just a piece of it. (I highly recommend it.)

That's the great thing about manga/anime. There are always multiple levels.

On the surface anime is generally flashy and fun, down and dirty storytelling. It doesn't mess around. It knows what it is and it isn't afraid to play by its own rules. Those are: 1. all fights are liable to take place over the course of several episodes because all the participants do a lot of talking in between actions. 2. all characters who get into violent conflicts on a regular basis have at least 10x the amount of blood that normal people have. 3. whenever possible, do everything with style. 4. the phrase "less is more" has no meaning here. More is always more. 5. drama and comedy go hand in hand. 6. anything can happen. 7. there tend to be a lot of very, very pretty men and boys and very, very well endowed women and girls.

Eye candy from InuYasha: Sesshomaru

(There are more principles of anime, I'm sure. But that's what I can think of off the top of my head.)

But despite all the style and flashiness, excitement and fun that makes up the top layer of anime, there are many, many other layers to explore. But for heaven's sake let's be simplistic and only talk about a couple of layers today. Let's talk about story in general.

I can no longer think of many movies made by Hollywood in recent years that weren't entirely willing to kick good storytelling to the curb in favor of flashy special effects and stylistic flair. Anime is not. The animes that I have watched so far have all been incredibly well rounded in the story department. Superb visualization and conceptualization of the setting, deep and meaningful characterization, forward moving and compelling plot, and thematically rich.

Over and over again I have been continually amazed to find that the best new stories I have experienced over the last couple of years have been in anime format. I think manga/anime is getting a lot of things right that a lot of people over here in the west have forgotten. I'd like to do some posts where I highlight my favorite animes and the aspects of storytelling that they excel in.

 Have you watched any anime? If so, what are your favorites and what do like best about their storytelling?

The Logical Fallacies of Writing: Necessity

I see this around the blogosphere a lot. When do you need backstory? Only use as many descriptive words as are necessary. I need to include more characterization. Only include exposition when it is necessary to the plot. I need to learn to show not tell. Don't include anything in your book that isn't 100% necessary, cut out everything else. And many more iterations of the same basic idea.

Well, I'm here to tell you that the idea of what is and is not necessary in your story is a False Dilemma.

Elements of story (like backstory, prologue, characterization), building blocks of writing (like exposition, descriptive words, dialogue) or even specific elements of your story (a certain character, a particular scene, a paragraph of description) are not either necessary or unnecessary. Because let's face it, this is fiction. And there's no such thing as "necessary" in fiction. Everything is unnecessary include your entire story its self. Every word, every sentence, ever character, every plot point is essentially unnecessary.

But that's ok because the point of reading fiction is not what is "necessary" but what is pleasurable. Fiction is entertainment or possibly even art. You don't ask yourself "is this necessary" when writing. You ask yourself "does this make for an enjoyable reading experience".

Now you're down to the question of what is enjoyable, which is much better. As we all know, this is going to be subjective and trying to please everybody will only please nobody. My personal opinion is that the author needs to write the story that they would enjoy themselves.

So if you like backstory, then include it. If you like a certain plot point, include it. If a certain descriptive phrase is pleasurable to your ear, include it. If you think a certain plot point make the story more enjoyable, include it. And so on. Don't be intimidated by the idea of what is "necessary". Focus on what is fun and pleasurable and beautiful.

Things that make me feel better...

...and also make me worry. Because I'm just that kind of person.

Over the weekend I read a blog post that profoundly effected me. The kind of blog post I wish I was smart enough and experienced enough to write. It was by successful author Kristine Kathryn Rusch about Modern Writer Survival Skills. The post is number 19 in a series (I haven't read the others) and while previous installments talked about non-craft related skills, this one focused on two skills of the actual writing that authors need to have. Rusch maintains that the two most important writing skills you need are...

1. Storytelling Ability 

I've thought this same thing before but wasn't able to put it into words as well as Rusch. She says:

It’s long past time to stop calling ourselves “writers” and start calling ourselves “storytellers.”  The word “writer” is misleading.  The craft of producing good fiction is not about the words.  In fact, it has never been about the words.  Fiction is about the story.

Writers need to focus on the elements of storytelling—great characters, great plots, real emotions, cliffhangers, fascinating settings and situations—rather than lovely words.  Lovely words might get you admirers, but lovely words won’t get you readers.  Readers will put their dollars behind the person who moves them seamlessly from chapter to chapter.

Those of you who spent all of your time learning how to make pretty sentences, stop now.  Focus on telling compelling stories.

How do you learn to tell stories? Simple.

First, shut off your critical brain.  Storytelling is entertainment, and criticism is the opposite of entertainment.

Second, find story everywhere.  Movies, television, books, short stories, and your favorite raconteur all tell great stories. Find them, enjoy the story itself, and absorb it. Don’t think about it.

Third, play.  Writing is fun. Telling stories is fun.  Have fun.  If you have fun, your readers will too.

 I cannot express how much every fiber of my being cried out "Yes! This is good! This is real!" upon reading these words. Now don't get me wrong, I love words. But words do not equal story. Words are merely a medium for story. The story transcends words and we aspiring authors must often struggle with them to make them convey the ideas and images in our heads which are the story. But it seems to me that there is a tendency in writing circles to elevate the words themselves from tool to end product. In particular the anti-adverb movement and the vilification of the non-said dialogue tag bother me.

Why? Why do we consider the adverb bad? What, inherently, is wrong with it? What is fundamentally wrong with non-said dialogue tags? I cannot think of a sufficient answer. I realized recently that for years and years I have been reading books which abound with these two devices and never been any wiser. It was only after I started reading with a more writerly point of view that I began to notice on my third or fourth reading of the Harry Potter books, for example, how often J. K. Rowling uses adverbs and non-said dialogue tags. Before it never made any difference to me. I didn't even notice.

And I really don't think that most readers notice. Most readers don't care. All they want is a good story. And you know what adverbs and non-said dialogue tags do? They make things perfectly clear to the reader in a very short space. I admit, I like that. I like clarity when I'm reading. I don't want to stumble through your extended metaphors and vague imagery when a simple adverb would tell me everything I need to know. I don't think you're smart for making it harder for me to understand what's going on because you can never just say anything without using some literary device you learned about in your college creative writing class.

Get over the words, writers, and focus on the story. Because focusing on the style of your words will give you trouble with the next writing survival skill...

2. Voice

Voice is one of those things you see talked about ALL THE TIME but never, ever defined well. Most people say something like, "It's just that elusive something, ya know? Gotta have it though." Oh, thanks. How helpful. Which is why Rusch's explanation hit me like a bolt of lightning from the gods (in a non deadly way).

Okay, now I’ve just confused you.  I tell you to stop being stylists and become storytellers. Then I tell you that the writers who will survive in this new world need voice.

How can you have voice without style? Simple.  Voice is the opposite of style.

Style is something you fake.  You think from your critical brain—ah, that looks lovely, I should put that word here. You rewrite and rewrite and rewrite, putting in your stylistic flourishes.

Or so you think.

What you’re really doing is removing all trace of voice.

What is voice? Voice is you.  It’s authentic and real and to you, the writer, voice looks bland.

When I was in college, I had a creative writing class from a marvelous writer (not a professor) named Lawrence O’Sullivan.

Because on day one, O’Sullivan walked into our class and said (without saying hello), “There are seven plots.  Shakespeare did them best.  If that scares you, get out of my class now.”
If O’Sullivan was right (and he was) and I just told you to be storytellers, then what differentiates your story from my story, especially if we have the same plot?

When you’re telling the same plot as someone else, you differentiate that plot from the other person’s only by making that story personal, making it something you care about.  You write honestly, without stylistic flourishes at all.

If you do it right, that story will be compelling—and here’s the weird thing. Everyone will mention how strong your voice is.  You won’t see your voice in that piece at all.  In fact, you’ll think that story’s prose is colorless, unoriginal, and rather mundane.

Why?

Ever since you learned the language around your first year, you’ve been thinking precisely that way.  That’s how you think. That’s how you talk.  That’s your perspective.  It’s old news to you.  In fact, it’s normal.  But to everyone else—especially people who’ve never met you—that perspective is new and vivid and memorable.

I've seen so many people talk about having to "learn" or "find" your voice. But if Rusch is right, and my gut tells me she is, then Voice is something you have all along and the struggle isn't to "find" it but to not lose it.

Authors are pounded over the head with the advice to revise, revise, revise. Edit, edit, edit. But how much is really necessary? I'm not saying you shouldn't edit. For the love of all that is good, you need to at least edit for grammar and structural errors. But when we go back and constantly pick over our words, getting rid of adjectives and adverbs, trying to make our prose stylistically gorgeous, are we really just removing our voice, our selves from the work?

It's something to think about. I know that I feel a lot better now about trying to be a storyteller rather than a writer. I am more confident now knowing that Voice really just means me and maybe it doesn't seem special to me, but it will to others. I need to embrace it. (My husband keeps telling me this, but who ever listens to their husband? They're obviously biased.)

On the other hand, I'm going to be so paranoid anytime I start rethinking my words. (Which one more me?!?)