Is the 'voice' an unfiltered resonance of the writers soul, or more like a mask?

[Kasper Hviid]

Once upon a time, a book on writing introduced be to the concept of 'voice'. Only, that book called it 'Persona'.

Used outside literary debate, the word 'voice' is the sound a human makes when speaking. This is linked to that person only, as much a part of him as his arms or his brain.
On the other hand, the word 'persona' means the role an actor take on. Something which can be changed at will.

I have always thought of the voice as some mask that the writer chooses to put on - perhaps because I have grown up with the persona metaphor.

This woman says the voice is the 'deepest possible reflection of who you are':
http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...ion-meg-rosoff

The comic book artist Herge was kind of middleground here. He felt that the Tintin stories was so much a part of himself, that it would be wrong if other artist continued the series after his death. But at the same time he did employ lots of ghostwriters.

[crich70]

I think of 'voice' as being part of how the writer writes. What word choices he/she makes, how they choose to structure their stories and what stories they are telling. Incidentally the word persona is where we get our English word person as well. We do all have our masks, some of which we wear to hide ourselves from ourselves, but when we write I think we remove the mask.

[gmw]

I don't think it's that simple.

I see it as similar to acting. Some actors are superb at putting on different masks to suit different roles, and you'd be hard pressed to guess if any of them reflect the person underneath. But some actors are essentially the same regardless of the role - and this applies to many famous actors. But this doesn't necessarily mean that what you see on the screen is the real person - sometimes it is, but sometimes it's a mask, but the actor only has the one mask and they don it for all their roles.

Reading non-fiction articles by, and interviews with, favourite fiction authors can be surprising, you sometimes discover they aren't what you might have imagined. Or it can be an affirmation that they are exactly what you thought. But, as with actors, you don't actually know if they have simply donned the same mask for their non-fiction or interview.

So, while most writers do develop a distinctive and recognisable voice, I'd say the concept is too nebulous to make assessments about their personality or soul. We might recognise the voice and form guesses as a result, but the guesses aren't reliable, and the answer will vary from author to author.

So, since you don't have "It varies" as an option, I don't think I can vote.

[Kasper Hviid]

Wow, good points!

I think I see the authors 'voice' as a mask he is wearing without being conscious about it. When you struggle to find the right word, avoid word repetion, making the words form sentences and make these sentences fit together, check spelling, all these tasks requires more than your full attention, and so you are blissfully unaware of the mask you're wearing. You have a used all your life at perfecting this mask - not artificially designing it, but by constantly trying to find the "right" words and and expressons. This makes your 'voice' fundamentally different from any other masks you choose to wear. Sorta like your mother tongue.

[gmw]

In which case, Kasper, I'd suggest there is nothing special about a writer's voice.

I think many people, not just writers, have masks they wear without thinking about it. How they are at work, how they are with siblings or parents, how they are with their own family, how they are with mates at the pub ... and so on. Which are the masks, and which is real? Besides, if you consistently wear a mask in any given setting, how do you even distinguish between the mask and real person? It can be argued, I believe convincingly, that the mask is just another facet of who you really are (you are a person who wears this mask in that setting). But believing that any one facet represents a complete picture of the soul would be a mistake (but it would equally be a mistake to think that the facet says nothing at all about you).

I think there can be more definite cues about the writer in the content than in the voice. This is not completely reliable either, but after you've read enough of one writer's work you begin to find consistencies from book to book that are strongly suggestive of particular traits - political, religious and other such biases. But some authors have surprised me even here.

[Anna Drake]

I vote that it's a mask. I developed mine when the newspaper I worked for demanded I write a weekly personal column. No way was I nakedly sharing the details of my life with a bunch of strangers, so I developed this persona. She wrote my story, chose my words, picked my topics, and kept the real me safely hidden behind the curtain. And bless her heart, she's still at work in the books I write today.

[TechniSol]

I think that voice can be either, or some degree of either, based largely on the author's intent and ability, but romantically many will always feel that through that mask the author's soul may be glimpsed. Frankly, we're probably in angels on pinheads territory here... and generalizations should be avoided. The surer you are that you've found the definitive answer, the likelier the possibility that you've failed to understand the question! (I'm pretty sure someone else opined that sentiment better somewhere, but I've no idea to whom it should be attributed.)

[Anna Drake]

Technisol:

To some extent I agree with your statement. There's a great deal of me in what I write. But I maintain there is a piece of a writer's core that must be masked. And I say that without believing either of us have misunderstood the question.