Is voice more important than worldbuilding?

[pjthompson]

I know they're both important, and I would dearly love to open this up to a larger forum and hear what others think on this subject. Or perhaps someone with a larger audience might like to take up the question on their own blog?

ETA: Yes, this is mostly a rhetorical question for the purposes of discussion. As I said, both are important.

In my current state of mood, and having read far too many writing blogs for my own good, I'm thinking that voice ultimately trumps worldbuilding.

If book A has breathtaking ideas but writer A can't write h/er way out of a paper shroud, will a tree fall in the forest and still make a sound?

No wait, I said that wrong. How about this: if the worldbuilding is chock full of amazing ideas but the execution is poor, it seems to me the book will probably not sell or find an agent.

But I could be wrong. It has happened before. I'm sure you could come up with a few names as exemplars of good ideas/bad writing who have managed to get published and flourish, but I have to think they are exceptions. Or are they?

Perhaps this is a better example: If writer B, for instance, has good worldbuilding, and is a solid writer, but doesn't have that spark of voice, that fresh way of telling the story, I'm not sure they can break through. Whereas writer C may have so-so worldbuilding, but a fresh and original voice, and gets a 3-book deal.

Or can they? Which is more important--voice or worldbuilding?

Comments

[sboydtaylor.livejournal.com]

You need some basic level of skill at writing or you will never be able to sell. But you don't have to be Michael Chabon either.

As for voice, there are plenty of books out there in the typical "invisible" voice. Successful ones, too.

(There is a whole separate argument if any voice can truly be invisible.)

After a certain point of writing skill, there is no answer. You can sell a strong-voiced piece with little world building. You can sell an invisibly-voiced piece with strong world building.

To me, a unique and strong voice is a potent addition to any piece. I find "invisible" narrators boring a lot of the time.

But to others any variation from the rules of grammar or the "invisible" voice kicks them out.

It's all a matter of taste, really. What are your tastes at the moment? Go with those.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

So much depends on the readership. Perrty Pratchett is, I think, proof that both are important. Bujold, too.

I dunno...I think voice gets me ahead of world building, but I do think that 'voice' for me means a good dose of humor. I've tried to read books that are touted for their worldbuilding, and the prose was not awful, just humor less, and I lost interest.

[pjthompson]

I'm kind of in the same frame. I will overlook so-so worldbuilding as long as the voice is compelling--but not generally the other way around.

[pjthompson]

I'm all about the voice at the moment. The story has to have a compelling voice or it loses me, even if the worldbuilding is fabulous.

[wolfette]

I'd say voice. There are exceptions, but generally a good story-teller can make so-so world-building riveting.

[handyhunter.livejournal.com]

Here via sartorias.

I'm sure you could come up with a few names as exemplars of good ideas/bad writing who have managed to get published and flourish,

Sure. Stephenie Meyer. Is she an exception? I hope so.

I'd probably prefer a more compelling character/voice with not outstanding world-building than great world-building and poorly developed characters. Having great characters and world-building (and plot) would be fantastic.

[magicnoire.livejournal.com]

Voice trumps because these days, it's often voice that'll hook a reader and keep them reading to discover the worldbuilding and ideas.

[lizziebelle.livejournal.com]

It's definitely voice for me. No matter how stunning the concept, if I don't like the voice I will put the book down, usually for good.

[jamesenge.livejournal.com]

I'm here by way of sartorias, too.

This is an interesting question, which gave rise, as I considered it, to the following non-answer:

For me, story trumps nearly everything. If someone has a tale to tell and tells it with a certain efficiency, I can forgive a lot of other stuff.

"Voice" is one of those words that means different things to different people. In my usage, a work of any length ought to have more than one voice, or things will start to feel claustrophobic.

A world that is obviously off-the-shelf or off-the-rack is a serious demerit in any work of sf/f. Elfland can never be a suburb of Poughkeepsie. But a story that doesn't evoke wonder can still be a good story.

Hope this isn't too incoherent.

[pjthompson]

That's what I'm thinking. I can think of numerous examples where the so-so becomes extraordinary thanks to a wonderful voice. Not as many in the opposite direction, but maybe I have blinders on at the moment.

[pjthompson]

Having great characters and world-building (and plot) would be fantastic.

That would be the ultimate!

[pjthompson]

This is how I'm seeing things. There are numerous writers I'll read just because their voice is compelling, even if the story they're telling isn't as original as That Person Over There. But the opposite? Even if someone has marvelous ideas but is a bad writer, I probably won't finish the book. I certainly won't read more.

[pjthompson]

For me, too.

[pjthompson]

Not at all incoherent, and all good points. That's what makes this a horse race. As Sam pointed out in the first comment, it's all a matter of taste and everybody has a different set of things that make reading worth the journey for them.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

I think that voice, character, and world-building act together to support the story/plot: if any one of them is weak, the story is going to suffer, and if two are weak, it's going to be hard to get the story to stand, but if any of them is completely missing, the story just doesn't work at all.

[pjthompson]

I agree, that's as it should be, certainly. But I've seen plenty of examples where one or the other of those is weak, but the story still gets published and the authors flourish.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

I like to think of the quiet voice that doesn't call attention to itself as transparent, rather than invisible. Readers will it's there, but forget about it, unless a speck on the window or a crack in a pane calls it to their attention.

Like window glass, the transparent voice, then, is the basic voice, and can feel boring if your preference is for stained glass.

The stained glass voice, otoh, can be beautiful in the hands of a master, or garish in the hands of someone with insufficient skills to execute their story voice flawlessly.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Puzzling, isn't it.

What is it about books that we see as flawed (after all, as writers, we are often critical readers who notice matters of execution), that still brings in publication and an audience demanding a repeat performance?

[pjthompson]

Like Christopher Isherwood. Beautiful, transparent voice--but most definitely not boring.

[pjthompson]

The mysterious alchemy of market forces, perhaps? I don't know! If I did know, perhaps I'd be a successful. Certain authors are able to capture the zeitgeist of the moment--either through writing well or not so well, it seems to be a completely independent thing--and their timing is perfect and people respond to that.

[sboydtaylor.livejournal.com]

That's where I'm at too :)

[sboydtaylor.livejournal.com]

An apt metaphor :)

[sboydtaylor.livejournal.com]

It seems at the moment that there are far more novels published that, sadly, work on the opposite premise.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Thanks. Some days, I wonder if I'm not better at writing about writing than I am at actually writing. *sigh*

[kmkibble75.livejournal.com]

I definitely lean more toward voice than the worldbuilding. If I have to, I can arrange the world on my own... but I can't make their writing better.