Is 'authorial voice' the author telling the reader something which the reader would already know? Which has the result of jarring or breaking the narrative Is that right?
eg "He looked away from her now, outside, accross the road, into his fractured memory."
(We know his memory fractured as I've just spent 2 pages previously showing it.)
So the 'fractured memory' bit is too authorial?
This is probably really basic, but any quick yes or no would be a big help.
Thank you so much.

Authorial voice, loosely, is the author saying something which no particular (most particularly the current viewpoint character, if any) could know or would think: something beyond the frame of the style and thinking of the narrative as a whole. For example:

Jim didn't specially notice how long the wait was, because he never took notice of time. That trains have never been on time, not since Stevenson, wasn't a concept which was part of his universe.

This doesn't actually bother me IF the novel is the kind of novel where the author is free with his/her own analyses, opinions etc, if I enjoy those. That's what James Woods calls an 'essayist narrator'. But it can seem old-fashioned, and/or preachy: the big revolt of Modernism against the Dickensian/Eliotesque makes us all a bit twitchy about a story stepping out of the frame of Jim's experience and thoughts. So it's hard to do well, and you will find some commenters more sensitive and/or dismissive of its possibilitites than others.

That's not to say that you have to do it in Jim's voice - in free indirect style:

Jim wasn't bothered about when the train came. He'd all the time in the world, hadn't he? Life wasn't worth bothering with if you were always in a rush and a tear.

You could do the same in a neutral, narrator's voice sticking to Jim's PoV, but not tying the narrative to his voice:

Jim was happy to wait however long it took. He was a man not given to fretting, and too a large and philosophical view of life: that it was to be lived as it came, not fretted away in trying to reach what hadn't come yet.

And a neutral, omniscient narrator might be something like this:

Jim was happy to wait however long it took. He was a man not given to fretting, and too a large and philosophical view of life: that it was to be lived as it came, not fretted away in trying to reach what hadn't come yet. The train was late, as they always were, [the narrator knows this but Jim doesn't] but Jim didn't even notice.

You can see how easily omniscient slides into essayist, which is one reason omniscient narrators get such a bad press these days, because it's not much of a move from that to

... not fretted away in trying to reach what hadn't come yet. The train was late, as ever: trains have never been on time, not since Stevenson, but that wasn't a concept which was part of Jim's universe.

Emma

<Added>

I other words, 'fractured memory' isn't authorial intrusion at all: it's just a description of his memory, presumably from his viewpoint, assuming he knows his memory is fractured, or as described by a neutral narrator.

Jim was happy to wait however long it took. He was a man not given to fretting, and too a large and philosophical view of life: that it was to be lived as it came, not fretted away in trying to reach what hadn't come yet.

Thank you so much Emma for such a brilliant reply, as ever. I think the above way of putting it is closest to the way I write.

So authorial voice is just the author putting in their 10 pence worth, but it can be done in different less intrusive ways, if I understand it correctly.

You can see how easily omniscient slides into essayist, which is one reason omniscient narrators get such a bad press these days, because it's not much of a move from that to ... not fretted away in trying to reach what hadn't come yet. The train was late, as ever: trains have never been on time, not since Stevenson, but that wasn't a concept which was part of Jim's universe.

This doesn't read as comfortably to me and I can see how, in order to avoid it, one should stay with your earlier examples. I think at college the lecturers are pretty strict on this - definitely modernist!
Mind you still not sure why teach didn't like my fractured memory. It might be one of those 'you can't look into something that doesn't exist' type moments and I just wrote it down wrong. It's hard to keep your head when 10 people are critiquing your work!

Thank you so much for all the examples though. It's such a help and will join all the other on the bulletein board.

With best wishes.

I must admit, and of course I don't know the context, I rather like 'fractured memory'.

But it is quite tell-y (authorial voice does tend to be, in the nature of things.) So it may be that your tutor wanted something more physically of the moment, more concretely figurative language, to go with 'looked into'. A stupid, clichéd example (please don't do this!) would be "He looked away from her now, outside, not across the road but rather at the fragments of the scene in his memory."

Or it might just be that if you've spent 2 pages showing us the detail of the fractures, then we don't need reminding, and a simple, 'He peered into his memory, but could see nothing whole enough to make sense of.' (Please don't do this either!)

You might be interested in James Wood's How Fiction Works. It's quite patchy - more of an essay than a comprehensive textbook, but he's very good on this kind of thing.

All this stuff also involves John Gardner's concept of psychic distance, which he describes in his The Art of Fiction. If you can understand psychic distance (and it's not hard) then all these issues become infinitely clearer.

Emma

So authorial voice is just the author putting in their 10 pence worth

Yes, and they can do it through the character in a 1st or 3rd person narrative. It is very common to find child narrators sounding too 'adult' because the writer has an agenda while writing it and that slips out in the main characters thoughts or dialogue.

<Added>

As for the 'fractured memory' line, I think the problem is he's looking outward, away, to the road. But memories are internal so you need to stear his gaze towards himself - maybe he's holding something - and then inwards to the fractured memory.

<Added>

Also is the line a case of a 'little darling' which stands out from the rest of the prose? In which case maybe they wanted you to 'murder it'?

Do you know I was reading The Art of Fiction and it was the book which made me realise I needed more education, so signed up for the MA - consequently have read and written so much for the MA I didn't finish John Gardner. However it is now next to me and shall read on!

So it may be that your tutor wanted something more physically of the moment, more concretely figurative language, to go with 'looked into'.

I think that's exactly what she wanted. I think one of the really famous short story writers Cheever or Updike or Chandler (one of the C's) said he'd never write 'he ran downstairs to the car' because you can't do that, it has to be 'he ran downstairs and out the door to the car' - or something like that. I have a feeling I do this from time to time. I've heard of the James Woods one too, so will order. Thank you.

I like the idea of looking inwards too, thanks Naomi - this darling is a bit RIP, though I liked it too. Might try and work it in somehow.

Thank you again so much!

Hope all your writing is going well.

<Added>

"a bit tell-y"

Guilty of this too - no matter how hard I try it still creeps in...

"a bit tell-y" Guilty of this too - no matter how hard I try it still creeps in...

Tell is not evil, and don't let anyone try to persuade you it is. It's just not right for many situations where writers tend to use it! Fairy tales are all tell, dammit, except for the dialogue...

That makes me feel so much better!!!

So authorial voice is just the author putting in their 10 pence worth, but it can be done in different less intrusive ways, if I understand it correctly.

Yup, exactly - wot Emma and Naomi said. The extreme (essayist) end of authorial voice has gone in and out of fashion for centuries now, so I wouldn't necessarily be put off by modernist tutors who preach against it as long as you know why you're using it, and use it consistently.

There is, of course, an argument that the novel's strength is that it represents consciousness as no other art form can (ie. by planting us in someone else's mind without requiring any outside narration) - hence Schopenhauer's claim that all novels should aspire to represent inner, rather than outer life. But there's an illustrious tradition of narrators who draw more attention to themselves than to their characters (see Tom Jones, Vanity Fair, lots of Austen, etc.). Flaubert and James supposedly got rid of this interfering tic...but if you read What Maisie Knew, you'll find that James himself reverts to authorial narration very easily. Realist writers like Dostoevsky blurred the boundaries further, by representing characters' thoughts and commenting on them. The pendulum's already begun to swing again - there's a feeling, in some critical circles, that first-person narration/psychological fiction has had its day, and it's time to revive the art of storytelling.

Which is basically a long-winded way of saying, trust your instincts, and don't be afraid to do something different - your tutors' opinions may well be out of date by this time next year!

"He looked away from her now, outside, accross the road, into his fractured memory."

Have to say, I struggled with this - it seems to suggest that the fractured memory is a thing outside, across the road, comparable to a fire hyrant or parking meter. It's the combination of outside/into that doesn't quite work here, I think. Also, is fractured memory a space in itself? I'd be more inclined to think of fractured/fragmented memories...

<Added>

hy drant

Tell is not evil, and don't let anyone try to persuade you it is. It's just not right for many situations where writers tend to use it! Fairy tales are all tell, dammit, except for the dialogue...

And memoirs, and memoir-type fiction, are also tell.

I share the distaste voiced by others here about the tendency of significant sections of the creative writing industry to exclude authorial content as a matter of dogma. On the other hand, it's right to have a fear of using it in a way that may detract from the work.

The greatest danger can lie in mixing authorial and character POV too closely. To have an authorial phrase, even if parenthetical, in the middle of POV sentence can be very intrusive. My impression is that the better writers of the earlier times in which authorial intervention was more the norm, would keep paragraphs or longer sections fairly clearly delineated. You always knew which camp you were in at the moment. But there are always exceptions that work...

Reading out loud can often detect what is actually intrusive or pompously authorial.

Chris

To have an authorial phrase, even if parenthetical, in the middle of POV sentence can be very intrusive.

Which is where understanding psychic distance is so crucial...

Emma

My impression is that the better writers of the earlier times in which authorial intervention was more the norm, would keep paragraphs or longer sections fairly clearly delineated.

Oh, completely - you'd have a loooooong paragraph of narrative, followed by a looooooong soliloquy, followed by more narrative, etc. All very mannered and carefully controlled by the author...

Have to say, I struggled with this - it seems to suggest that the fractured memory is a thing outside, across the road, comparable to a fire hyrant or parking meter. It's the combination of outside/into that doesn't quite work here, I think. Also, is fractured memory a space in itself? I'd be more inclined to think of fractured/fragmented memories...

I think this is what my tutor thought - she is normally pretty freewheeling so I'd hate to mark her as too modernist.

as long as you know why you're using it, and use it consistently.

Er, not sure I do, but it is interesting to find out why things don't work and why what you thought was a lovely sentence turns out to jar to others. I like and understand Chris2's view of the authorial voice and pov not working if they are too close - that makes sense to me and I think that's what I did in the sentence. There's also a big essay on What Maisie Knew in The Art of Fiction so will have a look at that too. Thank you so much for all your help. Best wishes!

PS

To have an authorial phrase, even if parenthetical, in the middle of POV sentence can be very intrusive.

Yup - got it! Thank you!

It seems that authorial voice has fallen out of favour with publishers in recent decades in favour of a stronger 'voice' for the main pov character(s), and so the reader is less used to hearing it which makes it jar when they do.

<Added>

To avoid it you can either stay in character when writing from the main pov, so there is no adulteration of that character's 'voice'. Or have a character specifically to echo the author's views - I've always thought authors like Updyke and Amis make themselves the main characters in their novels in order to do this.