Note to Myself on Writing Novels

I'm just typing this out so I can organize my thoughts a little better on the subject before I go ahead with writing. Hopefully I can come back to this later in life, and maybe someday it will be useful to a random person on the internet.

Last night as I was trying to get to sleep, I had the following insight on writing. Not that it's revolutionary or new. I've heard it before, but only now does it seem to make sense.

The narrative voice is as much a character in a work of writing as any other explicit actor in the story. I have read novels in which the narrative voice changes from chapter to chapter. For one example, take _Last Orders_, by Graham Swift. There are several characters in the novel that take turns telling the story. I've read reviews, and one from my mom, that expressed annoyance at this shiftiness in the narrative.

There is a certain kind of reader, perhaps the majority of them, that prefers to be led through a story by a consistent voice. The kind of reader who doesn't mind being left to his or her own devices, probably doesn't even read novels. They're probably more a fan of poetry.

At the same time, I think the English language's two greatest storytellers, Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespeare, spoke exclusively with conjured voices. Shakespeare necessarily, as he wrote dramas in which every line had to be spoken by a performer. But Chaucer, I'm less sure about how his work was performed (was it sung?). The Canterbury Tales are stories told with specific narrative flavour, even if the narrator rarely speaks of himself or herself.

How often do we see this in modern literature? How many writers today can turn themselves into ten writers, or as many as are needed? Today's writers are often told to develop their own voice. This is reasonable advice, I think, because the temptation for writers starting out is to try to be universal. They are doomed to fail at that particular goal, because their conception of the universal is limited to the works they've read. So their "voice" is an imitation of those they've read.

I think the best path for a writer is to develop multiple voices. Start with one, your strongest voice. I suppose this might be the voice of argumentation. It's the voice you might use to convince someone of a political point, a robust, sharp, powerful voice. Maybe with a hint of irony, sarcasm, and satire. But move on from there and develop a range, and hone it to the point where entire novels can be written as if you were another person.

And here I am talking as if I know anything. Hopefully I'll read this again in 10 years, after I've published 10 novels and countless poetry. Will I see this as baby steps? The most obvious thing in the world? Or will I have become so engrossed with my own voice that I forget this tactic entirely. I think this is the problem that many authors have, which is not so much a problem if you have an audience who loves your developed voice, but it doesn't work for the majority of writers who are limited as to how far they can grow.