Tone alone – Buffy, Star Trek, Lost and ’sudden Benny Hill’

by Roz Morris @ Dirty White Candy

Most well written stories have a consistent narrative tone. The world of the story is predominantly frothy, ironic, comic, tragic, horrific. Whatever the ups and downs of the plot, the narrator will have a distinct way to tell them.

You may wonder why I’m stating this rather obvious point. But one of the most common problems I come across in novice manuscripts is an inconsistent and uneven narrative tone. When this happens it interferes with the experience of the story.

An example:most of the novel is thoughtful and insightful, then short excerpts derail into slapstick or pantomime. As though a madcap Benny Hill sketch was dropped into the book; bottom-pinching, kazoos and a laugh track. Most of the time it’s jarring and unwelcome.

Interestingly, when I hunted through my books on writing I couldn’t find any mention of narrative tone, let alone this problem. Definitely worth a post, then.

Quick definition of terms – narrative tone is the way the story is told. Readers connect with it and the kinds of things the narrator says. In effect, the narrator is a persona, even if they’re not an actual person.

Once established that narrative persona must remain consistent. If you change it, it’s not the same book any more. That’s one of the writing laws of physics.

Writers may want this effect deliberately, of course. And novice writers, when they do it, are usually not being idiots, they have a particular intention. But ’sudden Benny Hill’ spoils their novel rather than enhances it.

I’ve identified three main reason why novice writers do this -

• To provide comic relief or moments of humour
• To show contrasting world views
• To make sure the reader has the correct opinion of the character

So what should they do instead?

Reason 1 Comic relief

Some writers will design characters whose main contribution is to add humour to a story. This is no bad thing. But they then feel they have to signal that these characters will be the clowns of the novel. So they switch to a slapstick narrative tone, and the depth of characterisation goes out of the window.

But there’s no need to switch.

Are you a fan of Lost? I’ve been catching up with season 3 recently. I’m struck by how some episodes are comic (those involving Hurley) and others are tragic or disturbing (those involving Lock or Mr Eko). And how it fits together seamlessly. This is because they all belong in the same consistent world. Hurley’s episodes centre on his ridiculous bad luck but we are never asked to see him as less real than Lock and Mr Eko. Characters aren’t dumbed down or shown as one-dimensional clowns. Hurley’s a comic character but there’s no need for sudden Benny Hill.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer had comedy throughout – without abandoning its predominantly tragic mood. Imagine if Buffy had a laugh track every time something amusing happened, and what it would do to the story.

The original Star Trek had its famous Trouble With Tribbles episode, but it was a proper story, not Star Trek panto. (And just to show that I do occasionally read something improving, Charles Dickens had a narrative voice that could effortlessly segue from comedy to the bleakest tragedy.)

Try this test – reread your comedy moments and ask yourself if you’ve added a laugh track. If that doesn’t fit with the rest of the novel, rewrite them.

If you’re putting comic moments into a story, don’t put on a different narrative voice for it. If your emphasis is on character depth, get your comedy from this – put the characters in a situation that will bring out amusing reactions and behaviour. The reader will get it, honestly.

Reason 2 To show contrasting world views

Another reason writers break their narrative tone is to contrast different worlds or world-views. For instance, a divorcee’s lonely home life is contrasted with the joy and frolics at a wedding she attends, thus waking her up to what she’s missing. Clever idea. But what I often see is the divorcee’s home-alone scenes narrated with sensitivity and insight, and the wedding jollity as though it was bitchy chick-lit, presumably because it’s meant to be wild and frothy.

The effect of this isn’t joyful, it’s jarring. People who read sensitive, insightful novels may not be the same people who’d enjoy bitchy chick-lit, and vice versa. As before, your narrator needs to stay ‘in character’ while conveying the contrast.

Reason 3 To make sure the reader has the correct opinion of the character

You might decide to write a novel where you tell us what to think of each and every character. Or your novel might present the characters and let us make up our own minds. Two different approaches. Both valid.

The problem is when the author will let us make up our own mind about one bunch of characters, but with others they intrude to tell us what to think.

This change in tone from subtlety to spoonfeeding is like being booted into a different book. And irritating. Because readers who enjoy subtle characterization are usually different from readers who want to be told what to think.

I saw this most recently in an otherwise very fine novel about terrorists. Everyone was characterized with depth and understanding apart from the terrorists, who were superficial and ranting. It was as if the author didn’t want to risk that the reader might engage with these hateful people.

This may seem to be worlds away from the Benny Hill syndrome, but actually it’s not. The fundamental problem is the same – switching from subtle storytelling to ham.

Again, the solution for the terrorist novel was to be consistent. The author needed to narrate all the characters, no matter how despicable, with the same degree of perception and depth.

Take-home point

If you’re tempted to change the tone of your narrator, ask yourself, what are you trying to do? If it’s for one of the three reasons listed above, maybe you shouldn’t.