There's whatever you're trying to say, like an idealized idea within conceptual space, and there's how you end up expressing it. Differentiating between the two seems tricky though, because the how might be part of whatever you're trying to illustrate. Any which way, the map isn't the same as the territory but a depiction. Something something Marshall McLuhan.
In regards of developing your voice, the what and the how, I'm supecting it's really as simple as being yourself. Definitely a shitty vague thing to say, but it's writing. Not math. That said, it's up to you to determine what or who you are. Potentially in terms of realizing what you're not. Like I would assume you aren't a monolith but a work in progress that keeps shifting and changing.
All bullshit aside: It probably does boil down to reading and writing a lot, but trying to be unique while emulating someone else seems paradoxical. Same as that "trying to be yourself" type of not-your-girlfriend wisdom.
You know how to shake up the place 😎
What did you read, who is your example?
🍀♥️
What do you mean :-)? My influences? Honestly I don't read much and only picked up the pace somewhat recently. Books that is. Other than that I guess I speak to the internet, if that counts. I watch movies here and there, which might've had a bigger impact on me than actual literature. Which also isn't exactly a blue print for success, because I'm the kind of guy who uses Bing to farm Amazon vouchers (not an internationally lauded writer). Besides, I'm no film buff either.
Currently I'm reading Interface by Neal Stephenson and J. Frederick George. So far it seems to be about an international financial consortium implanting a politician with a programmable brainchip, after the latter suffers a stroke. Mainly because another presidential candidate threatend debt forgiveness and that's bad for the investor's portfolio. I'm not too far in, but I assume he's going to run for president himself and they're going to put words in his mouth. According to advanced polling and such.
It's an ok book. Mostly I'm just trying to understand filler and other things. So not necessarily in the sense of me wanting to ape Stephenson, but in terms of figuring out how a writer's brain works. Take that politician for exmpale. The actual plot points are pretty straight forward: Guy has a stroke and gets implanted with a chip that tells him what to do. But the bulk of the book are just descriptions of how things are. Including people. It goes into family histories, describes relationships, business, the media, or just stuff the authors seem opinionated about. Obviously in context of the narrative. Just little microscopic tangents about perfume, cultural stuff, or company logos.
I guess that there is always a gap between our thoughts and our skills to write and express ourselves. We always end up writing less than what we think!
That statement amuses me. I know that is a figure of speech and I get what you are saying. But, that works with everything. For instance, it's Rocket Science, not math. It doesn't make sense to say it in that way. But, the sentence remains true. Because, when you put (something that is not math), you can just write after it, it is not math. LOL
Jokes aside, I agree with being authentic. Everyone can write. But, not all have found their voice. The thing with reading, is that it gives you a shortcut. Instead of trying to write more and more to enhance your writing, you can spend some time reading which will automatically help in enhancing the way you write.