Can We Treat “Voice-of-Reason” As A Verb, Rather Than A Noun?
3 min read
Try reframing the Voice-of-Reason as an activity, not a role. Instead of a noun (a thing you are), try thinking of it as a verb (a move you do).
The concept of “Voice of Reason” (aka the reasonable point of view) has been picked apart over and over in improv. And I intend to do so even more!
What does “Voice of Reason” mean?
This is where an improviser plays “real”: they take care of the grounded reality of the world and try to respond emotionally truthfully to events in it. This is usually opposite an “unusual” character, which allows the ‘Game’ to stand out. Here’s an example we’ve all done at one time or another:
Unusual voice: I can’t believe this pig isn’t flying!
Voice of reason: Pigs don’t usually fly, Eric.
Some performers love taking on this task, and find fun ways to play it. Some hate it and feel it makes them the boring part of the scene. Some people think we shouldn’t have it in improv at all.
Personally, I like it. But I find improvisers often need help ensuring that it serves them, serves the scene, and is a part of the fun rather than in opposition to it.
Reframing the role
Here’s my tip: try reframing the Voice-of-Reason as an activity, not a role. Instead of thinking of it as a noun (a thing you are) try thinking of it as a verb (a move you do).
Voice of Reason as a noun = I am the Voice of Reason. My job is to point out how unusual the game/other characters are, and my role is to stay as real as possible.
Voice-Of-Reason as a verb = I’m Voice-of-Reasoning my scene-partner right now and am currently more reasonable about this topic. My job is to still be a character in the scene, and I can find my own thing outside of voice-of-reasoning at the moment.
When I’m teaching or coaching, I find that players who consider themselves the voice-of-reason “role” often just become commenters on the scene. By switching to thinking of it as a move instead, they give themselves permission to discover more about their character.
This isn’t to say we need every character in every scene to be wacky: you may still find some scenes work best when one person is much more grounded and real. But, if you’re finding Voice-Of-Reason a struggle, I hope that by thinking of it as a verb you can open yourself up to still being a part of the fun and being ready to play, rather than feeling you’re resigned to “the boring bit”.
Let’s consider the flying pig again. It’s fair to assume your character is genuinely confused by it: why does your otherwise sensible husband Eric think this pig should fly?
That’s a very reasonable question that you should be asking, and it makes sense that you would try to understand your scene partner’s character. But, whilst you don’t agree with Eric about this pig thing, that doesn’t mean you should stop making choices about yourself and the world you’re in outside of it.
Maybe we learn that Eric is trying to get a pig to fly in order to help it escape from a farm. And whilst you disagree on the flying bit, maybe we discover that you do hate this particular farm. So you’re willing to go along with it because of how much you want to get your own back on Grange Farm.
Or maybe we find out that you’re worried about your marriage and you think supporting each other’s hobbies is a way to rectify it. So whilst you’re telling Eric to stop being obsessed with pigs flying, you’re also trying to encourage him to come and join your pottery class.
None of that requires you to step on your scene partner’s idea, or to give up the comedic pattern you’ve already found. It just means your character gets to have a life beyond pointing out what's unusual. Voice-of-reasoning is something you do – it was never who you are.
