If we are to use narratology as a "toolbox", as some scholars propose, we must test the value of the tools. In this paper I present an understanding of voice based on literary functions in Angela Carter’s "The Loves of Lady Purple", and then I evaluate three notions of voice in narratology. First out are the critical approaches of Sylvie Patron, who wants to abandon the term "voice" completely because of its many incongruent meanings, and Richard Walsh, who pragmatically reformulates the popular Genettean definitions according to his theory of the rhetoric of fictionality. Lastly I discuss how Genette himself would tamper with Carter’s short story. While Patron may be too harsh in her conclusion, Walsh and Genette seem to be able to accommodate voice in "Lady Purple" when they talk about ideology, at least partly. On the negative side, they both miss adequate notions of style.