Due to the high level of prescribed narcotics running through my body right now, I can assure you that I will be using my real voice in this blog. I will not attempt to put a filter on my thoughts as I shape this blog from the "point of utterance."
After reading Elbow's article, I realize "voice" was the first element that actually drew me to writing. I have been journaling since I was eight-years-old and keep copies of filled journals chronologically organized on one of my bookcases. Perhaps it is an oddity to journal at such a young age, but this seemingly superfluous practice has helped me strengthen my unique voice.
I know that Elbow says that one can practice developing one's voice through journaling or free-writing without having an intended audience in mind. I find, however, that I always have a nebulous concept of an audience as I write. Even when I journal for myself, I have the feeling that someone with voyeuristic tendencies might one day pick up one of my journals and have access to my innermost thoughts. Because of this, I was always conscious of making my journal entries clear enough so that other people than myself could understand my entries.
Whether or not this voice has enhanced my academic voice is hard to say. I believe that some people's real voices might be to irreverent for the academy. A person could also be born with a voice that is not intrinsically suited for academia. Although, I find that one's unique voice tends to fit into the academic field he or she chooses. For example, there are many varying voices in the medical field, but they all retain a similar thread of vocabulary and organization. The same goes for the fields of literature, engineering, art, psychology, etc. Each discipline has an over-arching voice in which an individual must place his- or herself. I have done no research on this topic, but I would assume that the majority of scholars can situate their own voices within the range of voices in their discipline.
Your authentic, unique voice helps you stand out (hopefully not negatively) amidst a field of scholars who seem to constantly rehash the same information. A new voice added into the mixture might be refreshing. And isn't this how new movements begin anyways? A person's voice is sometimes the best way of persuading others to accept new ideas.
Elbow's article fits in perfectly with Britton's "Shaping at the Point of Utterance" article. I was also able to personalize that article quickly. Again, this probably comes from journaling so often. There is no erasing in journals (perhaps an occasional retrospective marking out of sentences). But journals require you to move forward with your first thought and develop it into something worth writing. I find that my writing suffers when I stray to far away from my journaling.
In this way, I don't think that I am necessarily "confident" with my voice. In fact, I would probably blush if I actually witnessed anyone reading my blog which does, in essence, expose my "authentic" prose sans corrections. Instead of confidence, I would attribute the prominence of real voice in my writing to practice. It is the style in which I am most comfortable writing--the style in which I learned to write to begin with.
I consider oration and prose in the same genre. I prefer writing styles that emulate the speaking voice. The only difference between written English and spoken English should be the "clarity" of speech because one has more time to correct glaring grammatical errors. The ideas should be at the same level, as should the rhythm. The worst articles are the ones that make me have cause to pause and reread the sentence because the rhythm seems awkward. An occasional adjustment in rhythm, correction of grammar, and reorganization ought to occur in most writing--but I argue this should only be done after the first draft is written.
Disguising my voice helps no one. I am not a spy. I do not need disguises.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I thought about this posting, and my own thoughts on voice for enough time to become troubled. Before graduate school I possessed the ability to differentiate between voice and academic-1301 voice. Deciphering between the two is more difficult for me now.
Lorna:
I am struck by your suggestion that "(A) person could also be born with a voice that is not intrinsically suited for academia."
Here you seem to be fully aligning written voice with the spoken voice. The later is largely determined by physiology, although of course we can go through vocal training. But the timbre and range will be limited by vocal chord structure and other geometries of the body.
Of course, a spoken voice can be modified as one might put on an accent for a play. The range and timbre will not change a lot, but the intonation and cadences will according to character. So if in spoken voice we mean these attributes that can be modified as well as the physiological ones that can't be, then I suppose spoken voice also can be chosen rather than given to us.
Written voice to me would seem to be much more a matter of choice. There is no set tone to letters on a page, no variance in frequency. Likewise, no one with a dictionary is restricted in the range he or she can reach. By contrast, no amount of trying would allow me to sing a soprano part, for instance. But I could write high notes on the page, metaphorically speaking, where high notes might be a certain kind of vocabulary.
But of course we are limited by our intellectual abilities, I suppose--raw IQ. Other than that, I wonder if people have a natural writing voice that might incline them to be a comic writer or a lawyer, a science lab writer or a poet. Of course, the same innate skills that would lead one to career X or career Y would also be likely to make that person more comfortable with either writing style X or Y.
Ulitmately, this is probably a question for linguists and phonologists.
Your post was very articulate and thought provoking. After reading, I was inspired. I have always had a hard time in teaching someone to harness in their personal voice, and use it in an academic setting. I also, have never been able to see the importance of free writing for most students. But after reading your post, I see exercises in voice in a whole new light.
I still think that forced free writing or journaling produces a stilted and false voice, because all students are acutely aware of the fact that they are still writing for an audience. If there were a way to get students to free write on their own, that would be wonderful.
In the meantime, I loved your post.
I know how you feel about the privacy of your voice. When I free write, I'm always terrified someone will read my writing. I suppose all of us put on "a disguise" to protect our innermost selves from criticism by the audience. I think it's hard to open up and allow that innerself to express its self through writing.
I’m always interested to read justifications for journaling because I hate it, personally. I should probably add that my prejudice hasn’t stopped me from experimenting with the idea in the classroom because I know my own process is not and should not be the archetypal model.
I think my abhorrence comes from the widespread (mis)conception that a journal should only be written for oneself and no one else. I tend to approach writing from a practical angle, so without a reader in mind, I’m paralyzed by the lack of direction.
Lorna, when I read your comment that you always imagine at the very least a nebulous audience, I began to think that maybe teachers shouldn’t emphasize the freedom to write in a vacuum that freewriting allows. I consider the lack of audience more of a constraint. Perhaps we should instead use such activities as a way for students to begin thinking about audience in having them start by imagining either a general or informal reader. In later assignments, they could narrow the focus to a more specific, scholarly audience.
Post a Comment