I’m sorry it’s been so long since I last wrote. The way we left things between us, I know ‘dat I don’t have any right to ask ya’ anything. But I had to get a hold of ya’. Pete I’m in trouble, big trouble. I need yer’ help, big time. It’s about my English class, Pete. It’s driving me up a wall. You know the one, 319 Art of Persuasion. Rhetoric and a lot of it. When da’ class started, I got nervous right off da’ bat. We covered yer’ stuff and put it up against Dave’s work. You know, the Individual Voice vs. Academic Influence debate. I sure know where you’d come down! Thankfully, we didn’t stay on it long. I was so relieved when we moved off to ‘dat Bizzell chick, ‘dat I wrote a paper on her. I’m learning to embrace my role as the voice of dissent for my academic discourse community (a B is a B Pete; I’ll take it and run). Later, we covered ‘dis Crowley guy; his stuff went hand and hand with Aristotle. I thought I was in the clear when we moved on to ‘dat philosopher, Frankfurt. You know me; I can smell bullshit from a mile away and he’s full of it. I had somethin' to say ‘bout him. But ‘den our esteemed Dr. A pulled a fast one on me, Pete. She took Frankfurt and made a big deal out of his style so now we got ‘dis assignment ‘dat’s gonna’ kill me. The question is; Is voice style or is voice content and no hedgin’? So now ya’ see why I’m writin’ ya’. You’re the king of voice, Pete. We never agreed a hundred percent but I need yer’ help now, buddy. Let me tell ya’ what I’m thinking and when ya’ get a chance, shoot me a line and tell me what ya’ think. I’ll start with voice as style.
I can see why style might be voice. Word choice, grammar, syntax; ya’ can say the same thing two different ways and get a real different result. You can put a lot of expression into style. Expression is a big key to revealing yer’self and yer’ intent. I get a feelin’ ‘dis is exactly the kinda’ thing ya’ were thinkin’ about when ya’ wrote yer’ “without teachers” bit. When I write, the style does seem like a place where I gotta’ a lot of choices. Choices mean, or at least feel like, control or power. Those choices are where we exercise our freewill and express our individuality. I think ‘dat’s a great argument for style as voice.
But I got a big problem wid’ it. Style is so easy to change. I can do it and if I can do it, who can’t. Look at it ‘dis way. Did Billy Shakespeare write “Henry the VI” and “Midsummer-night’s Dream” in the same style? No. But when we read ‘em we know they’re both Shakespeare. Ok, Shakespeare is famous and old. Maybe dat’s part of his style, so it’s not an excellent example. How ‘bout ‘dis one? R.L. Stein, he’s mostly known for kids horror, “Goosebumps” and all. But he has one adult horror novel, “Superstitious.” The characters curse, have sex and die gruesome deaths. It don’t sound anything like a haunted dummy story. He had to adjust his style to get across the adult themes. There’s no way Stein could get away wit’ using the same style in “Superstitious” as he does in his kids books, it wouldn’t wash with adults. It’s a real problem Pete.
So I guess my doubts on style as voice come down to dis’. An author’s voice, whatever it may be, is who he is. We identify an author’s writin’ by his voice. It comes through no matter what. So, if the style of the author is his voice, as soon as the author changes his style on paper, we won’t know who the author is through just the writin’. But dat’ don’t happen. When ya’ read Shakespeare, regardless of what work, ya’ can’t mistake him for anybody else. If yer’ a Stein fan, same goes for him. I’m sure yer’ sayin’ to yer’self, maybe they choose to sound the same. Nope, even when they choose to sound different, like poetry vs. history or adult vs. kid, we still know it’s ‘dem. Whatever it is that makes us know ‘dat it’s Billy or its Stein, is what their voice is. So, if it ain’t style, voice must be content right? Well, let’s take a look.
Voice might be content. I mean content is what the author is saying. You certainly see it in yer’ work Pete. Though yer’ style has changed from piece to piece, ya’ got the same themes about personal voice throughout. I noticed it in Bizzell too. Some of her stuff is ok to read, but a bunch of it’s harder to digest then a concrete sandwich with leather bread. But regardless, she is still beatin’ ‘dat discourse community drum. All Stein’s novels are in the horror genre, adult or not. Shakespeare’s plays, even his comedies, always focus on main characters ‘dat have flaws.
So, voice must be content right? Well, and here’s where it really gets sticky for me and why the assignment is drivin' me nuts; it’s just as easy to change content as it’s to change style. Shakespeare’s all over the map with his stuff; poetry, comedy, tragedy an’ history. The adult content in Stein’s one adult book is far different then in his kid’s books. The only reason, besides Dr. A is makin’ me, ‘dat I’m leanin’ toward content as voice, is you. Pete. Well, guys like you and Bizzell, the essayist! I know ‘dat ya’ can take up the other side of the argument anytime ya’ want. You know it ‘dat well. But, when yer’ being true to yer’self, yer’ content stays pretty much the same. So for now anyway, content is style, I think.
Write me Pete. Let me know what ya’ gotta’ say. Please hurry; the due date for ‘dis thing is closin' in fast. I’m gonna’ include the imitation for ‘dis dang assignment using my content but in Frankfurt’s style.
P.S. Don’t give me any a dat’ “our content changes as we change” BS, I don’t wanna’ hear it and it’ll make my paper twice as long.
For these reasons, no discourse community can afford to ignore or refuse to include, contrary points of view. It is not enough, however, for a discourse community merely to acknowledge that point and counter point are, in the final analysis, essential and important parts of the community. In addition, the discourse community must not fail to foster and support competent individuals who devote themselves to investigating and promoting contrary points of view in the community. Whatever benefits and rewards it may sometimes be possible to reap by ignoring, dismissing or illegitimating contrary points of views, discourse communities cannot afford to pursue them, because to do so would be self defeating. Nor can they allow the lazy, self-serving attitude that encouraging contrary points of view are less important then refining the mainstream point of view. If there is any attitude that is inherently detrimental to a decent discourse community, that is it.
A discourse community that is reckless and continually ignores the importance of contrary points of view is bound to become ineffective, or at least render itself inefficient. It will certainly be incapable of producing any substantial new knowledge, or even pursuing the communities’ goals. Discourse communities have never thrived and will never thrive, without competent, knowledgeable and dissenting points of view. They cannot flourish if they are overwhelmed with difficult individuals who refuse to consider the input of dissenters. To establish and sustain a healthy discourse community, we need to avoid being made stagnant, either by ignorance or indifference. We need to know, and of course we must understand how to make productive use of many dissenting voices.
So, before I started, I had a lot of creative ideas on what to do for this final section of the paper. One of my first ideas was to write it in a third style as a letter to Frankfurt or Bartholomae. That would have been interesting. What I have decided is that I am writing in a third style. I am addressing my classmates and, of course, Dr. Allen. My intent in this analysis is to find the middle ground, between the very casual, very familiar style I used in the first section and the very technical, more formal style in the imitation. I am choosing and adjusting my style when I consider the audience who will be reading my work. I try to make this consideration and adjustment in all of my writing. I am sure I will be far less formal then I was in the first assignment for this class. The nature of the assignment, which I would argue is a type of audience in itself, has changed. The style I am currently using, comes pretty naturally to me.
When I sat down to write this paper, I thought that voice was a combination of both style and content. This assignment forced me to pick a side. If you read my first section, you can see that I came down on the side of content and the reasons why. After I wrote that first section, I looked back on it and I certainly heard my voice. I moved on to the imitation. It was easy for me and looking back, I might not have done the best I could at turning Frankfurt’s style to meet my intent. My content was there. I really do believe that with a bit more work, I could get it to the point that both my content and my usual technique were in the imitation, while still using Frankfurt’s style. When I finished the imitation, I was ecstatic. I know I am probably not the best person to analyze it, but I heard ‘me’ in both sections. I felt that I had done it. I had proved that content was voice. For me, changing style is or feels like talking with an accent. I could make myself sound any way I wanted and still come across with the same idea; still have my voice “sound” like me. I took a break, watched some television, thought about the paper on and off, and eventually went to bed; thinking the vast majority of voice is content.
By the time I started writing this section I had some new insights. This whole exercise really got me thinking about what my voice is. I tried to analyze myself a bit. I looked at the first paper we wrote along with a couple of other pieces, and saw some patterns. I use logical arguments. I always try to see things from both or all sides. When I try to find some conclusion, I usually point out the flaws of each side and come up with a compromise that will eliminate, or at least minimize, most of the flaws of any and all sides of the issue. That pattern I have established for myself controls my content. For now I will call it structure. I am using that structure even now in this analysis. I use it consistently in anything longer then a page or so.
I have another example. When I write poetry, I use concrete imagery. I try to establish meter. I do not typically rhyme. I may use enjambment and/or alliteration. The overall pattern or structure, for me, is an important part of my poetic voice. I want to be clear and make the meaning of my poetry easily accessible for everyone. It is similar to what I do in an essay. I take up both sides of the argument, review strengths and weaknesses and come up with a compromise. This is because I want my essays to be fair, precise and convincing. My structure controls the content but is not the actual content. Nor is it style, as most of us think of style. It’s not word choice or grammar or syntax. Hopefully, the first section of this paper helps to prove that. So, if this pattern or structure is my voice, then for me at least, voice is neither style nor content.
At this point in my academic/writing career, I do not have any ‘drums to beat’ like Elbow or Bizzell. I don’t have any established audience like Shakespeare or R.L. Stein. If I did, maybe I could say with more confidence that voice is content or style. Those writers, or any writer with a vested interest in their audiences, have both a style and content they have established for themselves. In the case of commercial authors, that voice has become popular with their audience. They cannot vary their style or their content and be certain of staying as popular or as pertinent. My voice is the structure that I use (at least I think it is at the moment). That technique controls both my content and my style, to some extent. However, every author is different and will use a combination of style, content and maybe structure, as their personal voice creates an identifiable public voice.
Posted by mattl0713 on November 26, 2008
Tags Uncategorized
Comments on specific paragraphs:
Click the
icon to the right of a paragraph
Comments on the page as a whole:
Click the
icon to the right of the page title (works the same as paragraphs)