English Salesman

Letter to Pete [Paper 2 Draft]

A Letter to Peter Elbow

Dear Peter,

I’m sorry it’s been so long since I last wrote. The way we left things between us, I know that I don’t have any right to ask ya anything. But I had to get a hold of ya considering my latest problem. Pete I’m in trouble. Big trouble. I need your help big time. It’s 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. I got nervous right off the bat. We covered your 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 stick on it long. I was so relieved when we moved off to that Bizzell chick that 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 this Crowley guy, his stuff went hand and hand with Aristotle. Hey I never asked ya, does that whole Ethos, Pathos and Logos thing make you nervous. I wouldn’t think so but it sounds kinda structured for your taste.  Anyway I thought I was in the clear when we moved on to that philosopher, Frankfurt. You know me; I can smell bullshit from a mile away and he’s full of it. I had somethin to say about him. But then 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 this assignment that’s gonna kill me. Is voice style or is it voice content and no hedgin. So now ya see why I’m writin you. Your the voice king Pete.  We never agreed a hundred percent but I need your help now buddy.  Let me tell ya what I’m thinking and when you get a chance shot me a line and tell me what ya think. I’ll start with Voice as Style.

Well I certainly see where ya can put a lot of expression into style. Word choice, grammar, syntax; ya can say the same thing two different ways and get a real big difference. Expression is a big key to revealing yourself and your intent.  I get a fellin this is exactly the kinda thing ya were thinkin about when ya wrote your “without teachers” bit. When I write, the style does seem like a place I have a lot of choices. Choices mean or at least feel like control or power. And I think that’s a great argument for Style as Voice. But I got a big problem with it. Style is so easy to change. I can do it and if I can do it who can’t.  Did Billy Shakespeare write “Henery the VI” and “Midsummer-night’s Dream” in the same style? No. But when we read em we know their both Shakespeare.  Ok Shakespeare is famous and old maybe dat’s part of his style so it’s not an excellent example. How about this one? R.L. Stien 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 doesn’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 with using the same style in “Superstitious” as he does in his kids books, it would wash with adults. So I guess my doubts on Style as Voice come down to this. If style is so easy to change, like the oil in your car, how can it be voice? If voice is who the author is they can’t change it that easy, right? So Voice must be content. Well let’s take a look. 

Voice might be content. I mean content is what the author is saying. You certainly see it in your work Pete. Though your style has changed from piece to piece ya got the same themes about personal voice through out. I noticed it in Bizzell too.  Some of her stuff is ok to read and a bunch of it is harder to digest then a concrete sandwich with leather bread. But regardless, she is still beatin that discourse community drum.  All Stein’s novels are in the Horror genre adult or not. Shakespeare’s, main characters all have a tragic flaw. 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 is to change style.  Shakespeare’s poetry is far different in content then his History’s. 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, that I’m leanin toward content, as voice is you Pete. Well guys like you and Bizzell, essayist. I know that you can take up the other side of the argument anytime ya want. You know it that well. But when you’re being true to yourself your 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 this thing is closing in fast. Gotta go I’m gonna write an imitation for this dang assignment, using my content but Frankfurt’s style.

Thanks

Matty

P.S. Don’t give me any of that “our content changes as we change” BS I don’t want to hear it and it’ll make my paper twice as long.

Thanks again,

Matty

Imitation

For these reasons no discourse community can afford to ignore or disinclude 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 into the community. Furthermore, what benefits and rewards it may sometimes be possible to further by ignoring, dismissing or illegitimating contrary points of views, discourse communities cannot afford to tolerate any one or thing that fosters careless disdain for the value of contrary points of view. Nor can they allow the poor self-serving attitude that encouraging contrary points of view is less important then refining the mainstream point of view. If there is any attitude that is inherently more 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 to of producing any substantial new knowledge, or even pursuing the communities’ goals. Discourse communities have never thrived and will never thrive, without competent knowledgeable, 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.

Reaction / Anaylsis

First let me say this, I am glad that I have taken three days to get this draft written.  It has given me some important perspective, and I think, reinforced an important lesson. Start early and the paper will be better or at least more thoughtful. I woiuld like to say that I am swearing of the ‘night before paper’ for the rest of my academic career but that is unrealistic.

So before I started I had a lot of creative ideas on what to do for this 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 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 sure I will be far less formal then I was in the first paper. I think that style 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. What the exact mix was I was not sure but it was a mix. As I am writing this very sentence here is my thought, if it is still a mix then the percentage of content and style probably varies for each person. Anyway, this assignment forced me to pick a side. If you read my first section you can see 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 there 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 seems like talking with an accent. I could make myself sound any way I wanted and still come across with the same idea, still sound like me.  I took a break watched some television, though about the paper on and off, and eventually went too bed; thinking the vast majority of voice is content.

By the time I sat down to write this section I had some new incites. This whole exercise got me really thinking about what my voice is. I tried to analyze myself a bit looked at the first paper we wrote and 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 with each side and come up with a compromise that will eliminate or at least minimize the flaws of the opposing sides of the issue. That pattern I have established for myself controls my content. I use it consistently in anything longer then a page or so. I have a better example.  When I write poetry. I use concrete imagery. I try to establish meter. I do not regularly rhyme. I may use enjambment and or alliteration. This pattern for me is an important part of my poetic voice. I want to be clear and have 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. It controls the content but is not the actual content nor is it style as we have disused style in class. So if this pattern or technique is my voice, then for me at least, voice is both or neither style or 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 may be I could with more confidence say that voice is content or style. Those writers especially, the creative writers, with popular audiences have both a style they have established for themselves and typically content that has become popular with their audience. They cannot vary either their style or their content and stay as popular or as pertinent as much as they would like or many of us hope they could. But for me, my voice is the technique(s) 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 have a combination of style and content as their voice that is their own and creates an identifiable voice.