"Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries" is an argument written by Peter Elbow on how voice can be persuasive in critical writing, and as such, Elbow analyzes on why someone would use "voice" to help strength one's writing, or to be "himself", but also on how "voice" gets in the way of the true meaning of the text. In his own words, it revolves learning "to adopt contrary stances toward voice---reading texts through the lens of voice and also reading them through the lens of "text" or not-voice," (ROW 57) along with learning "to be wiser in our scholarly thinking and writing." (ROW 58)
If asked on how Elbow's writing matches Klein's writing about scientific voices, I would point out that Klein mention his passage that the scientists "remembered far more about the research process itself---about procedures, methodology, empirical data-gathering, etc.---than they did about the rhetorical implications of their work." (WAW 28) Or, to simplify, a scientific voice does research first, or thinks more of what the writer thinks about material, before the actual writing begins, or the actual reading, begins. As such, when applied, the writer's thoughts on the process becomes more important than the ideas presented, and the arguments relay on the writer's thoughts on the material itself to carry the thinking into a finished product.
As a result of the result of scientist thinking, voice, at least under Allen, is the complete opposite, where the opinion of peers and the feelings of the self creates a personal satisfaction to the writer that might not form if one thinks only on the research mindset of a scientific voice. The result is a concept that's more formal, where writers could try to use their connections to not only create social connections, but to find a way to stray away from the "haunting ghost" that plagues the ideal of many writers.
So what would happen if I could get personal in my academic papers, where I can write in first person without any consequence? Well, there would be this constant battle of the material that I was suppose to use and my own feelings on those text. Crudeness is bound to happen, to the point where the materiel would simply be used to strength my thoughts, instead of crafting a better procedure of systematizing the material and thoughts into a position that would not rely on one another to lift the weight of the actual point. So, if I had my way, academic writing would lead me into this martyr mythology mindset that would constantly fight to what really matters: my thoughts on the materiel given.
Now, if I receive feedback as "You have too many passives and nominative constructions here," and/or "You sound kind of distant, uninvolved, or bureaucratic to me here", I would first think that the problem would lie in my trying too hard to be "objective" to what amounts to a "subjective" project. To be more specific, if I get the first statement, I would think that I approached my material too coldly, and that would signal that I did not research the materiel enough to be interested in it. If it's the second I get, then I ponder too much that my thoughts did not correspond with the expectations the teacher expected from me. As a response, I would start thinking about those problems, then I would start rewriting the material to make it more "personal" to make it seem warmer to does who read it and hope it works in my favor. Or maybe I would start reading the materiel again and start looking into the purpose of the text instead of what the author wants me to get away with it. Either way, as long as I learn and the teacher is happy with the new results, then all is right in my world.
Question for Discussion and Journaling
So how do I see "voice"? Well, the way I see it deals with the appeal of my need to "understand" another person; what if there was someone else who shares whatever it is I think about, and if so, how do they see it compared to me? Do they share my frustrations in regards to be with another? Is there a passion they have I can latch onto and try to add to whatever it is he/her thinks about the material? Basically, it's me pursuing the character of another and see if their thoughts and feelings can stimulate me in regards to my own thinking, or a way of expression I can listen that can make either one of us richer for getting to know the "voice" of someone else. Yes, it is different to how other people might see "voice", and I've seen others try to construct "voice" as something that another will try to defend as something worthwhile, or pointless, and as such, I would state that some of those passage might match with Elbow's writings on such a topic, where a contradiction of "voice" can leave a much more fascinating "voice" process to him.
Does this make Elbow's point that ignoring voice will be beneficial to writing anyways? Judging by my own thoughts on infographics online, where info takes all meaning into an overall purpose of sharing information for a specific goal (because there's really no point of trying to personalize information into a pure stance to whoever writes the statistics), almost making them voiceless to the common eye, I would argue they do indeed have an agenda to tend to. It's just that it really looks harmless unless you put your own character into it, in which case, problems will indeed arrive, since emotion can override reason if the information is taken in certain ways.
Applying and Exploring Ideas
But enough about objective info, what exactly do I look for in "sincerity" and "resonance"? In my case, it all about individualism in relation to the sense of the aura of community. If you mange to be "sincere", then someone is exposing themselves into purity; a fully realized position that the self is true to himself and can not be allured by others, just himself. If that purity can be seen by someone else, where the feeling of that self is naked to someone else and that other happens to find himself/herself in the same position, then it "resonance" with them, either in artificial terms or truly personal terms.
Can these concepts apply to however one reads the material, where listening to it can create an interpretation for someone to observe, or reading it silently to let someone read on their pace and come up with their own interpretation? I say it does, and in using "ear training", I find myself understanding the context on how someone else see the text much more easier, and I find myself wishing I have to time to just listen to those interpretations so my own version of the text can be just as insightful as the other, where I would apply it not as quotes, but a legitimate point to consider as I reach a conclusion that portraits both me and the other in, at the least, a cathartic way that reveals ourselves somehow.
Meta Moment
So is it possible to be against compromise, but still be open to various interpretations of one single text? I would say so, because it revolves back into the individualism mindset of writing for a purpose of self. Basically, if a writer is willing to go beyond on how he views one topic, won't succumb into a delusional viewpoint that his word is the final word, but stands faithfully in his own opinion anyways (maybe because his own thoughts and exceptions is simply different than someone else), then it's possible to extend someone's thoughts into something that shouldn't only make himself happy, but can appeal to a much wider audience beyond himself, making it better for the two to come out of such material with a better background of what it is they seek in the first place, leaving the text to firmly stand on its' own without any problem (but still be open to interpretation if needed).
All in all, I certainly feel like I've gained more perspective on the overall concept on how I should approach voice (I've always had trouble if I should approach the material as its' own thing, or if my thoughts on the matter would somehow make it richer), and I find myself to be relived that I can now, if not articulate my thoughts on this "voice" concept, think about "voice" into a greater context to whoever it is I try to please. Hopefully, I can try to arrive at a point where I can comfortably say that Voice is ideally desirable, but never imitated to its' full potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment