It always seems like voice is the evil in writing. For one it is hard to determine not only when to use voice but what is voice? Is it a paper jam packed with your thoughts and beliefs? Or is it the way you structure your sentences, use your words, basically a pattern of your own mechanics? I personally believe that voice is style, the way someone can write and have it show their personality. Through their words, grammar and mechanics the writer should be easily pointed out by their readers. For me and my writing (for example)…my words are easy to read nothing to indigestible for my readers, I tend to use long sentences (when I have a big idea) or the short and sweet ones (when I want to make sure I got my point across).
To show what I mean I can use an imitation exercise. If I took a couple paragraphs from one of Frankfurt’s book and re-wrote it using my style would my way have a bigger impact? Or would it defeat the point Frankfurt was trying to make? To find out I chose to imitate Frankfurt’s book On Truth pages 32-24:
No civilization can afford to hate truth. It is not enough to recognize that the truth and lies are concepts worth grasping but to actually practice it. We all must also encourage those who truly devote themselves to truth. It may be easier to bullshit but it is also the lazy way. Individuals who do bullshit have a lazy sense of what is true and false.
A society that does not care about any of these beliefs is going to eventually make it to where they are incapable of achieving anything, nor will they be able to reach goals. The world cannot get along without the truth. They cannot develop if they constantly have to pursue the truth. In order to make this world better and more advanced we need to avoid stupidity (bullshit). Making productive use of truth is the first step.
This imitation was easy for me. I started off by copying Frankfurt’s passage word for word. After I had his words in front of me I proceeded to change his indigestible vocabulary to by easy to digest vocabulary. This is where I had my first imitation, but I still had his sentence structure (and according to my definition of voice that was something I needed to change to my own style). So I looked over each sentence to see what I could or could not condense/combine. I narrowed it down; I ended up having fewer sentences than Frankfurt original piece. After everything was done, and I felt my imitation was complete by my standards of voice, I could not help but feel that I may have “dumbed” down Frankfurt’s piece. I chose the simpler imitation for two reasons. One Frankfurt is a scholar (accepted in the academic discourse) and I am not, so I am still figuring out a stronger vocabulary and sentence structure. Whereas he has it down as he has demonstrated in his books. And two, I understand the “dumbed” down version better than his scholarly version. Every piece of writing I read if I do not understand it simple changes like vocabulary helps me. So for now the simple and condensed is my style of writing, I can understand it and I hope that my readers can as well. I choose the simple voice because I know how frustrating it is to read a piece and not understand one word, and I do not want my readers to feel the same about my work. I want them to read what I have to say and be able to understand it easily.
Going deeper into the analysis of this exercise I can break down both versions (Frankfurt’s and mine). This will help me to not only learn from Frankfurt’s style (which is essentially the point of imitation) but I can clearly define my own voice. But before I can do this I must say that this exercise was easy because one I agree with what Frankfurt is saying and two even though he is a scholar he was easy to read and I do not feel like he wrote this book just for the academic discourse but for every one (which is where I see myself writing). So for me he was a good person to imitate. Starting on the first sentence he says, “…no society can afford to despise or to disrespect the truth.” But I say No civilization can afford to hate truth. His sentence seems more elaborate, whereas mine is straight to the point. Another example of the differences is in that same paragraph. He says
Moreover, whatever benefits and rewards it may sometimes be possible to attain by bullshitting, by dissembling, or through sheer mendacity, societies cannot afford to tolerate anyone or anything that fosters a slovenly indifference to the distinction between true and false. Much less the can indulge the shabby narcissistic pretense that being true to the facts is less important than being “true to oneself (33).
But I thought that was a little rough to read for me, I thought some things could be left out and condensed easily. It may be easier to bullshit but it is also the lazy way. Individuals who do bullshit have a lazy sense of what is true and false. I like what I said and how I said it, once again it is short and to the point. But I still felt like I “dumbed” down the academic discourse.
My definition of voice remains the same. It is how you say it not necessarily what you say. Frankfurt and I said the exact same thing; I just said it in my own voice (even if it was the dumb version). I feel that my voice (style and mechanics) will grow as my writing progresses. One day I may write exactly like Frankfurt but I will develop new words and sentence structures, because by then I will be (hopefully) writing for the academy. I believe that any writer can just throw their opinion on a paper, but to take the time to organize, structure, and produce a true piece of work takes style. If a writer takes that time to do those little things their voice will come though and their point will be made very well.
Posted by vaug9193 on October 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)