Reading Response 7

Elbow – “Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries”

Summary

In his article, “Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries,” Elbow attempts to support both sides of the age old argument about viewing writing through the two main lenses, text based and voice based. He argues against the standard compromise, saying that it waters down the resulting concept, instead encouraging the use of both lenses, and learning when to switch between them. He does this through showing all of the advantages and disadvantages of each different process, and through this demonstrating that they are contrary, but neither is necessarily wrong.

Synthesis

This is similar to many of the other texts we have read in class, where the author is applying a common discussion in the academic community to students writing, and challenging us to change our standards. What is different about it is that he isn’t showing the other side as wrong, rather encouraging us to accept both sides of the topic as correct and applicable at different times.

Pre-reading

2. There is no doubt that papers would be different with the inclusion of “I” into a paper. It would allow the use of much more personal language; the ability to relate to a much more specific personal event rather than through obscure and roundabout impersonal language that you spend more time thinking about the wording to take away the personal touch than on the content of the essay in question.

QD

1. I had always defined voice as the personality that the author gave to the surroundings and situations in a story. All, or a vast majority, of my experience is with fiction works, so the critical analysis of the text without voice doesn’t really apply, although without it, the humorous descriptions of the settings or the impassive character actions would be different. The majority of differences in voice I’ve found exist in nonfiction and poetry, where they seem to take themselves way too seriously, or there isn’t any voice to be found.

4. In his argument, his is playing his “game” because he switches mindsets when he talks about the different frames that he is currently supporting, he then doubts the other side by showing their flaws. By showing support for both sides rather than just giving a cursory glance at the “opposing side,” even though there aren’t any in this essay, he’s giving the feeling of an unresolved debate, because though he’s supporting both sides, his tone when he switches sides still shows that edge of “this sides right” even though he ends with his statement that he supports both. He uses this to emphasize that there is still a difference between when each one is applicable.

A&E

1. Sincerity is when you write from you heart or mind with little thought to censor or restrict what you are writing; you feel what you are writing. Resonance is when you make the “voice,” for lack of a better word, change subtly to make a certain point stick out differently than the rest of your piece. This took a little time to come up with, mainly for the right words, but the concept wasn’t difficult to come up with.

2. When you listen to a passage, the job of identifying what the tone and inflection of the characters isn’t left up to your imagination; rather it is decided by the speaker. It also jades your memory when you read it yourself again; you don’t hear your internal voice, you hear the speaker. You understand passages that sounded weird with the inflection you gave them when you hear them differently. It is definitely a tool that I use when reading, because when you say things multiple times, they seem to make more sense.

MM

It is possible to incorporate this into your writing, you just need to write something and look at it from more than perspective; using Greene’s idea of frames, you need to use multiple frames to find where every part fits. Instead of coming to a compromise and taking only certain parts for your piece, you can blend all of the ideas together while keeping both distinct ideas.

Thoughts

This was my least favorite thing I’ve read so far, not because of the subject matter, for the concept is intriguing, but it was sooooo long. After about page two, I kept checking to see how much more I had to read every other paragraph. This kind of ambiance is not conducive to pleasure reading. The concept of opposing ideas both being correct and coexisting is very intriguing, and I intend on expanding upon it in one of my novel ideas….