When conveying a message in writing, there is always the sense of different voice within the content of that message. Writing is a silent form of speaking. Therefore, we agree upon certain images to convey that message; the mental process of reading. Languages constructed of pictograms confirm that as humans we interpret language through content; ideogram languages force us to change the irrelevant symbols to content. Style, on the other hand, is simply the compilation of a voice. Style is not dependent of content, but simply different. Voice is the personal selection of content that conveys the message. Style accompanies voice by the use of words in the appropriate sections of the piece.
Every writer has a distinctive voice intertwined with content. After reading a piece it’s as if the author’s spoken voice comes through what they write and not necessarily the way the write it, whether they intend on implementing dramatics or humor or other tactics of writing. Content is what defines writers from one another’s voice. This is not to be confused with quality of a work; instead, content is the representative of the author’s persona as a writer.
There is, evidently, a difference between the written voice and the spoken. Naturally we all have the ability to speak formally and informally, but there are always differences between the two. Writing can never fully convey the author’s spoken voice; however, the content chosen in writing is also similar content in the spoken voice. “The greatest differences between speaking and writing are those between formal written texts and very informal conversation. Because it is permanent, writing provides opportunities for more careful organization and more complex structures (Learning Media Limited 1996).”
Style comes naturally after speaking a certain way repeatedly. For example: this very paper. While some would argue that there is more power to building up an argument then explaining the other side in a later paragraph, I believe it is necessary to explain the differences immediately in comparative writing. This does not have any significance on the writer’s voice due to the content not changing with specific arrangement.
If voice is content based, then is it ethical or logical to write based on point of view in academic discourse? How else would persuasive writing exist? Persuasion is fed by content that unmasks voice to what the author is passionate about. In its most elementary form persuasive writing is evidently fuelled by the content in a compelling sentence. This example was taken from a personal website for guidance in basic writing[1].
Right:
With 14-gigabyte snufflewhupters, you'll finish your work in time to eat dinner with your family (Creed 2006).”
It is evident here the style of the writer has not changed, but the persuasive content has give the author’s argument a better stance. Making sentences with “finishing your work” and “dinner with your family” causes the reader’s attention to be drawn to the specific argument.
It is with content that we can form the sentences to our benefit of intended voice. Style cannot be the voice of an author, for if the choice of words did not matter to people then style would be the only way to convey a voice – an indiscriminant equation would be the end result of every paper leaving readers indifferent to the position of the author. Let’s not forget the popular example of persuasive writing, Reverend Jonathan Swift uses eating babies to draw the attention and severity of English oppression to his Irish audience instead of typical and practical methods of survival.
The point that Rich makes is sound and valid; but it is not the only part of interpersonal relationships. William Shakespeare, one of the greatest poets of all time, examines a contrast to complete honesty. [Shakespeare’s Poem Follows]. Most would agree that in order to keep relationships working full honesty is not always the best solution. Men and women are different, people are different, but that doesn’t mean they cannot continue to love each other through petty fallacies.
If you can’t trust the person through the clear and basic lies, then the relationship will ultimately fail. As humans we lie to each other almost to gain trust. If a woman asks a man if she looks fat in a dress, the man, assuming he loves her, will tell her what she wants to hear; not necessarily the truth. The lies that build upon a relationship are almost welcomed as the sense of trust will build through understanding each other’s specific lies.
Lying will typically end in an unfortunate disaster eventually. Though lying is not something I enjoy or expect you to practice, if Shakespeare’s sonnet strikes a chord with your own relationship…you’re a very lucky man or woman!
When writing a paper I first go through the words that will make my point stand out, style is simply the arrangement. Imagine a music composer, he thinks of the notes first because they relate to sound and then the speed and tempo that they should be played. The same can go for writing a paper whether on fiction, nonfiction, academic discourse, and any other form of writing.
I think it’s interesting that content is referred to as “substance.” When I think of substance it’s always a very general term that doesn’t give much meaning to anything at all except something in existence. To me, content IS the definition of voice. The option to choose which words can replicate the very sound of my thoughts; I suppose that’s why great writers take down every idea, word, and for some image representing later writing – it is a record of their original voice. Even when the original voice is altered through revision the choice of word usage doesn’t end. Although it may not be the original thought, anyone who has ever taken pride in their work will review their original copy.
Study of voice in the depiction of either content or style has shed light on a few aspects of writing. I always knew that I chose the words carefully for my writing but never truly thought about the implications of style and how it is important to content. While, as I stated earlier, style does not represent voice, but enhances it. I’ve learned to recognize the different styles of writing and how the different voices of authors have impacted their own as well as other styles.
How could romanticism essays and poems be distinctive without alliteration and stanzas to proliferate the nineteenth century style? Without the ability to recognize the correct words, not only for relevance to the poem, but for the aesthetics that have historically drawn respect to this day – from Wordsworth to Frost, these were the artists of lyrical enrichment (of the time). “Sweet is the lore which nature brings; / Our meddling intellect / Misshapes the beauteous forms of things; / --We murder to dissect (William Wordsworth, The Tables Turned.” The content is so closely related to Wordsworth’s voice, it almost as if the sound of the original voice comes through the piece.
The practice of identifying my own voice through this study has also showed me how much different my writing can be. I have only begun to see what different types of writing are out there and I intend to read more to expand my view on the differences between writing. Hopefully this will lead to more inspiring work that I can be pleased with – that is where the original voice comes from, I believe, from what makes us content with ourselves. Not too excited, angry or emotional in anyway. A simple acceptance of a perfection that we continue to struggle with in writing, but it’s just enough to know we have the privilege of writing. Thank you for reading.
Learning Media Limited. “Exploring Language.” Ministry of Education (New Zealand). Crown Publishing. 1996. Retrieved Oct. 18, 2008. http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/exp_lang/speaking_writing.html
Posted by hein9311 on October 20, 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)