Readers Response #7

Peter Elbow in "Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries" addresses the arguments that come about writers write when it comes to “voice”. He states that this argument is one that’s been dead for quite some years now but it needs to get woken up. He argues that voice is still in everyone’s writings today, whether they realize it or not. Elbow also addresses the positive aspects of using voice in your writing. He states “With practice people can learn to write prose that “has voice” or “sounds like a person,” and, interestingly, when they do, their words are more effective at carrying meaning.”(Elbow 52) He also lists negative outcomes from using voice in your writing. “Ignoring voice is necessary for good reading.” (Elbow 54) He touches on the fact that students improve their ability to understand the context by ignoring the voice.

I think that Peter Elbow’s “Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries” is very similar to Greene’s “Argument as Conversation”. Although both articles have different topics they are also alike. I think both articles point out to you that while writing, you’re doing something you never even realize. In this case, putting yourself into the text.

Before You Read:

1. You construct an identity on Facebook by what you post and what you write about yourself. I think your identity online can be more made up rather than in person. You can exclude all the negative things about you and only focus on the positive. You can also lie.

QD:

1. Voice is putting yourself into your own writing, whether it’s past experiences, cultures, or anything that shapes you as a person. I think my definition of voice has always corresponded well to Elbow’s definition.

4. Elbow closes his argument with stating that he supports utilizing both ways of writing or thinking. He acknowledges the necessity of using both forms. If the tension between both ways of thinking was completely gone there would be no growth in writing. He states “Just as we can see more about texts through if we learn to look at them with two lenses in succession- the lens of voice and not the voice- so, too, in our thinking game we need to learn to use both intellectual modes: the doubting and believing games.” (Elbow 58)

AE:

2. When you read something out loud you’re more likely to listen to your words and understand what you are reading. “Ear training” has affected comprehension of words. Reading it out loud makes students more comfortable to speak. I think it is a great tool to use, and you should implement this when reading a more difficult text.

3. Elbow addresses the positive aspects of using voice in your writing. He states “With practice people can learn to write prose that “has voice” or “sounds like a person,” and, interestingly, when they do, their words are more effective at carrying meaning.”(Elbow 52) He also lists negative outcomes from using voice in your writing. “Ignoring voice is necessary for good reading.” (Elbow 54) He touches on the fact that students improve their ability to understand the context by ignoring the voice. I think these coexist with a single piece of writing because we want to have a more effective meaning and understand the text at the same time.

MM: I think for both perspectives on voice to co-exist you need to establish the right time for either or depending on the article you are writing. I believe that it is not possible to do such a thing at the same exact time.

I thought this article was very easy to read, but at the same time dragged out. It was a little difficult to comprehend in some ways. He got his point across but I think it could have been done a little clearer. Other than that I enjoyed learning about voices in writing.