Peter Elbow IWA

"Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries" by Peter Elbow

 

Pre-reading

            I like to think of Facebook and online identity in general as a representation of what Greene calls framing; we (Facebook users and internet frequenters) virtually concoct a new identity. I’ve read bloggers say that while it’s nice to have followers, people who read their blogs only get a glimpse of carefully chosen moments of that person’s life. The same is true of Facebook profiles. You choose a flattering profile picture, often cropped to include just you. You choose a cover image that represents an interest- shows another side. You reveal certain facts about yourself: you might focus on your education and work experience to show you are a professional, motivated adult; you might focus on your relationship status or philosophies. It is only a glimpse, never a complete picture.

Summary

            In his text “Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries,” Peter Elbow argues that in the debate about authorial voice in writing, the either/or binary is ineffective. Instead, he suggests a both/and attitude toward voice that also represents his enthusiasm for accepting contradictions. Elbow describes the numerous pros and cons of voice in texts. Ultimately, he concludes that there are appropriate times to focus on voice and inappropriate times: “We don’t have to read or write the same way all of the time” (Elbow 57). Elbow claims that there are times when reading a voice is alternatively helpful/unhelpful and times when writing with a strong voice is also helpful/unhelpful.

            Elbow’s text recalls many of our earlier readings. His attempt to expand upon convention thinking about binaries and zero/sum arguments mimics Greene’s move toward thinking about Argument not as war or debate, but as conversation. In Elbow’s discussion of the rhetorical lens, he also reiterates Greene’s framing concept: “If we look at written or spoken language through this narrow text lens—stripping away the people, the historical drama, the body, and the actual person trying to do something to someone else—we can analyze better the bare root meaning logic, and patterns that voice and rhetorical drama can obscure…” (51).

 His discussion of how text emphasizes the visual and voice emphasizes the auditory also goes back to McCloud’s comics and argument that cartoons and words create voice. The mask readers wear can be a way in which they insert their own voices and identities into the text.   

Furthermore, Elbow’s concept of “ear training” recalls Kantz’s idea of recognizing author’s claims and biases: “If students are going to learn how to read critically, they need to understand that voice will often mislead them” (55).  

QD

4. Elbow claims that the either/or choice in the debate about voice is ineffective and has led to a stalemate, so he introduces a new concept: the both/and attitude. He attempts to reconcile contradictory ideas and thus, he lays out the benefits of paying attention to voice as well as the benefits of not doing so.  It is impossible to resolve the tension because if the either/or thing had truly worked, the debate wouldn’t have continued. Elbow also dismisses compromise because each side loses a little bit. Thus, he claims that the best strategy is to embrace the voice in either reading or writing sometimes, and reject it at other times.

AE

2. Listening to a passage rather than merely reading it has several advantages, according to Elbow. Hearing something out loud can alert the reader to a certain tone or attitude that the reader has overlooked (perhaps by reading a text in his or her own voice). It demands a new interpretation. I often find it difficult to read Shakespeare’s plays on my own. If I follow along to a recording or a stage performance, the degree of understanding I have after that is unmatched by my own reading of it. I see the benefits of hearing others who have invested some time in the texts read it aloud, but I’m not sure I’m convinced that merely reading aloud your own work will be at all helpful. The only time I can see it being helpful is if there is awkward phrasing and reciting the prose can make it more conversational, as Elbow points out.

Thoughts

            Elbow’s piece is not one of my favorites. Particularly, I think the students will have a very hard time understanding it. I think the concept of voice is, at this point, beyond them. I do appreciate Elbow’s article for how it relates to the other texts; I found many different connections. I found it especially helpful in understanding more completely how the McCloud piece related to the course. I was thinking about perhaps eliminating the Berger piece and pairing the McCloud and Elbow pieces instead.