“Voice as Juice: Some Reservations about Evangelical Composition” struck me as oddly indicative of Bartholomae’s work. This wasn’t until near the end, I admit, but I began to see a similar agenda here (if, in Hashimoto’s case, more scathing). Hashimoto’s problems with “voice” and “voice”-based instruction sound similar to Bartholomae’s; both scholars seem imminently concerned with the voice drowning out the mechanical bits, the parts that make writing grammatical and correct, if, perhaps, not “good.” Hashimoto seems to have more of a problem with “voice” in general; his writing seems to tirade against the concept more than Bartholomae’s, even if the latter was apprehensive about voice-teaching.
What this makes me consider is that Elbow’s ideas about voice may be too universal to be accurate. I still like the idea of voice, but voice can only go so far in making some text matter to a reader. I think this goes back to the discussion we had last week about the importance of the author versus the importance of the reader; certainly, when it comes to how much a reader likes a piece of writing, the reader is more important. Most readers have certain topics - probably a long list, in fact - which they simply can’t stomach, no matter how good the writing. Likewise, other topics will get the benefit of the doubt more readily and more often. What voice will do is separate the stuff a reader likes from the stuff a reader loves.
Entries (RSS)