Hamed Saber |
"There is writing in my voice, and voice in my writing." -Overheard at an open-mike poetry event
Why
even talk about writing or writers as having “voice”? I’ve been thinking of
this in light of some of the readings my graduate students are preparing this
week—articles such as Irvin Hashimoto’s “Voice as Juice: Some Reservations about Evangelical Composition” which disparage voice, at least as discussed by
Peter Elbow and process-minded individuals.
To
skeptics, voice-in-writing sounds like some sort of MFA program gimmick at best
or else as a fool-hearty worship of the individual-as-artist. Others, like
Hashimoto, see voice as a nebulous, anti-intellectual concept used by writing
instructors for questionable purposes: “the term ‘voice’ may have become
nothing more than a vague phrase conjured up by English teachers to impress and
motivate the masses to write more, confess more, and be happy.”
But
voice is more than “being original”—as in “she’s an original voice in
contemporary American fiction.” Voice isn’t always so ego-laden. It doesn’t
have to be about possessing some sort of uniqueness (like a fingerprint or DNA
code) that becomes one’s good fortune in that it manages to make one attractive
to readers.
In
fact, there are quite a few noteworthy reasons to take voice-in-writing
seriously. (I’ll talk about one here and others in a later post.)
Voice
isn’t the claim receipt for originality. Instead, it comes down to tasting and hearing one’s own voice as one
writes.
Being
able to just notice one’s voice—no matter its quality—as one writes indicates
that one is mindfully writing.
It’s
as Walter Ong says in his marvelous book Orality and Literacy: if you see the water buffalo, that’s one thing, but if you hear the water buffalo, that’s entirely
another thing. You’d better watch out! Sound means something is not static; to
hear means presence and the possibility for engagement. Voice-in-writing is the
activation of time.
There’s
a sensory, real-time experience to writing, and hearing one’s writing (the
inner vocalization as one forms words) is part of it. Voice is tied to the
present moment of writing.
As
you write, if you remain mindful, you hear your words echoing and refracting
and then stabilizing in your own head—at a pace and in a condition that’s
different probably from your normal speaking voice—but nevertheless
recognizable as how you sound. You also feel the sensations of typing, of
contact with plastic keys, of the movement of your finger bones, the
hula-dancing of your wrists.
You
might even be able to taste your voice—the after-image of the morning’s bitter
coffee, the contact your tongue makes with the Stonehenge arrangement of
different teeth, or how the tongue presses in calm moments at the back of
certain teeth (you’re breathing through your nose)—like a shy child pressing
into its parents legs.
When
you write, if you can hear your voice, it means you are present. Voice-in-writing signals that something is
happening in time and that you are sufficiently aware enough to witness it:
moment to moment, word to word.
No comments:
Post a Comment