Elbow Reading Response

Summary

Peter Elbow, in his article “Voice In Writing: Embracing Contraries,” attempts to renew the scholarly discussion of voice in writing. Elbow thinks that we need adopt a “both/ and” attitude in addition to our "either/or" view, toward voice as well as other issues within writing. Elbow says that by viewing writing through the lens of voice as well as the lens of text, we will fulfill the need expressed in academia and strengthen our analytical skills with these complementary readings.

 

Synthesis

Elbow’s support of Baird seems to be in contention with the way Bartholomae wants us to “play” with voice. Elbow says of Baird and his colleagues, “in their fascination with voice, they sometimes seemed to want a voice that was true or right in itself, fitting the writer or speaker—not just a voice that is appropriate to the audience or genre” (47). This seems to be in opposition to Bartholomae, who asks us to use different voices in our writing, not always our own.

 

Elbow’s disdain for an “either-or” argument, a “zero-sum” game, reminds me of the way Greene talks about arguments. He uses “zero-sum” to describe what an argument in academia is not, it continues on, with new and revised arguments coming forth all the time.

 

Pre-reading Exercise

2) I think using “I” in my academic papers would make my writing more engaging and appealing to the reader. If I had a personal connection to the subject I was writing about, I could use that connection to either appeal to the audience through an emotional appeal, or I could make myself seem more expert on the situation because of my personal connection to it.

 

Questions For Discussion and Journaling

4) I believe Elbow does play his “doubting and believing” game. By giving the full side of each debate, he brings to our attention the very real merits of each side of the debate. Having heard these, we as an audience are more willing to accept his wish for there to be no true winner of the argument; we want both voice and no voice. Elbow doesn’t want to resolve the tension because he wants both sides to continue to on; he wants a “both/ and” solution.

 

Applying and Exploring Ideas

2) Hearing a piece read aloud does simplify my reading because the vocalization of the piece gives it a predetermined voice. This could be helpful if say the author of the piece were to read his text, as it would give me an idea of how the author meant his work to be taken. It could be detrimental to other readings of the text, however. Once I heard the voice it would be hard to forget it; hard to impose a purely textual reading on the piece of work.

 

Meta Moment

I think we need to work on making layers of meaning within our own writings if we are to achieve both sides of voice, as Elbow wants us to. If we can read in different lenses to come up with a more complex meaning, can’t we write in the same way?

 

Personal Thoughts

The reading by Elbow is interesting in its organization. I have never seen a debate so thoroughly argued on both sides in an academic paper, though it did serve to achieve the result he was hoping for, convincing the audience that both voice and non voice need to coexist.