Writing Authentically:

“It is natural to take on someone else’s style… a prop that you use for a while until you have to give it back. And it just might take you to the thing that is not on loan, the thing that is real and true; your own voice.” - Anne Lamott, "Finding Your Voice", Bird by Bird.

Many of the schools in the California State University system encourage writing across the curriculum - meaning, classes outside of English Studies assign essays and research papers and each discipline has a set of guidelines and formats for these writing assignments. Historically, the rules governing academic writing and rhetoric added constraints that interfered with developing a personal voice and style. In the mid-60s a gradual shift from theory to process emerged and by the 1980s personal voice dominated the classroom. Even during the later portion of the Twentieth Century, scholars, such as Lamott, Neman, and Park joined the conversation that began with Macrorie, Stewart, Graves, and Elbow. While some believe that this conversation has died out, scholars continue to contribute and engage in the debate on whether academic writing should include the authentic voice of the student and budding scholar; including Peter Elbow who stated that

“there’s something to be gained if we reawaken the discussion."

Irene Clark continued this discussion in 2019 with the publication Concepts in Composition, dedicating a chapter to "Processes" and a section on Expressivism and the Concept of Personal Voice. Regardless of the various perspectives and debates, voice and style remain important and are key components in composition studies and pedagogy.

The debate between traditional academic writing instruction and expressivism has continued since the emergence of the Process Movement. Before reviewing Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott, Carole Beeghly Bencich stated:

“All too often, talk about composition instruction includes controversy around the importance of teaching students to write academic papers, as opposed to allowing them to do expressive writing” (Bencich) 91).

Historically and through personal experience, instructors have shared that academic writing should be impersonal and that the use of personal pronouns such as “I”, “me”, or “we” should not be used in academic writing. However, there are instances when the personal pronoun is necessary; especially if the author

“want[s] to communicate directly with the reader” (Newman 224).

This direct communication can also be used to alert the reader to important information. In addition, teachers require the students to develop an argument or provide their opinion on a topic or to provide an analysis or critique of work by others: an expression of the student’s voice. These appear to be in direct conflict with each other; thus, causing difficulties for the composition student. The fact is students do not need to remain distant or impersonal in their academic writing. Bencich’s review of Anne Lamott’s Bird by Bird emphasizes that

“Teachers who take their own writing seriously understand that students’ personal writing needs must be honored in the classroom” (Bencich 91).

Truth in writing supports personal voice; however, the skeptics will tell you that voice isn’t important and that no one has a voice in academic writing. In 2005, Peter Elbow wrote about the personal voice and the opinions of the supporters and skeptics. He adds that both parties advocate for

“more power to the students in the classroom” giving them “agency to make a difference in the world” (168)

yet parameters of the writing assignments prohibited this agency. Even amid this debate, the Process Movement and all its elements have entered the classroom, and voice and style are included in the pedagogy.

Voice and style go hand in hand; however, it is important to note that voice and style are not the same thing. Style is how something is written and includes diction and tone. Language or words used in composition are dependent on a particular assignment given by an instructor and may be influenced by a perceived audience. Style is further developed through the use of traditional rhetorical moves and devices to include logical or emotional reasoning and sometimes drawing in the reader through humor and objectivity. Voice, on the other hand, is unique to the writer and is a component of style. During the Process Movement, the personal voice of the writer was referred to as Expressivism and it contained the thoughts and feelings of the writer. Jeff Park shares that during this time, academia

“began considering students as individuals in a larger social situation, and not simply as faceless components of a class, grade, school, society, or culture” (17).

In addition to recognizing personal connections in the writing process, there is also an emphasis on truth-telling. As Clark describes it; truth-telling “reveals a personal self”; by avoiding institutional language that tends to conceal or hide the writer (Clark 13). This perspective empowered the students; reassuring them that their voice is valid and important to the overall conversation.

More recently, Jeff Park continues this conversation in “Writing Theory and the Shift to Process.” He acknowledges that this topic is complex and diverse and that scholarly review will continue to fall short of a complete analysis of the theories and practices of writing. However, he shares that while subtle, the

“shift in the way academics and teachers of writing view the nature of writing” continues to move “from a product-based approach to a writing-process approach” (15).

Another important aspect of the process movement is that there is an emphasis on the actual process, the student’s choice and voice, revision, and self-expression. Park includes a summary from Tobin and Newkirk of the process movement in Taking Stock: The Writing Process Movement in the 90’s:

Every single written product is the result of some process - and almost every process leads to some sort of product. But in the composition world, the term has come to mean something else: an emphasis on the process, student choice and voice, revision, self-expression. But most of all it has come to mean a critique (or even outright rejection) of traditional, product-driven, rules-based, correctness-obsessed writing instruction. This process movement, then, has been a rejection of a particular kind of product - the superficial, formulaic essays that most of us grew up writing and teaching - and a particular kind of process - write, proofread, hand in, and then move on to next week’s assignment. (Tobin & Newkirk, 1994, p. 5).

This particular shift from theory to process has a liberating effect on both the student and the instructor. The student can write freely and passionately and the teacher has the opportunity to read fresh ideas that have not been tainted by academic rhetoric. This also allows educators to begin looking at how individual students generate and process ideas. As a result, the classroom began to incorporate free-writing and peer workshops as part of the pedagogy of teaching writing. Another important aspect of the writing process focused on how to analyze research and how to incorporate the voices of others.

In Chapter 6, “Teaching Invention,” of The St. Martin’s Guide to Teaching Writing, Glenn & Goldthwaite define Invention as a “systematic search for arguments” and this is the way most students approach the writing process (163). However, invention is a creative and personal process and requires the voice of the student. This means that the student begins with research. This research leads the student to discover content or supporting ideas and material. Glenn and Goldthwaite state that

“without content, there can be no effective communication, and invention is the process that supplies writers and speakers with content” (163).

There are multiple strategies for successful writing and inclusion of material and Glenn and Goldthwaite provide the following tip:

“strategies may be as simple as asking students about a subject: who? what? when? where? why? and how? - the traditional journalist formula” (164).

Essentially, those are the strategies I employ when reading/annotating a text. I use these same strategies for my lessons on Integrating Quotes. There are three main questions with instructions the students focus on:

1. What does the text say? (Find one or more significant quotations from the text. Write the quote(s) word for word).
2. What does it mean? (Using your own words paraphrase/summarize what the quote(s) mean.
3. Why does it matter? (Comment on why the quote(s) matter to you and what significance they have in the world. Explain how excerpt(s) advance the author’s message as well as how they connect to an argument you can make based on them).

The last part of the process is to incorporate all three responses and the students are instructed to use their responses to the above questions to write a passage incorporating the quote(s) and their thoughts along with a reminder to include a proper citation. Approaching sources and texts with these questions in mind can help students form content for academic writing. These questions can be used for any media and they focus the reader on themes and ideas that they might not otherwise recognize; helping them with the inventive and creative writing process. As the students become more confident in their ability to gather supporting material, their questions about the text will transform into ideas more complex and rewarding.

Under the philosophy of expressivism in composition studies, students began reaping benefits. Students discovered their true, authentic voice. This voice led them to authentic writing and self-empowerment. And the focus of pedagogy shifted from teacher-focused to student-centered education. In the preface to Telling Writing, Ken Macrorie states that truth-telling through expressivism:

[Enables] students to use their own powers, to make discoveries, to take alternative paths. …The program gives the student first, freedom to find his voice and let his subjects find him… for both teacher and student, a constant reading for truth, in writing and commenting on this writing. (vii-viii)

When Macrorie’s textbook came out in 1970, high school teachers were anxious to put his ideas into practice in the classroom. A second edition came out in 1977 that added free-writing exercises to be used in the classroom. The third edition removed some items and reinforced others. Macrorie’s ideas on free writing remain compelling and relevant to the classroom. In Chapter 17: “Your Subject Choosing You,” Macrorie shares:

If you write fast - without thinking of spelling, grammar, punctuation, or form - and try to tell truths, sooner or later you will write something that moves you and others. Then you will become more confident and begin to respect your own experiences because you realize they are different from every other person’s in the world - and to the ultimate source of your power as a writer. (201)

In the chapter, “Finding Your Voice,” Anne Lamott shares that “we write to expose the unexposed” and this is accomplished through truth-telling (198). She adds that truth wants and needs to be expressed. Without this expression, we appear ingenuine:

[T]he truth of your experience can only come through in your own voice. If it is wrapped up in someone else’s voice, we readers will feel suspicious, as if you are dressed up in someone else’s clothes. (199)

Authenticity and overcoming suspicion increase the student’s credibility allowing the reader to trust and be invested in the final product: research paper, analysis, exposition, etc.

As with most disciplines in academia, theories and processes will continue to be debated. Beth Neman says it perfectly:

“There is no such thing as an absence of voice in written composition… all writing reflects its author, and that all writing is to some degree personalized” (217).

At the end of the day, voice and style remain important to academic writing. Emphasis on how and what to write ultimately falls to the instructor providing the requirements and the student's response to those requirements. The educator will decide what is important to the successful completion of an assignment or course and will utilize those tools that they are most familiar with. The student will eventually discover their voice and style as they continue to practice writing.

Works Cited

Bencich, Carole Beeghly. “Writing and Teaching.” The English Journal, vol. 85, no. 3, 1996, pp. 91–93. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/820115. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.

Clark, Irene L. “Processes: Approaches and Issues.” Concepts in Composition: Theory and Practices in the Teaching of Writing, Third ed., Rout, New York, NY, 2019, pp. 1–51.

Elbow, Peter. “Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries.” College English, vol. 70, no. 2, 2007, pp. 168–88. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25472259. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.

Glenn, Cheryl, and Melissa A. Goldthwaite. The St. Martin’s Guide to Teaching Writing. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014.

Lamott, Anne. “Finding Your Voice.” Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life, 1st ed., Double Day, New York, NY, 1995, pp. 195–201. An Anchor Book.

Macrorie, Ken. Telling Writing. Third ed., Hayden Book Company, Inc., 1980.

Matsuda, Paul Kei. “Process and post-process: A discursive history.” Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 12, no. 1, Feb. 2003, pp. 65–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(02)00127-3.

Neman, Beth S. “Teaching Audience and Voice: Help from the Art of Rhetoric.” Teaching Students to Write, Second ed., Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1995, pp. 194–229.

Park, Jeff. “Chapter Two: Writing Theory and the Shift to Process.” Counterpoints, vol. 248, 2005, pp. 15–36. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42978730. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.

“Style, Diction, Tone, and Voice.” Style, Diction, Tone, and Voice, Wheaton College, 2009, www.wheaton.edu/academics/services/writing-center/writing-resources/style-diction-tone-and-voice/.