or, How to Read the Poetry in You - What is your writing voice? It's hard to define, but it's important to find. A discussion on where to start the search.
I really enjoyed this one Graham, likely because it’s a question I think about quite a bit. My own Substack has been an attempt to find the voice that is most suited for me, and I think I’ve done so in the last six or nine months, but god, how to define it? I don’t know. That’s a very good question and I may follow up with you on this one.
FWIW, I connected with your strong voice from the beginning. So whatever you're doing, it's working! Your voice is authentic (another important part of voice), clear, and confident.
And yeah, any insights you have into *what* voice is from your perspective is most welcome!
Thanks Graham, I appreciate that. I've been thinking about the options one has as a non-fiction writer focused largely on "personal essays" (whatever the hell those are). This piece I had written about not going paid, I wrote first as a kind of third-person, pros-and-cons type pieces ... and I really hated my voice in that. I don't want to give advice and I shudder with disgust nearly every time I write the word "should." So I threw that draft out and just dove into the first-person, this is how it works for me approach (whatever you call that). My fear in adopting that stance, which is by far my norm, is that I'll become too self-centered, when what I really want to achieve is for the reader to look into my mirror and see themselves. How to write about myself in a way that enables a reader to think about themselves is ultimately my goal.... Anyway, there's a bloody hodge-podge of words for you! I need to organize my thoughts on this stuff.
I hear exactly what you're saying. I find for this Substack, it's a careful balance. I don't want to use "should" or be too preachy. But at the same time, wishy-washiness when providing thoughtful tips doesn't wear well either... lol
It's perfectly fine to experiment with your voice -- and Substack is one place to do that. I was going to add to this post that you can have more than one voice, too. I didn't, because (a) I didn't want to muddy the waters and (b) the post was getting long anyway. But for example, I spent a lot of time even before I launched trying to decide what my voice would be. I decided that I wanted to be opinionated, but in a way that conveyed that *everyone's* opinion mattered, and that mine shouldn't be taken as Word of God. (Kind of like what you were talking about above.) It would be irreverent and somewhat satirical in tone, which again would help soften the opinionated tone but is mostly there for entertainment value. (That's the hope, anyway!) Swearing would be allowed, but very occasionally and used for shock effect to underline a point. I would set up the posts with an anecdote, segue into and overview of the issue, and make suggestions on how to overcome the issue. The irreverent, satirical tone would lessen as the post went on.
Anyone who knows me would recognize this side of my personality. But it is somewhat of a caricature, especially in the first part of posts. And although my voice in these posts has changed somewhat (as would be expected), the original seeds are in the first posts.
I like the way you framed your goal: "write about myself in a way that enables the reader to think about themselves". I like the "this is what worked for me" approach. It does make it more personal that way without being preachy.
In any case, as I say, whatever you're doing is working!
I really enjoyed this one Graham, likely because it’s a question I think about quite a bit. My own Substack has been an attempt to find the voice that is most suited for me, and I think I’ve done so in the last six or nine months, but god, how to define it? I don’t know. That’s a very good question and I may follow up with you on this one.
FWIW, I connected with your strong voice from the beginning. So whatever you're doing, it's working! Your voice is authentic (another important part of voice), clear, and confident.
And yeah, any insights you have into *what* voice is from your perspective is most welcome!
Thanks Graham, I appreciate that. I've been thinking about the options one has as a non-fiction writer focused largely on "personal essays" (whatever the hell those are). This piece I had written about not going paid, I wrote first as a kind of third-person, pros-and-cons type pieces ... and I really hated my voice in that. I don't want to give advice and I shudder with disgust nearly every time I write the word "should." So I threw that draft out and just dove into the first-person, this is how it works for me approach (whatever you call that). My fear in adopting that stance, which is by far my norm, is that I'll become too self-centered, when what I really want to achieve is for the reader to look into my mirror and see themselves. How to write about myself in a way that enables a reader to think about themselves is ultimately my goal.... Anyway, there's a bloody hodge-podge of words for you! I need to organize my thoughts on this stuff.
I hear exactly what you're saying. I find for this Substack, it's a careful balance. I don't want to use "should" or be too preachy. But at the same time, wishy-washiness when providing thoughtful tips doesn't wear well either... lol
It's perfectly fine to experiment with your voice -- and Substack is one place to do that. I was going to add to this post that you can have more than one voice, too. I didn't, because (a) I didn't want to muddy the waters and (b) the post was getting long anyway. But for example, I spent a lot of time even before I launched trying to decide what my voice would be. I decided that I wanted to be opinionated, but in a way that conveyed that *everyone's* opinion mattered, and that mine shouldn't be taken as Word of God. (Kind of like what you were talking about above.) It would be irreverent and somewhat satirical in tone, which again would help soften the opinionated tone but is mostly there for entertainment value. (That's the hope, anyway!) Swearing would be allowed, but very occasionally and used for shock effect to underline a point. I would set up the posts with an anecdote, segue into and overview of the issue, and make suggestions on how to overcome the issue. The irreverent, satirical tone would lessen as the post went on.
Anyone who knows me would recognize this side of my personality. But it is somewhat of a caricature, especially in the first part of posts. And although my voice in these posts has changed somewhat (as would be expected), the original seeds are in the first posts.
I like the way you framed your goal: "write about myself in a way that enables the reader to think about themselves". I like the "this is what worked for me" approach. It does make it more personal that way without being preachy.
In any case, as I say, whatever you're doing is working!
Great conversation...
I think I took a shortcut, I just started writing poetry itself. 😀
Ha - that *is* a great shortcut!