Kyle’s blog

paper 2 FINAL

Kyle Boyd

Paper 2 FINAL

Word Count (sec. I and III): 1,151

I.

Ahhh, style. Man, what the hell is style? To you? I mean, it all depends on whatchu like to do when you’re writing. I mean, like…if everyone wrote the way they talk in like…casual conversation, we’d all look like a bunch of idiots, ya know? Like, no “scholarly” proof that we like…have a brain. Or have ever read a book. Man, wouldn’t that be nice, huh? If we didn’t all have to pretend we were smart when we were writing. Where was I going with this? OH!...style. Yea, I mean, do you think it is like…how you say stuff? Or the stuff you actually say that makes it like…your style? I dunno man. It’s tough.

The paragraph above is a style that many people sometimes use verbally, not because they are stupid or unscholarly, but it’s just the way they have learned to speak. However, no one really writes the way they actually speak (unless they speak like they write, which is more formal).

You can look at this paragraph two different ways. One way would be the content. The content of this particular paragraph is just asking what style actually is; whether it is content or voice. The other way you can look at it is the voice that comes through in the paragraph. In other words, the way the writer comes through using the writing techniques he/she has learned. Now, what makes style? Well, going off of this slang, word-vomit of a paragraph, I think style comes much more from the writer’s voice.

The paragraph at the top of this page has been written dozens upon dozens of times in the history of literature, at least when it comes to the content. The voice though, is a different story. Some may argue that he is pushing his style through the content of the paragraph, but I argue that this content has all been heard before. I would also argue that, in changing the voice of another piece of writing, you can never truly keep the same content. You are always changing the content, even ever so slightly, if you change the style of writing.

As an exercise, I will try to imitate a piece of writing from Harry G. Frankfurt’s On Truth, and I will attempt to keep the same content while changing the style to that of my own (and I promise, it won’t be like the first paragraph). I can already predict that the content will come across differently for different readers since the style has changed.

II. Because of this, all societies must respect the truth. However, societies cannot just know that truth and lies are there. They have to promote the findings of truth, as well as letting the truth be known. No matter what one individual may gain from bullshitting, societies must keep a strong barrier between truth and lies. They must also keep in mind that being “true to yourself” is less important than keeping hold of the facts. That is the true downfall of an orderly society.

Any society that partakes in any of these wrongdoings, they can just call it quits as a society. The society will not be able to move forward at all, or attain any kind of accomplishment. It has never been possible for a society to achieve greatness with its foundation built upon lies. The same goes for erroneous trust in a belief. For a real society to work, we need to not be manipulated by lies. The society must always be certain of the truth, as well as abide by it.

III. Going into this Frankfurt imitation, I thought that it would be very difficult to try and restate the passage without taking away from its actual content. During the imitation, I read the whole passage a few times through, tried to summarize it to myself a few times, and come up with a basic understanding of the passage. After that, I went through and read each sentence and pretended that I was explaining it to a friend who was unaware of the topic. This meant that I first had to break down a few of the more difficult words or sentences, and then re-word them to make sense to the laymen. This was extremely helpful for me for a few reasons.

While first trying to imitate the piece, I found myself trying to change just a few words, so as to match my style. I found out that this didn’t match my style at all. Instead, I found that I was just trying to keep away from Frankfurt’s style. So, when I tried restating the entire sentence to myself, It was a lot easier to come up with an understanding of the sentence, while also using my own style.

After I came up with a basic knowledge of the piece, it was a lot easier to come up with my own style of writing it, while also keeping with the general topic.

On the other hand, there were a few instances where my translation was a bit different than the original. For example, an original sentence was “Civilizations have never gotten along healthily, and cannot get along healthily, without large quantities of reliable factual information.” My translation was “It has never been possible for a society to achieve greatness with its foundation built upon lies.” My passage concentrates mainly on the past, and that it “has never been possible,” but it does not suggest that it never can happen later in the future.

I can see this as being somewhat of a problem, because the reader may think that there is a possibility in the future of a society that functions without truth. This, however, only further solidifies my predictions before I started the translation: “the content will come across differently for different readers since the style has changed.” It is possible the reader can view this passage differently because I have changed the style. Overall though, I think the content of the writing was maintained throughout the translation and just because I changed the style of the writing a bit, the idea was still presented.

So, I suppose that my predictions were not all that accurate. I argued that when changing the voice of a passage, you can never really keep the content. I have come to find that, yes, you can keep the same content for the most part. Though it will never be truly the same content, the message is still present. For my own translation, I will change the voice of the first paragraph to something that could represent a voice of my own.

Translation of first paragraph:

What is style to you? I suppose it depends on how you write. Some say that you write differently than you speak, in a way that makes you sound more educated. But what is the real question at hand? Is the concept of style centered on the content? Or is it based off the voice portrayed in the paper?

Did you get the same core concept of the passage? Or did you perceive it completely different than the first paragraph, simply due to a change of style? I suppose I would say that both accounts could be true, but I would also say that it is very difficult to have your own style simply from different content.

I think that voice in a paper is so important that, no matter how subtle, your voice can change everything. When a reader reads a piece of work, they are in a way listening to the author speaking. So if the reader can distinguish a change in voice, especially in writing, it is a very important trait to use that quality of voice in your writing. I mean, would you rather listen to me speak through the pages, giving you my voice in every sentence? Or would you rather read a blob of letters strung together, using some dead white guy’s voice?