“A longtime critic of voice, I rail against its use in my courses. Despite this, the term invariably emerges, often sheepishly from one of my students and, more frequently than I’d like to admit, from me as I stumble over my own inability to describe what I mean” (286).
She argues there too for “network” and “web” to replace voice as metaphor. Ineffectually, I think, she claims that voice doesn’t work for feminist work, that it’s inherently patriarchal–drowning out others. And on the web, the language won’t sit still for it to have a voice. She argues that style is easier to teach than voice, but it backfires.
Her example is a student’s persuasive essay about bad student food that doesn’t work cause it’s too angry and ranting–and that in order to achieve a more persuasive text, he needs to stop thinking of voice (which is inherently loud and ranting) and think in terms of style or network. But if the student’s task is to find language that doesn’t offend–that gets a neutral or hostile reader to listen and not be put off–their main expertise is with their voice. They’ve had to adjust their voice over and over when discovering that it puts off a listener. They are skilled at it, but are not skilled at thinking about “written style”.
John’s goal, in her words, is “powerful writing” (296). He is more skilled in voice than in “mak[ing] stylistic choices that would be most effective in getting that audience to buy into his argument.” (297). (Bowden, Darsie. “Voice.” Concepts in Composition: Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003. 285-303.)