|
What Is Voice  And How Do I Know I Have One? even simple, till you start fixing your eye on it. Then, like 'innocence' or 'internationalism' or 'love,' it begins to swell up like a cloud into some- thing that fills the whole sky of meaning, and darkens it, and comes to signify everything or nothing." ~Earle Birney The same can be said of voice. Somewhere along the line, when a writer has been composing and posting and creating new poems, someone will say something about 'voice'- "I like your voice" - or "I knew it had to be one of your poems, it has your "voice"- and what on earth does that mean? Of all things we may talk about in writing, I think that voice is is perhaps the most difficult to define. It's something that's as apparent as the nose on your face when a person has it, but it's something you can't readily describe when it's not. And if you're looking for it, like so many amorphous things, it's best talked about it by listing what it is not. It's a thing like smoke or smell- real enough, but hard to catch by the tail and examine its teeth, because it's a slippery critter. It operates by instinct more than anything else, and in some cases, appears to be there from the first- a God given thing- while others may find it after toiling at writing for some time. But I can tell you that of all we know of writing tools, it can't simply be 'produced' because it emanates from the soul of the individual writer, and their understanding and relationship to life itself, and if thought of in that sense, what it actually is- is the religion at the heart of the writing. What voice is NOT, is gimmicks- or the look of the thing on the page- or arrangement of lines and empty space. It is not whether a person rhymes or does not rhyme, tells prosy tales or lilts off into the ether. These are elements of style, but they are not voice. More than anything, voice seems to be a matter of theme: theme and its recurrance. How strong is the personality outside of writing?- that's often a good indicator of whether or not a writer will ever achieve anything like their own, recognizable voice. And what exactly is it that allows for that immediate recognition? Well, I believe there are often philosophical questions whose answers can be found in 'voice'- such as whether or not the person believes in God or in an afterlife- faith- or its lack-- and what an individual puts their faith in, all have strong influences on the writer's voice. One's emotional health and personal pain are easily accessed through voice, therefore- is the writer basically an optimist or one of those who are staggeringly depressed? Do they wave a cape of humor despite it? Is love and its salvation a repetitive subtext of the lines over and over- or does the poet go through life in a mostly hedonistic pursuit of primarily sexual- or physical- sensation, with the physical appearing to be the thing that propels that craft through any waters? Is being alive simply a proposition of what one can eat, smell, touch, seduce and mount- or does the writer convey more of an open-mouthed awe about nature, as well as respect for other human beings which would indicate more of a spiritual sense and one less of entitlement, or - "all things for personal use." What is the balance between these two? Is one offered as token, while the other clearly dominates personality? Is there a pervasive sense of boredom or marked disdain? Is the writer hopelessly jaded, yet brilliantly persuasive- and are they vain about it? Is there humility beneath? These central, repetitive themes, these hallmarks of belief and attitude, are what make up the first whiffs of voice. By this time, you will have ascertained that my definition of 'voice' is indelibly and undeniably attached to who and what the writer is as a human being. I believe this is true-- I believe it with all my heart- and that is why I believe that what we call voice, cannot be denied, cannot be 'honed'-- and that if the vigor and outline of the writer is a clear one, so will voice be unmistakeable. Therefore, 'voice' is not about using slashes instead of commas, and it's not about whether punctuation is used or one long run-on sentence, and it's never about whether a person 'shows' rather than 'tells'--god, to my mind there are some poems HAVE to just tell-- and any attempt to SHOW would have them read false-- so it's not so easy to simply say, "Ah, this one is a rambling thing that takes you to Point A by Point K, then kicks you in the butt by ending all the way back at Point B--- so this is so-and-so." No. No, such devices can be mimicked and copied, but a writer cannot copy voice any more than he could copy another's face or fingerprint. These things proceed from voice- not the other way around, and in this case- the writer is probably someone who enjoys manipulating the reader- is rarely forthcoming- but rather, is bound by nature to choose a circuitous route. But the real question would be: how often does the author write this way? If it's fairly consistent, chances are voice is pointing appropriately to the author's nature. In short- voice is what we take to the throne of God at the end, if you believe in such things. It is the poet's pure belief in what is, and what is not, about being alive. At that moment when all line breaks fall away-- all slant rhyme-- couplets, tercets-- tricks and simplicity-- it is what the writer essentially IS-- that is his or her voice: nothing less, and nothing ever simple, but like all true things- we know it when we hear it. ............................................................................................................................................. Just a note here: the theory of mine above, is one of the reasons I always feature 3 poems from each poet: I'm looking for 'voice'- not fluke. I must say, I was extremely fortunate in that each writer in this thick anniversary issue has a distinct and ringing voice. It's made this issue a joy to edit, and I thank you all. Main Page |
