Response

So, looking at a few of the other posts out there, it seems that I took a slightly different approach to this exercise. I didn't take the time to go through the reading first. I felt that reading about voice and audience might influence the way that I wrote this exercise. A good move on my part since I found myself thinking about my writing as I wrote it... even with this added precaution. I found it difficult to switch my brain to stream of consciousness writing, just as I had at the beginning of 319. It is such a process--turning off the schooled way of writing we are forced to use day in and out to make the grade. Beyond that difficulty and my inability to turn my brain to cruise (it's the control, I don't like handing it over), I found this exercise very enlightening and can see how it could be used in a classroom to teach students how to reign in their own personal voice to show mood, emotion, and purpose.

When I began writing the Mad Talking part of the exercise, I took some time to first think about some things that make me really angry. After a few minutes a couple ideas came to mind, but none of them really set my blood racing. So, I decided just to dive in. I started thinking about the last time I was REALLY angry and what set me off. From there I just let the thoughts spring out. And that's when they really started to flow. I noticed quickly that I got very sarcastic and my sentences started to break up in length. One word here, a long drawn out thought there. It fit my temper: quick and cutting at times while drawn out and incredulous at others. I also noticed that my language was much harder and more loaded: "shoot us down", "boiling", "pounding", "fake", delusional".

In preparation for the Soft Talking chunk, I decided to think about something that had a lot of emotional value for me. I didn't want to focus on a person like the examples in the exercises. I find it hard to come up with all the little appropriate phrases when I am out of the emotion of that type of situation. And, I like to think that what I say is less scripted and more personalized each time I give advice. Though, there isn't much to be said that hasn't been said before.
Anyway, I ended up landing on my car. A silly example, but the best I could come up with at the time. And, like the Mad Talking exercise I gave myself no time to think before jumping in. I found it much harder to come up with what I wanted to say here. Even though I knew my subject was an inanimate object that could care less what I had to say. I found that I was digging back into personal experience and into my emotional vault to equip myself with the language and thought needed to really provide support. I also realized that during this part of the exercise I ended up looking at the clock often, waiting for the five minutes to end. I was uncomfortable coming up with the right words to say and I felt that it was so much more forced than the Mad Talking exercise. I also realized that in this section I was thinking about the audience of my writing more than about my own personal voice. I was thinking about what the person I was talking to would need to hear. My own voice was present, but it was influenced by the listener.

In the final part of this exercise, Fast Talking, I didn't even give myself time to think. I just jumped into the writing, taking only a minute to collect my thoughts after the Soft Talking part. I didn't know what I was trying to persuade someone to do, all I knew was that I had to play off the emotions of the listener. Here again I focused on my language. Most of my sentences directly addressed the listener with a "you" statement, pulling the reader in. I also asked questions. Lots of questions. These questions forced the listener to think, but only about the things I was bringing up. As I wrote my mind flicked from one subject to another, making it hard for me to come up with any solid argument. I ended up playing off the status and pride of my listener.

This exercise ended up as an interesting way to see my voice change from emotionally driven, to reasoning, to persuasive. If I were to use it in a classroom, I feel that it would be a good starting place to get students to start looking at their own writing and how what one says is not the only thing important in writing and voice. The section after the exercise prompt helped to explain the variants in the writing, something that I would be interested in drawing a student's attention to. Those variations in writing (sentence structure, language choice, punctuation, sentence length and variation) are all part of an authors voice as well as what is being said. I also think this exercise could be used to teach audience in a classroom. If a student were to read the voice exercise aloud, the class could discuss how an audience might react to the writing. It would also be a good way to introduce the difference between a personal audience and a public audience.

Overall, I thought the readings for this week were interesting and insightful. The variety of exercises offered was really beneficial for me; and, although I didn't connect with all of them, the variety will provide me opportunity to mix and match between exercises. I also liked the variety provided in these exercises because I feel that Audience and Voice are often breezed over in most writing courses. I have seen many students, from my work in the Writing Center, who couldn't describe either concept with much detail, if they had even heard the terms before. With that knowledge, I know that Audience and Voice are going to be parts of my curriculum and having these guides will only help to make my job of sharing knowledge easier.