Forum Moderators: not2easy
Voices
I can speak in many voices. I can speak (write) with expertise in relation to some subjects. I can speak with authority on others. I can speak as a reporter of my research or investigative efforts. I can speak as a curious noob. I can speak as someone of some degree of intelligence that is writing simply to help others who may have difficulty grasping something. I can speak as someone who knows one aspect of a topic with some depth but quickly find myself in over my head - losing authenticity - when I attempt to extend that claim of 'domain' expertise. No one is more closely attuned to the moment when I lapse into speaking with/in/from a voice that is inauthentic "to the speaking". (This is not the same as saying "lying" but it might be said to share in some of the same qualities of a lie.)
The interesting thing about writing voice, context and content is that IF I draw back I can see how the three - context, voice and content - align with the idea of "mission" or "mission statement". An authentic website might be said to be one where the website's mission statement aligns with its content and the content is an expression of that mission.
A classic example of a misalignment of voice+context/mission+content might be a website that claims an educational mission - such as foreign currency trading - where 40% of the average page is dedicated to ads and affiliate marketing. How quicly does the inauthentic warning alarm go off when you come across such websites? It's only a matter of a few seconds on a slow day, right, and then you flee? The messsage of the mission, as reflected on page, is "make money" - no matter what the ever present mission statement says. The writing voice tends to be shallow and reedy, the tone of a pretender to expertise.
How much better the same website might be - and more likely to find an audience - if the website was voiced as the voice of someone who is a newcomer to the topic, who is engaging the website's target subject matter as a beginner, someone who is reporting on their early insights and experience, accompanied by a miniumum of ads that are justifiably there to help pay the bills. Such a minimal-expertise voiced website might be saved from it's lack of "claimed expertise" by its palpable authenticity. Though thin on expertise it might be studied for its (personal) insights. It might be easier to digest, too, since its voice speaks to you as its words sound a lot like the words that form your consciousness and encounter with the very same issue - as you, too, are a newcomer.
Authenticity: The marriage of voice, context and content.
So, how am I applying any of this?
As I'm moving apace on the development of several projects it has become clear that I needed to confront the following issues and questions:
I tend to linger in places where the air is one of authenticity.
How rare that air is.
[edited by: Webwork at 2:58 pm (utc) on May 10, 2007]
Thank you, Webwork.
Put in its simplest terms, if the voice I write in is indicative of inauthenticity - i.e., I'm not a drinker of the Kool-Aid I'm selling (and various other take-aways from my initial post) - my writing - or in the parlance of the day "my content creation" - quickly takes on the air of fluff.
There's a bit more to be said in summation but I've already labored to say that in my initial post.
Back to creative space. It's amazing how a bit of clarity frees up the flow of the creative juices. All it took was a bit of clarity about "Who am I now in relation to this and, given that true self-assessment, what is my authentic writing voice and an authentic context for what I'm about to say?".
Who woulda thunk, ya know?
Now, if only all those who keep asking "Where do I get content" would only take a second or deeper look at what I've attempted to communicate we might actually have a far more interesting content-based Web. The short version of the answer to the perennial question "Where to I get interesting content?" is "In you! Just deliver it authentically, in an appropriate context and voice."
"The problem" of content creation starts to get solved, I'll say, by first fixing one's self (and that's not to say one is broken). It may be better said as "fixing one's mind and one's focus and one's voice".
[edited by: Webwork at 2:26 pm (utc) on May 17, 2007]
It's lonely out here in space
Webwork's thought-out, compact, abstract articles aren't easy to follow and to consume, hehe.
wonder why ... [he doesn't] ... have an audience
(No offence meant, essentially, a mere bumping to keep this one alive :)
There are many more voices
[edited by: LifeinAsia at 9:31 pm (utc) on May 17, 2007]
Whenever I tell that to the men in the white coats, they put me in a nice padded room.
I guess the phrase "I have many voices" will attract the men in the white coats' attention much better.
Anyway, copywriters are weird people, having weird thoughts and many voices. A part of their occupation, I guess.
But your post made me laugh, really. *No, I'm not sarcastic, that was just fun to read*
Frida
We read the authorities, and this the voice we are used to hearing. So when we begin to write our own material, it is often the voice we want to emulate. This natural, and in many ways, a positive: after all, there's nothing wrong with emulating the best.
However, sometimes we simply aren't an authority.
The best antidote is research.
This can be a humbling experience.
However it is better to learn your ignorance before, rather than after, you're written your article. Nothing will leave a bad taste more than discovering that an article you wrote last month is just so much nonsense.
The internet is being buried by lame articles of little or no value. This is especially true in topics that everyone feels they are an expert in (or at least, large swathes of the population). These include: psychology, relationships, politics, sex, goal-setting, motivation, film and television, photography, workplaces, dealing with stress, and others.
One way to become an authority is simply to start writing about the topic of your interest. As you write more, and research what you write, and find the gaps in your knowledge, you can over time, become an expert.
Tho not the aim, it would seem to hold good advice for such folk.
If you spend some time digesting the abstractions I've been attempting to communicate, such as "the context" for your website project and "authentic voice", you may realize that contextualizing the project from the outset can act as a catalyst for natural (to you) keyword selection, category selection, initial website taxonomy creation, navigation, article topics and titles, etc.
Which may also make the entire website creation process move along a little easier.
[edited by: Webwork at 4:48 am (utc) on June 3, 2007]
>>Knowledgeable - I'm pretty deep into this but I know my limits.<<
But I add a bit of a personal touch, like I am sitting and telling the person about something I am both knowledgeable and enthusiastic about. But there are references at the end of the page which makes it seem more formal.
My question is this. Should the writer's "voice" be consistent throughout a site? For example should there be a chatty blog style section or should that be on a separate domain?
Should the writer's "voice" be consistent throughout a site?
Anne, does WebmasterWorld have a section entitled "Foo"?
Does the Foo fit? ;0)
Authenticity of voice is not a "foolish consistency." :)
My question is this. Should the writer's "voice" be consistent throughout a site? For example should there be a chatty blog style section or should that be on a separate domain?
In my view, the writer's voice should be consistent throughout a site. The perceptions of the reader would better not mix but work in one direction and build a clear idea what the overall blog style is.
Can I adopt the voice of "expert" in relation to a subject that is new to me?
I do this in part by referring visitors to related sites that are great and on-topic. I think natural linking builds goodwill because its helpful, and cred, because it stands out as a high form of honesty and integrity. It's also rewarded in modern serps in various ways.
You're right. It's do-able. Journalists do it all the time. Where others may need to have degrees or spend lifetimes in a field before they're accepted as experts, jouralists and reporters do stories on a subject and can be instant experts.
My question is this. Should the writer's "voice" be consistent throughout a site? For example should there be a chatty blog style section or should that be on a separate domain?
I do use what you could call different "voices" in different sections of the site, but they're all recognizable as "me". Maybe different "tones" is a better description, because all the tones fit into "Knowledgable - I'm pretty deep into this but I know my limits." That's me when it comes to the site topic - with an occasional foray into "Expert - I REALLY KNOW this stuff" in certain sub-topics. But you have to be as knowledgeable about something to write a parody of it as you do to write a serious essay on it, and I do both. I tend to use humor even when writing about serious ideas, but if something crosses the line into existing for the sake of the humor, it goes into a different section of the site.
ETA: My site has always been aimed at people who are also "pretty deep into this". When I started it, newbie sites were all over the place, and it was harder for people to find somewhere they could get deeper into the topic. Now a lot (I'd say the majority) of the newbie sites are withering on the vine. I see this as an opportunity and a challenge. I'd love to have mine become a real "destination site" for the niche, but to do that I'd have to add all the really basic information that people new to the topic would need. I'm not sure how to do this without either talking over their heads or talking down to them. I think the "Knowledgable" voice would still be the correct one, but I haven't figured out how to make the tone anything but dry. In order to write authentically enthusiastic content I think I somehow have to recapture the excitement of that initial discovery, instead of coming across as a teacher handing out rote information so we can move on to the "good stuff".
[edited by: Beagle at 10:44 pm (utc) on June 5, 2007]
Promoting - A product, one's services
Plus, information and selling aren't necessarily the same thing; neither are content and copy necessarily the same thing.
