My writing here at Richmond has not included a lot of citing of outside sources because my only formal paper thus far has been in my CORE class which forbids the use of outside sources. I was only able to use the primary source, the text, in order to write the paper.
I know that not all of my papers will be like this. I feel that as I write deeply analytical papers that are trying to prove some type of thesis or primary argument.
One section I found really interesting in Hjortshoj's text was the section about having one's own voice. I have never thought about it in quite those terms, but he is exactly right when he says this. When reading academic analytical papers, one does not want to just read fact after fact or quote after quote from other sources. The author has to say what he or she thinks. I think this is done through a move that Writing Analytically calls "making the implicit explicit". Through bringing out the hidden implications in a given text, one establishes his or her own voice and makes the paper flow better and more enjoyable to read.
I like how you close this post with a note about voice.
ReplyDeleteIt is a writer's best friend, and readers recognize it (think of P.J. O'Rourke or Mark Twain). In academic writing voice occurs too. There are, of course, specific formats for writing in the sciences and social sciences, but even these writers get "personal" when they venture beyond journal articles.
I know Gould's or Wilson's writing about biology, for instance, by their voice.
After reading some of Darwin, I can surely see this. I have just not ever thought about it in context before. It is interesting and now I can see how important it is.
ReplyDelete