The writer's voice

Academics argue quite a lot about voice. You might say their voices get quite loud. Some don’t even think we should write with voice, choosing rather to be transparent. For others, voice is a classist neocolonial imposition that reflects Western ideals of individualism. Some want writers to find their true voice, while others see voice as a mask the writer wears.

This confusion is itself a clue about what voice really is. Voice is the outcome of problem solving. We train our voices as we solve problems, and those problems tend to settle in around dilemmas, where two features interfere with each other. In some situations we need to be direct, and in others we choose to be indirect because it allows the listener to save face. But sometimes a person freezes a particular dimension, and this profile of how they adjust or fail to adjust to different situations defines their voice.

Which is why academics argue so much about voice. Voice itself is a dimension. If you write with voice this naturally worsens the transparency of the writing, and transparency weakens voice. Likewise, voice can be a signature that reveals your identity, but it can also be an affectation one uses to hide.