Hillmer’s Art of Persuasion

Rough Draft for Paper 2

Rachel Hillmer
English 319-023
10/13/08
Paper #2

The Substance vs. Style Debate

Essentially, I believe, that voice is the speaker's way of connecting with a reader and having a discourse. This definition is a simple one to understand, but it rouses the following question: what elements comprise voice and make the conversation/connection between the writer and the audience possible? Is it style or substance? I know through personal experience that the answer is hard to identify since I have constantly struggled with finding my voice. Many academics, politicians, scholars, even students try to enamor their audience with impressive diction, humor, the complexity of their sentence structure, and charming style. Personally, the majority of times I read such works, I do initially feel in awe and intimidated by the often very assertive and persuasive speaker. However, when I re-read or analyze the paper, I often find that the speaker's style seems to, intentionally or not, mask the inadequacy of their argument. In Harry G. Frankfurt's words, style too often serves as the "bullshit" to cover up the lack of or poorly argued substance of the paper. Therefore, I believe, if we have to choose one element that embodies voice it would be substance.
Maybe this next analogy emerges from the future elementary school teacher in me, but a good example that demonstrates the relationship between style and voice/ substance is a hamburger. This connection may sound juvenile, but this simplistic image perfectly represents the complexity of the relationship between these two key elements of writing. A hamburger always has a bun and the meat patty in the middle. These are basic and indispensable ingredients for every burger. The sandwich can be eaten plain with only the above components, some prefer it this way, but most feel it's too dry. So, to add flavor (extra appetizing appeal), components such as cheese, lettuce, tomato, condiments, etc. can be included. In this way, writing is similar. Substance is the meat patty and style is the extras added for flavor. Without the additions, the meat patty may be a little dry but is till edible. However, the meat patty is essential to the existence of the burger and without it, the sandwich would not exist. Writing is the same idea. Without the subject, the paper would not, could not, subsist. Style, therefore is often desired, but should come as a secondary concern.
Another illustration of the debate of whether voice is substance or style appears in the current presidential election between Barack Obama and John McCain and the relationship between these two candidates and the media. The public eye has a tendency to focus more on each aspirant's style rather than the substance supporting their position is on the issues. In the first debate, Obama frequently acknowledged McCain and their, few but apparent, coinciding views on certain topics. However, John McCain refused to recognize Obama's presence in any way. These differing approaches taken by each candidate became the main focus of the media and the public for days following the debate, neglecting the discussion of what Obama and McCain actually said regarding the serious presidential concerns. This is one of the complications that can appear when too much emphasis is put on style. Either of the two candidates could have all the style and charm in the world, but it wouldn't matter. If McCain or Obama don't have adequate ideas, experience, etc, they will not be able to lead as President regardless of the likeability they demonstrate. So, as citizens, we shouldn't just want a leader that has a flashy demeanor. Our country needs and should demand an individual who has the knowledge (the substance!) to lead as the President of the United States.
There is no question that style can positively contribute to an individuals writing. Style can serve as that additional attention grabber that hooks the audience so they keep reading. I would be naïve to say that audiences do not subscribe to those ideas presented in a showy fashion. Audiences want to be entertained. However, it's imperative that writers and readers understand that without substance, the core ideas and thoughts, the meat patty of the hamburger, the paper itself would cease to exist. Without the purpose of the paper, there is nothing to persuade. Essentially, the style in which something is presented is irrelevant without the substance because there would be no opinions to demonstrate to the audience. My argument is not that style is expendable, but that where style adds flash, substance allows the work from which style emerges to exist. It's the writer's job to provide a convincing argument throughout their work. Therefore, in response to the speaker's efforts to provide this clear factual logic, it is the reader's responsibility to, while perhaps initially rapt in the superficial power of style, to push past this initial focus and concentrate on the fundamental argument of the piece. Without substance there is no style, no discourse, no writing.
To demonstrate my firm belief that voice is substance, I chose the following passage (pg. 32-34) from Frankfurt's On Truth to imitate in hopes of portraying that, although the original author's style is the same, my personal feelings can be injected as the substance.

"Due to these facts, our society must acknowledge and respect the truth. We cannot stop there, however, for the society must accept that some facts are universally true, at the end of the day, but we also have to consider that truth orbits around our own unique universe. Therefore, we must understand that our values and beliefs will influence our own unique truth. Further more, since we all are of different persons and identities there will be contrasts in each individuals beliefs, personal truths, or in their thoughts, yielding various responses to what the actual set in stone ultimate realities of our world are. Just because citizens disagree on what should be considered essential, fundamental elements of our society does not mean that they are behaving in an indifferent manner. I happen to believe that the more passionately a person argues for their point to be accepted or acknowledged by the masses, the more that individual cares about society.
A world that is unwilling and dedicated to silencing those voicing their own beliefs in truth are, I believe, the real offenders of such fallacies. Without an encouraged public discourse between citizens, we will not hear one another's beliefs or values. Societies will not learn their truths, and won't be able to learn, without the active passionate conversations between human beings. A societies capability to identify the many truths will be severely limited if the discussions regarding values are prohibited. To institute and continue the search for the many truths in our civilizations, we must evade the mind set that there is only one discussion that can be had concerning the "facts" or that there are only set of established universal truths in our world. Our society must acknowledge- and, certainly, we have to learn how to openly listen and discuss- the many truths that exist in our society and personal lives".

After completing this imitation exercise, I realized, even more so, that voice is complicated whether it be in imitation or in our own work. Writers hear, define, demonstrate, and struggle with voice daily, in our English classes and outside in the real world. Therefore, it's accurate to say that voice is comprised of more than one element. Although I maintain my original position that voice is based largely on substance, there are other factors, such as style, that contribute as well.
The writing skills that, I consider, to be more tedious such as grammar and sentence structure, have never come easily to me. Yet another reason I'm quick to pinpoint writing as substance; voice would be easier for me to create if it were this way. I thought the imitation exercise would be simpler than it actually was because I would be adding my substance to Frankfurt's concrete style. However, I found it much harder than I anticipated to relay my intended message, my substance, to the audience with Frankfurt's style already established. In my imitation, there was a detachment between my substance and the original style that created a rift in my ability to successfully communicate my theme. The clarity of my points were murky and the persuasiveness of my argument was not at all convincing which made sense since even I had felt lost writing the imitation. This final product led me to the conclusion that substance and style rely on the effectiveness of one another. Style provides the eloquence and initial hook to adequately intrigue the audience so that they'll read on. Substance portrays the speaker's main ideas that contribute to the meaning of the paper. Style gives the substance the appeal it needs to be heard by the reader, but substance is the reason style can be implemented at all.
One of the common arguments concerning the elements of voice is that it doesn't matter the point your trying to persuade in your writing. It just matters whether you can be effective in convincing your audience to believe what you articulate, even if what you are saying is complete bullshit. I strongly disagree with this idea. In a society where there is so much corruption and exploitation, writing is one of the only places in which individuals can converse honestly with their peers regarding their truest thoughts. When writers and readers begin to view literary works in this way, it belittles the potential power of the honesty of a speaker's words on our peers and the world to affect positive change and the discovery of personal truth.
Perhaps I unfairly associate style with the bullshiter. To me, style too often seems to be an easy way to distract and dazzle the reader away from the issue being addressed in hopes that they will agree with the speaker based on the likeability factor alone. This is why I would rather say that voice is substance and not style. It allows writing to remain pure, untainted, and sincere in which works have the ability to influence change and transform anything. Is it an unfair assessment to say that style holds no value in voice? Absolutely. Some of the greatest authors were great writers due to their individualistic styles (Raymond Carver became a literary legend primarily because of his incredible minimalist style). I feel like I have subconsciously known that voice does not have to be made solely of one element, but this imitation exercise more adequately proved this point to me. An appealing and intriguing style does not always mean that there is a lack of ample substance to the piece.. So, it's through imitation exercises, listening to the arguments of my peers, and an open mind that I work on my acceptance that voice can be comprised of many different elements including, but not limited to substance and, yes, even style.