Sing, baby, sing

We've been discussing "voice" in my editing class at KSU, and how it is the editor's responsibility to make sure that the editing stays true to it. But what is voice? It seems to me to be one of those "I know it when I see it" things--like pornography.

There are some books that I just "get." And I think it's because I can really hear their voice. Even if that voice isn't like mine, there is something that gives a cohesive whole to their work. For instance, right now, I'm reading Shakespeare Wars: Clashing Scholars, Public Fiascos and Palace Coups. It's a fun read, even if, when seen in public reading it, you might as well be wearing a sign that says "Literature Geek. Will work for Reads." The author has a really strong voice--definite sentence structure, word choice, the way he quotes people he has interviewed. In fact, although I haven't read the entire book yet, the only complaint I have with the book is the fact that his voice could have used some editorial-reining-in. He loves to write with sentence fragments. And I'm o.k. with that. Really. But sometimes he does it so much that you have no idea what the subject is any more. Where's that antecedent? Really, where?

When I received my first paper back in my editing class, the major comment that my professor wrote was "I would have liked to see more of YOU in the paper," which was really funny, because I'm in a class, in a degree program. When I was writing it I was worried that I was writing it like a feature story, that maybe it should have been more academic. And we all know that you are supposed hide yourself as the author when you are writing academically. All that "research was performed" etc. When I'm forced to write academically, I'm always pushing to just say "I read." "I think."

Oh, for a happy medium.