Lately I've been thinking about honesty in writing, in the importance of "finding my voice." I've also realized that my writing looks different, depending on the context.
on facebook, for example, i try to be super informal. i don't use caps, i give my friends an obnoxious amount of emoticons, and i'm always enthusiastically punctuating! :) i want my fb friends to know i'm happy to be there, happy to be talking to them, and happy to not take myself too seriously (i'm def not writing a peer-review essay, after all!).
In academic writing, however, I have taken the time to analyze and attempt to reproduce the erudite texts of my superiors. This clumsy mimicry of my forced scholarly encounters includes opaque phrasing of simple concepts, copious--not to mention, often incorrect--use of the m dash, and, finally, all the transitional words necessary to simultaneously make my next logical point both painstakingly clear and confusingly verbose--all for academic acceptance, of course.
Actually, as a side note, I have recently come across a pretty good article that calls into question all these writing rules that scholars must follow and cites the danger of mental and expressive stagnation when adhering strictly to them.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=421045&c=2 if you're interested. My favorite quote from this article is found in one of the comments: "Clunky writing is proof positive of lazy thinking." It's my favorite because it's true. When I tried to make a analytical point in college that I hadn't fully thought through, I'd just borrow the jargon and sorta scratch the surface of something potentially profound, and then let the more educated professor's mind fill in the blanks with something more thorough and interesting than whatever it was I had initially thought of. It usually worked but it always felt a little deceptive. Not to mention, it cheated me of actually having to think up to my standards.
And then, of course, there's writing for Art and writing for Pleasure. These types of writing frighten me far more than the other two because it requires a vulnerability that I can avoid in social and academic writing. It also reminds me what a literary baby I am. I spend so much time trying to copy the style of other authors in order to be able to avoid my own limitations. I should probably state here that for me, good artistic writing requires honesty just as much as effective personal writing, and that I have a (lazy?) habit of conflating content and style when writing about my voice and about my inhibitions. When I ask myself what my voice is, what my writing style looks like, I still don't know. I think that is actually why I'm blogging--I want to find out.