A couple weeks ago I wrote about Mark Richardson’s tumblr as a source of inspiration for this fine blog you’re now reading. After continuing to read Mark’s blog, I’ve decided to dig a little deeper: in this post I’m going to talk specifically about Mark’s voice and how it contributes to the success of his blog.
My first post about Mark focused on the style that is portrayed through his blog, specifically as a result of his content choice. What I have come to realize, though, is that Mark’s nuanced voice is the main vehicle for this style, allowing it to emanate off the page through the subtext of his writing. But this mention of subtext illustrates exactly why Mark’s voice is indeed so nuanced: it truly manifests itself as a lack of voice.
Conventionally, voice is perceived like extra credit – it’s the extra jokes, the personal opinions, the parenthetical digressions that a writer adds to his piece to show personality and make it less boring. Mark doesn’t really do that, at least in his personal blog. He writes in a succinct, to the point manner, stating things as fact. A good example of a typical short post is this link to an album review he did for Pitchfork. His comments are limited to the dry:
Another example:
"This was a revelation the first time I heard it. I own this 10”.”
He is linking to this song by Kid Koala, calling it a “revelation,” and not expanding upon that comment at all? You’d think it would be a big deal for such a seasoned music critic to call a song a “revelation,” and you would expect him to at least give some explanation, some insight - he’s a critic for christ’s sake! Those guys live to see their prose in print. And yet, Mark is self-restrained. Even his longer story-oriented posts sometimes read like a police report, a mere collection of facts. And at first, he comes across as cold, even boring.
In my first Envy post I said “he makes a point without making a point,” and allows the reader to make his own conclusions. In a very similar way, it is in his reserved, no-frills manner of writing that Mark’s personality comes across – he allows the reader to infer his personality, and if the reader dedicates himself to consistent reading of his blog the collection of personality-inferences come together to form a picture of a man who is far from cold and boring.
Take this, for example:
“When I worked as an apprentice butcher my mentor was Mr. Wu.” That’s it. No back story, just a fact stated as such, with no context except this photo.
Another:
“Personally, I like the older, more obscure stuff.” Then he links to this 12 second audio of “the first sound ever recorded.”
“Personally, I like the older, more obscure stuff.” Then he links to this 12 second audio of “the first sound ever recorded.”
What would seem to be a cryptic, nonsensical comment about an even less sensible video becomes (to a smart reader) a hilarious comment on the modern cultural phenomenon of defining one’s coolness by the obscurity or “originality” of the art he references and enjoys.
Mark’s use of written voice gives his reader credit. It’s effective, and his writing never comes across as forced. He’s not trying to entertain the reader with standard “LOOK HOW FUNNY AND CULTURALLY AWARE I AM” shtick that so many bloggers (including myself) fall prey to.
Mark is a professional writer with a professional blog where he publishes his professional opinions. His personal blog is not that space. It’s just a space for music, art, and thoughts he finds interesting, about which he can simply say “this is interesting.” In its straightforwardness it feels organic and distinctly personal and he comes across as a very genuine person.
Do I think I’ll take this approach? Nope. It’s effective for Mark, but it doesn't fit my personality. Though I do think I can learn a lot from the concept of “voice from lack of voice,” maybe not try so hard to force my personality into my writing and let it occur more organically.
No comments:
Post a Comment