voices

Well, this is still intriguing me, partly because I really should find time this weekend to write up my blog material. Francis has also been considering the writer's voice:

the importance of the voice in writing, the difficulty of describing what voice is, and the fear that writers have of losing it. He also mentioned the disappointment of readers meeting a favorite writer, whose actual voice just can't live up to the writing.

All of which made me wonder about this day and age where people like you and I have our own written voices with our own tiny audiences, some of whom inevitably we end up meeting.

Exactly how disappointed must people be when they meet me in the flesh?

I know Dr Gaffel will have something authoritative to say on the authorial voice, so I shan't try, as I've not really met many favourite writers (OK, I queued for hours to get a book signed by Terry Pratchett during France 98 and nearly missed an England match, and did I mention I met Bill Bryson on Thursday, who I did actually think was very pleasant) but as well as writers, I think this covers two other things we have touched on recently in comments or discussions around posts & comments: that the BBC have a large collection of poetry read by the poets (I head Under Milk Wood on the crackly LP as a fourthformer and fell in love with it, whereas I also love Wendy Cope poetry but it sounds different when I hear recordings of her reading it), and also the casting of characters in favourite films. Personally, I'm a Joan Hickson Miss Marple, and a David Suchet Poirot girl, myself - in part because they're most like the characters I see when I read, and in part perhaps because they were the first I saw often in TV portrayals. I've never read James Bond, so I don't have strong feelings either way. As for Mr Darcy, well, there's no competition....

Anyway, interestingly, Francis' post came the same day as someone asked me where my blog was (and again when I'd be vlogging, still can't see that, sorry), and then came back and said:

Your blog is very..... well, you, I guess..... And as for being shy, pooh!

So here we are. If people who know me well think my blog is very me, then do people who only know me from my blog think I'm well, me, when they meet me? I suspect that depends on when and where they meet me. As was picked up in this quote, and comes from a series of comments a little while back, who I am when you meet me depends on where and when and who. I may be very outgoing (that's a professional persona), I may be a wallflower (that's the non-professional me) or I may be a riot (that's the real extrovert you only get to see if I'm happy enough and familiar enough with you to show it. It's also possibly not so far different from the professional me these days - you as you meet me may not realise there's a difference). You may also meet the baby elephant, but that's another story, I just mention her or Phil will point out she's missing. So is my blog all of the above, so whoever you meet, you still think I'm me? I have no idea, since I've never met me after reading my blog...

But, if my blog is very me, and I'm very my blog, is that possibly because I never set out to be anybody or any thing else, and therefore my blog ought to be very me? Hemliga Pappan, when interviewed about his blog said you should start it with an aim, a theme or an intention - presumably this will channel a voice, and it may be that it is no longer the natural voice of the author. His was that after lots of research there were lots of blogs written my new mothers, but rarely any by new fathers. Francis' is to teach us new vocabulary. I didn't have any plan whe I started. I don't need to be told that that is quite clear when you read my blog, but I quite like it the way it is. A bit here and there, not necessarily well organised, or thought out, maybe deep, maybe blonde.... how could you meet me after reading it and not know it was me?!