Voice post

Hi~ welcome back. Today I’m going to talk about blogger’s voice in this post. From the blogger’s voice, we can identify blogger’s attitude, value and emotion etc. Therefore, identifying the blogger’s voice can help followers to understand blogger’s post much more clearly. Generally, blogger’s voice can be identify by blogger’s writing style. As like different people have different personalities, different bloggers have different writing styles. Furthermore, different writing styles(Voice) give different effect on readers. To prove this, I brought two posts from two different bloggers. One is The Synder Sensitivity Situation by blogger Gavin and the other one is So now it’s a war? Climate change perspectives are…changing by Tom Fuller.

First, let’s look Gavin’s the Synder Sensitivity Situation. In his post, he clearly shows his opinion about the Synder’s study which is published in the Nature. He use direct words such as “This is simply wrong.” Also by bolding this sentence, he emphasize his opinion. He to bold the words what he want to emphasize. In his post, there are couple more. By bolding the word like this, readers like me can understand his intentions better. Also, he used French word au contraire! to emphasize how he is sarcastic about Synder’s opinion. However, he use formal language which makes his article more like scientific paper. So, readers might feel that reading his blog is actually learning current studies. However, as like other climate change blogs, he does not just insist his opinion. He demonstrates his opinions base on the other people’s result. So, it makes his article more reliable. Therefore, in general, his writing style makes his blogs sounds more straight, strict, and reliable.

Next, let’s look Muller’s blog post So now it’s a war? Climate change perspectives are…changing. Compare to Gavin’s blog Muller’s blog is informal. Also, the word he choose is stronger than Gavin. Muller used “war, doomed, and failure” to express his opinion. His article is disagreeing with Venkatesh Rao’s opinion about how we should climate change. Rao is not a researcher. He is an editor. He wrote his opinion about climate change at the Atlantic. And Muller is skeptical about his opinion. Muller is writing is a bit aggressive. He says “To which I respond, if you are correct we are doomed. Not because of climate change — but because of you”. It sounds like quite offensive, but he delivers his idea clearly. Although his writing is offensive in this sentence, but the other side you could think this as he is talking to close friend. So, for me it shortens the distance between him and me. So, it makes me emotionally more reliable to Muller’s opinion. Not like other typical climate change blog, his post does not contain any other researcher’s data. So, this one is quite different from typical one too. So, combination of informal language, informal form and strong words make this blog sounds aggressive close friend insisting strongly about his opinion.

As you can see from above two examples, those voice has its own roles. Since I’m a science major student, I prefer Gavin’s writing. Because his writing sounds more formal and reliable to me. But that doesn’t mean Muller’s writing is wrong. Although Muller’s post is not reliable than Gavin’s post but I could feel writer’s emotions more in his writing. I could not feel any emotions on Gavin’s writing. He is only talking based on the facts. So, some might felt coldness in his voice. So, there are pros and cons in each styles. I think I have to stop here. Hopefully, it helped you how the voice of writer can affects readers. Bye