I get a lot of flak from my journalism friends about my writing. “It’s too academic,” they tell me, “I shouldn’t have to use a dictionary to understand you,” or many variations thereof. I usually shrug and never apologize. But I didn’t really understand why they felt that way. For me, I write in my own voice. Apparently that voice is mature and at times pedantic, but I don’t find myself willing to compromise about it.
I’m beginning to think their comments belie the inherent difference between journalism writing and most other kinds (with the exception of technical, perhaps). Journalists alter their voices (or at least, pretend to), in order to reach a larger audience–to communicate their message to a broader public and spread information over television, airwaves, and print. The novelist, the poet, and the essayist write with a different goal. They do not actively separate the voices they create from their own. No matter what influence is in a work, the voices in a work of this type ultimately come from what the author knows best. While they often accept suggestions or criticism, seldom do they compromise their message for a broader appeal.
I think there is a place in the world for both types. While I do think it is futile to attempt objective writing (perhaps that’s the topic of another blog post), I think the broad appeal of journalism belies its power to suggest ideas and agendas in the short term. Fiction writing, on the other hand, is what I believe alters these perspectives for the long-term. Granting unadulterated access into the perspective and experience of another human is the most powerful and sure-fire way to change minds and create a change world-wide.
I don’t plan on changing my writing anytime soon. To me, broad appeal isn’t what’s important. It’s personal expression. I long ago decided not to compromise how I express myself, and there is no point in changing that now.