Can You Hear My Voice?

Hello Hello Hello! It's been a while.  Today I am going to take some time in my blog to think about: blogging voice.  What exactly is a bloggers voice? It is how we/they/bloggers talk, how they express their topics of interest, it can even get down to the nitty-gritty of punctuation. I guess this has gotten me thinking a bit about my blog: what is my voice, my style, and my topic? And if that isn't enough to think about. . . how exactly can I develop my own voice to reach the audience I want to reach but still be me?  I think I am having a bit of a blogging identity crisis. . . is there anyone else like me who blogs? What about other ethics of archaeology bloggers?  How do they talk? Are they like me? Or  are they so professional that no one but other scientists find them accessible? Let's take this blog here by a Mr. Paul Barford. I did some poking around through some of his older posts and came across some excellent examples of what I'd personally like to aim for with my blog.  Mr. Paul Barford has an excellent way of combining both expertise in the area of archaeology with the right amount of sarcasm and quick wit.

What is super cool about the way Paul Barford writes his blog is that he doesn't lose his voice.  Now how can you tell this chap is Brittesh, eh?  Well for starters he likes to use a lot of extra 'e's in his words like "atefact" (what I and other US archaeologists refer to as an artifact) and "programme."

He quips about the issues of comparing hunting for artifacts to actual archaeology:

Who is telling them that artefact hunting is amateur archaeology? Is big game shooting (or pheasant shooting) amateur ecology? Is collecting costume 'Barbie' dolls amateur ethnology? More to the point when (if at all) should we consider artefact hunting and collecting amateur archaeology, and when can it not be?

and his quick wit keeps the readers on their toes. Intellectually I find it easy to respect him (maybe it is just the fact that I'm not so used to British English and it sounds super fancy). But he does a good job with hyperboles and sarcasm. Even his sarcasm seems to be founded on a respectable amount of field knowledge.  He comes off as more of an expert with a sense of humor and attitude, passionate about what he works on.  He even goes as far to call Maxwell a pig and then goes on about how pigs don't "talk, drive, or use cell phones."

It's fun to hear things that you'd really only hear someone who is British use to describe the gross exaggeration of "metal detectorists" (also what the heck is a detectorists? not a term I've ever heard a US archaeologist use ever) and "pheasant shootings."

Paul Barford has quite a knack for connecting high level archaeology to a less educated audience through his humor. He asks simple questions not dripping with sarcasm but lightly touched with a sharper edge to the simple words (I just can't help but chuckle thinking that bird hunters are ecologists and kids collecting Barbie dolls are entomologists).

In his "what is archaeology?" we've got some references to cultural phenomenons: BBC, archaeology is rubbish, detectorists, programme, artefacts.  Even his "wot no webpage" not whut or what or wat, but wot, like with a British accent. . . is an excellent example of voice.

Now that I think about it, I guess I don't have to try quite so hard to have the voice I think I need to have to blog. . . maybe just give myself a chance to experiment and let the passionate adventurous archaeologist take over. After-all he really is being who he describes in his profile:

British archaeologist living and working in Warsaw Poland. Since the early 1990s a primary interest has been research on artefact hunting and collecting and the market in portable antiquities in the international context.

Moral of the story: time to flesh out my profile and not just go with what I know but also enjoy the writing adventure ahead.