My consulting persona is shaped by the idea that there are not many objective rules regarding “proper writing” so much as subjective ones that the writer must learn to operate within. This is influenced by the idea that any good model accounts for constant change. For instance, modern writers need not abide by as many rules regarding grammar as writers of the past. This being said, it is not as though grammar should be disposed of. I would argue rather, that we must care about it more, as it is pertinent in our digital age to make the text as accessible and clear to as many people as possible.
Likewise, there are crucial aspects that shape all writing; namely, there must exist a reason, thesis, conclusion, (and so on…). Generally, we do not decide to write, or for that matter, consciously think, without an inspiration. It is pertinent, therefore, that writers become fully aware of the fact that the words on the page stem directly from their conscious mind, not necessarily from the minds of their professors, contemporaries, or authors. In the context of a writing consultation, this applies to one principle: the formation of any given text should rely on singularity—it should reflect the writer, not the consultant’s thoughts. As Stephen North notes in his landmark essay, “The Idea of a Writing Center”, “the only composing process that matters in a writing center is ‘a’ composing process, and it ‘belongs’ to, is acted out by, only one given writer” (North, 439). As a consultant in training, I hope to limit my direct involvement in the shaping of each text. It is my responsibility to maintain singularity in the text as the words on the page should reflect the thoughts of the writer, not the consultant. Through this, the text maintains its singular integrity while the writer is given the opportunity to really think about how it is shaped.
This follows North’s ideal purpose of a writing center: “to produced better writers, not better writing” (438) and allows the consultant to reduce the consultant-to-paper relationship that so many think exists in a writing center. It is my hope, rather, to encourage a consultant-to-writer relationship. I hope to encourage my peers not to view writing as something wholly separate from thinking (in fact, the two are completely interdependent upon one another) but as the “holist” (438-39) approach that North speaks of—the development of not only the writing, but the writer as well. I seek to follow this in my consulting experience.
Perhaps the most worrisome concern regarding my own consultation style is the inevitable integration of my own emotional convictions. Young, academic culture lends itself to strong (often misguided) political beliefs, and Furman is no exception. In their essay “Tutoring Emotionally Charged Students”, Corinne Agostinelli, Helena Poch and Elizabeth Santoro explain that an effective way for a consultant to deal with helping along a paper that makes a controversial claim is to “reveal his or her bias while also being devil’s advocate as a means to help the writer think about her argument” (Agostinelli, Poch, Santoro, 22). This insight is valid because the method proposed not only allows me to voice my own opinion, but more importantly, encourages the writer think about an opposing argument, thus strengthening both their writing and critical thinking skills.
My next point of interest (or concern) may be better explained through a hypothetical reflection on how I would feel after a consultation regarding my writing. After and during a consultation, I feel as though my greatest vice would be pride. There is a degree of pride that comes along with writing, usually due to the sheer amount of time spent on a project, and because of this, I would probably have a degree of reluctance on my part regarding changes. No one wants to admit he or she is wrong, especially after spending hours crafting a paper. Therefore, after a consultation, I may feel hesitant to admit my errors and to implement changes. I also feel as though I would not be the easiest person to consult and this is attributed to my own introversion. Though it does not sound beneficial to have an introvert work in the writing lab, it actually is, for this trait would grant me insight as to how to deal with students who share this characteristic. In the essay “Talk to Me: Engaging Reluctant Writers”, Muriel Harris mentions the Myers-Briggs personality indicator, claiming for introverts, that silence may simply mean “taking things in to reflect on them quietly” (Harris, 27). Being an Introverted Intuitive Thinking Perceiving personality type (INTP), I can validate that this is most likely the case and perhaps connect with the writer on a different level than a consultant who does not share this personality type. Therefore, after reflection on how I felt during a writing consultation, I can identify how I may make the experience more comfortable for someone similar to myself.
In all, the act of consulting is not simply to produce a better piece of writing, it is to produce a better writer, and that starts with producing a better thinker.
Works Cited
Agostinelli, Corrine, Poch, Helena and Santoro, Elizabeth. “Tutoring in Emotionally Charges Sessions.” Rafoth, Ben. A Tutor’s Guide: Helping Writers One on One. Heinemann, n.d. 17-23.
Harris, Muriel. “Talk to Me: Engaging Reluctant Writers.” Rafoth, Ben. A Tutor’s Guide: Helping Writers One to One. Heinemann, n.d. 24-34.
North, Stephen M. “The Idea of a Writing Center.” College English 46.5 (1984): 433-446.