Midterm Consultation

Holding a consultation with Taylor was the first time I had to edit and comment upon a writer’s work on my own and in a formal setting. I had observed Writing Consultants’ appointments with students previously and had participated in these to some extent but I had never taken on one of these appointments independently. Still, I felt confident in my ability to conduct a consultation. Even when students came to the Writing Center during my observations with papers that needed a significant amount of work I did not think that I would have trouble holding such consultations. I simply thought that I would need to be more patient. Thus, I was not particularly concerned about meeting with Taylor because I am comfortable around her and know that she is a more than competent writer. I was surprised when we sat down and I realized that I did not really know how to proceed. I had wrongly assumed that the consultation would be effortless and soon saw that I needed to call upon the information we have read and discussed in class. Despite the fact that Taylor is a friend and I did not expect her paper to require extensive revision, it was still important for me to approach the situation as a serious consultation in which I should employ the techniques and approaches suggested by authors with more experience than I have.
My first appeal was to the basics. I took the advice to “read a draft all the way through before you begin to comment on it” (Writer’s Web). This gave me a more certain starting point and an overview of what I would be working with as a whole. After I had read Taylor’s essay I began a discussion with her orally so that I could convey my general reactions to her paper and so that I could hear what she had to say about it. This created an open setting in which we could talk about the paper in a constructive way even when I gave her criticism. It also allowed me to gather more information about what Taylor was trying to do in her paper so that I could more effectively assist her. In taking this approach I was using the strategy “describe your reactions as a reader, and ask questions that invite her [the writer] to further examine, explore, and clarify her ideas and approaches” (Ryan and Zimmerelli 25).
Once I had an understanding of Taylor’s paper and some ideas about where I could offer suggestions I asked her if she had any concerns about the paper. I wanted to be sure that I addressed all of her concerns before I added any concerns of my own (Ryan and Zimmerelli 21). The only aspect of her paper that she said she was worried about was the amount of summarizing. She thought there might be too much summary and not enough analysis but also said she had done some editing for this already. I considered this issue but thought that Taylor actually had a good balance between summary and her own ideas and analysis (Writer’s Web). I told her this and because we had both read the novel she was writing about and did not feel overwhelmed with summary we decided that it was probably a reasonable amount.
I had been a little concerned about editing Taylor’s paper on Madame Bovary because I had written my own paper on the novel the semester before. I was afraid it would be too hard to objectively edit the paper when I had so many ideas and opinions about the novel myself (Yothers 5). However, having read the novel helped me. It made it easier for me to address Taylor’s concern about writing too much of a summary. It also made it possible for me to follow Taylor’s argument closely and gave me inside knowledge about the accuracy of the content. I felt more capable of determining how convincing the argument was because I understood it both in terms of what Taylor was writing and what was written in the novel. As Yothers concludes, “it is a mistake for us to refrain from seeking to address issues related to the reading and interpretation of texts out of a fear of being too directive” (6-7). In light of this advice I decided to freely discuss ideas and examples with Taylor. This openness allowed us to talk about where she effectively proved her point and where she might be able to add more textual evidence.
At this point, having established mutual understanding and having addressed Taylor’s concerns, we were able to get into more substantial issues. I was able to take on two roles as suggested by a question used in Elbow and Belanoff’s peer-editing exercises. I acted as though I completely believed Taylor’s argument and this allowed me to suggest things she might add as further support. I then acted as though I did not believe all that she wrote so that I could critically point out parts of her argument that were weaker (Holt 385). This technique allowed Taylor and I to realize that the second part of her argument may not have been as strong as the first part. We then discussed ways that might help her improve this second section so that it was as effective as the first part (Writer’s Web). This is also when we discussed the possibility that she had fallen into the two-essay trap a little bit and we thought about how she might make the two parts more cohesive. As Taylor’s essay was already strong, we wanted “to go beyond the simple response level toward making suggestions for improvement” (Holt 388). In order to do this I looked over the essay again to see where I could ask questions or make suggestions, not commands, about how Taylor could potentially improve her work (Writer’s Web).
Through my consultation with Taylor I learned a lot more than I expected to. I had previously thought that it would be like reading over a paper for a friend and that it would be casual and not that difficult. However, I discovered that no matter what kind of paper I am looking at or who I am looking at it for it is still necessary to take the consultation seriously and remember the techniques we have learned. I found that the readings we have done were actually helpful to me when I was holding the appointment and I was glad to have that additional information because otherwise I would have had trouble with the consultation.