YOU SUCK. "we don't do proofreading or editing" means just that. and no, smart learning commons is NOT going to help you do that either. so good luck, you jerk.

-meherrr

. . . Traces of Me
It sounds like of you wondered whether or not there was autobiographical truth in what I wrote. Most good fiction writers bristle at such a question and usually refuse to indulge a response. Fortunately, I'm not a good fiction writer, so I'll gladly reveal where Tom's life crosses my own.

I'm a bus rider—not presently because I'm trying to make a go of biking through a Minnesota winter, but I love the bus. And I will admit that it was probably on the city bus that I noticed my proclivity for "surreptitious reading." It compels me (but not to the extremes of Tom's pathology) for some of the ways that the narrative outlines. But I also see it as a way of trying to break the abnormal silence of bus culture. Short of knowing what people are thinking, I'm curious to know what they're reading—what words are passing through their mind. As someone stuck in academic literary studies, I'm interested in what the everyman is reading, and how fast, and with what level of attention as expressed by some noticeable reaction (I've perceived very little reaction on people's faces or in their bodies to what they are reading. Stoics, all of them). I try hard not to do it, but if a book or newspaper is open, I'm drawn to it like moth to flame. And I try to imagine that I am so stealthy and skillful that no one notices. I think that is laughable. I'm probably known to the regulars on my bus as "that creepy guy who stares." When I was thinking about and writing this piece, I started to indulge more frequently, justifying it as "research."

But I wonder if this voyeuristic impulse doesn't linger in most of us. To what extent are you intensely curious about what others are reading? I presume you have an interest in language and stories similar to my own. Aren't you fascinated by the tattered pulp novel in the weathered hands of your neighboring passenger? Don't you want to know something about the relationship between him and the book? Of course, I could always strike up a conversation and ask him what he thought of his book, but that would be rude. Instead, I go Scopus on him instead.

And I'll admit that I am a reluctant reader. When I read, I become deeply immersed in what I'm reading. Reading is such an intense activity for me, that I often become withdrawn and sullen when I am still in process of reading something. I don't snap out of it until I am done with whatever novel, article, or memoir has drawn me in. That withdrawal is often socially inconvenient, so I find that I sometimes resist reading deeply so that my "normal life" (that outside of academia) isn't disturbed. Surreptitious reading is one way to stay safely on the surface of the water filled chasm of reading.

Having worked for several years as a writing consultant, I have reflected many times—as I think we all should—on my relationship to the papers that I read. I recognize that we are entrusted with very sacred texts, and when we are working face-to-face, a personal text is compounded with the personal intimacy of sitting and talking about it with a relative stranger. Having never patronized the writing center as an undergraduate student, I feel a profound respect for the writers that seek us—and a strong sense of obligation to do right by them. Since sharing your writing is always such an exposure of our vulnerability, I have wondered about the potential exploitation of that trust. So I created Tom as a vehicle to explore just how it would happen. I didn't realize until after I wrote it that I was also trying to justify or contextualize its happening. That is, how a seemingly ordinary and well adjusted person (like me?) could end up in ethically ambiguous—or blatantly egregious—situations.

This conception of this piece was also coincident to our move to the new Nicholson space. Surely you recognized the descriptions of our current digs, though you might not have an image of our old space. Tom could never have pulled off his tricks in Lind Hall, simply because the space was utterly closed and controlled. Another impetus for this piece was to explore the dynamics of our writing center spaces and the unforeseen consequences of the open and inviting design principles we espouse.

You also recognize the role of technology in Tom's addiction. That, too, was inspired by the march of technology in education, easily witnessed on our campus and in our center. It struck me that our flexible and permeable space was akin to the access to and accessibility of digital spaces and cyberspaces that colocate with our physical ones. And it struck me that the two might work together, despite our best security measures. Maybe this is the hacker that lurks inside of me. This post provides my first opportunity to publicly recognize Huy Hoang for his contributions to this piece. He talked through the practicalities of monitoring computer activity in the lab, and using VNC was his suggestion. Of course, we can trust that, being so aware of potential breaches, we are well protected under Huy's careful watch. Right? I can certainly assure you that I'm technically incapable of doing what Tom does, although it is practically possible.

Other semi-autobiographical facts:

Capella does have a mobile writing center, and I learned of it through one of C4W's former consultants, Jack Stack, who does stints with Capella's traveling writing center. The bloodmobile is my own invention (and a little jab at the for-profit world of higher education, which can be read as manifestation of my own insecurity and envy). Actually Capella's consultants travel to a location and set up shop in some arranged or leased space. It is a site that otherwise disembodied student writers become embodied and come into contact with other embodied instructors. Arguably, despite my insecurity, it is a good model for an online institution like Capella and its competitors. But I liked the bloodmobile for its symmetry with the city bus as well as its evocation of bloodletting, vampires, and invasive medical paradigms.

Tom's bus route is modeled after the #3 along Como Avenue towards campus. I drew upon my many bus rides throughout the MTC system for those details.

My fifth grade "girlfriend" was Megan Bailey. I haven't seen her for over 20 years, but, although she was a bit bookish and uptight, she didn't look homely to me back then. She was, in the parlance of grade school crushes, "cute."

. . . Creepy and Tingley
It sounds as if Tom's twinge and the tingle were fodder for conversation/concern as well. I think of it as something somewhat playful to help animate the story and something that gives a just a hint of psychological depth to Tom. But I also would like it to be another entry point for introspection. What sort of pleasure do we derive from our work? What "pleasure centers" does it trigger? In light of reading Russell's essay, Tom's twinge might appear rather sinister and sexual. I hope there is a range of human needs and impulses that might be signaled by the ambiguous twinge. I can't claim that this short piece provides a thorough (or even thoughtful) exploration of pathology, but that's where it tries to gesture. I wonder what pathologies we, the non-pathological, carry around with us each day. Things that we manage, suppress, or control sufficient to stay safe from scrutiny or exposure. And that's Tom's talent, isn't it? He's charismatic—not at all greasy or phony—and able to abide social conventions despite his fetish/obsession/perversion.

Once in a while, it is good to indulge the "I'm a phony" anxiety that dwells deep within us. It's good to reexamine our motives and assumptions. One of the disturbing features of the narration is its relative flatness and the absence of Tom's awareness, concern, or consideration of his condition. Although he may be exposed, he is not examined. And he's certainly not self-examined. With that flatness, we are only left to read Tom as exceptionally steely and mercenary in his obsession. That's the hyperbole. What about for each of us? Short of Tom's extremes, where is our motivation for this work driven by our own pleasure? Our own needs? And can we reconcile that fulfillment with the ethics of the work? In nearly every case, I think we can, but Tom reminds us that we shouldn't stop checking ourselves. Maybe we're really creepy, and we just haven't realized it yet.

. . . An Alternate Ending?
You might not be satisfied that Tom seems to get away with it. That was certainly essential to my purpose; I wanted to be sure that Tom wasn't relegated to the category of a miscreant, pervert, or deviant with all of the attending stigmas of social dysfunction and interpersonal failure. He needed to be able to get away with it, to pull it off, in order to give us pause to wonder about our practice, our colleagues, and our field. We might watch one another with greater suspicion now, or register certain comments from a particular consultant in a different way, but paranoia isn't the objective. I most hope to provoke a little critique of how we think about our craft and, importantly, the dynamic contexts of it, including physical space and technology, but institutional culture and educational fashion as well.

If Tom is discovered and dealt with, or worse (for the sake of the desired critique) if he rehabilitates himself, we lose some of the edge that makes us proceed with caution. We need to adopt technology in our teaching and learning and create spaces where we can effectively work, but we must attend to matters of pedagogy and privacy as we do so. We need to enjoy the intimacy of our work, but we must be aware of personal vulnerabilities and psychological nuances that are attendant to writing and writing consultancy.

And now you can see that I'm becoming preachy, which is one of the primary reasons that I wrote this piece—originally read at a conference where a conventional essay would have been typical—in a nondirective genre. So I'll end with a pedagogical move: if you were assigned to make one substantive revision to this short short story, what would you change? How would you change it? And why?

Thanks for reading the piece and discussing it so earnestly in class. That kind of attention to one's writing is rare and precious.

My thoughts on the readings... I was at first shocked by the fact that the Russell article was comparing prostitution with writing consultancy? Wow, that’s pretty bold, but what did it do? It got my attention! So, as I’m reading, I begin to think that I agree with much of what Russell states, such as the fact that one gets into the “life of a consultant� that all these parallels can be made between this career and other instances in life. I have felt those times when I’ve been slightly taken advantage of because I want to give so much to help someone that they end up taking it to the extreme. Russell explains his theory, but I kind of feel that the issue he brings up is serious, but my way of looking at it see it from the opposite view. I’d say that I feel that I know how to control these situations and I never let appointments get too demanding or outright controlling.

I believe in respect as if it were diving down a two-lane road: Treat me right so I can pass on and I’ll treat you the same. We both pass by and the world is a little better knowing that we didn’t try to ram each other our path only to make it down the road and have bad karma work against us!
I’ve had the center “groupies� and the “habitual� client, so I appreciate Russell’s attempt to define these stereotypes. I didn’t really think of much when reading this, because I felt like he has defined these roles and their actions, which actually encouraged my mind to put names and faces together of my clients that fit under these descriptions. I’m always angered by the “one-timer, hurry it up just do it� kind of person. If could be a guest author in Russell’s essay, I’d expand more on the thought of what it is like to have that one-time abuser that seems to happen over and over again at the worst moments. I guess it just makes us stronger.

OMG!! I hate that phrase: “keep your eyes on your own paper!� I can just remember in grade school a really old and mean teacher shouting this phrase! Funny how no one was ever trying to look at someone’s paper. Was she paranoid or what? Of course, we all spread out all over the classroom and put our hand on top of our heads with our sleeves rolled up like were on an elementary-version of COPS. So, I know that’s not what this article talks about, but the title brought by up horrible memories. So, the article really talks about the trajectory of a person learning to read and kind of get through things with the presence of someone always watching over their shoulder, which is frustrating when trying to learn anything.

I’m captivated by the stories ability to take the reader through a serious of no more than a week or maybe two in attempts to tell a story about a person’s rise to the top of their game. I think that keeping your eyes on your own paper for me translates into “keeping your eyes on your own prize.� Two different approaches, but nonetheless the message is still implied. I really felt that it was heartfelt and shows that sometimes people are not aware of what everyone always goes through. In relation to consulting, I keep this thought as I work and greet others. Perhaps they just need your to look over their shoulder for a minute until they like the Ogden’s character, Tom, can step his way proudly up to the bus stairs and ride on to a new future… yeah, or maybe just breathe easier knowing one assignment is down, 851 to go? Quien sabe, no? (Who knows right?)

So upon receiving my inquiry paper, I felt really proud to have completed this project and to have completed it to the best of my abilities considering the time constraints I have faced all semester. I remember the turn-in day, it was cold! Waiting for the bus as usual to come to campus to drop of the inquiry paper plus 3 others for classes in buildings spread miles apart. So, me running around to turn in all these paper, all had to have been written at nearly the same time now shows me that hard work and dedication goes a long way.

The process of writing the inquiry paper was not difficult for me, but I know time was an issue. Trying to get participants for my subject was difficult, but I'm glad I didn't give up. My topic of giving voice to the issues multilingual people face when writing in English was very necessary, so my willingness to complete a project that I know would produce some "gray area" magic has helped me to realize much about myself and the writing process that I haven't thought about for some time. Yes, there is more I would like to do, so I’m letting these thoughts marinate for sometime until I have more time to, shall we say, barbecue? :D
Beyond my reflection of my inquiry paper, I move on to thinking about general thoughts about my consultations. I am truly touched that I have had multiple frequent filers. I'm glad to hear it when they say that I have really helped them and that they look forward to coming back. See, this sentence here, this is exactly what I want to say in my reflective essay, hmmm, maybe I should just snatch it from here and put it in my paper, but you know, say it better! :D I've seen the students I have worked with evolve in both their writing and in their personalities. It's funny when I see the one-timers, who cam into the center with an attitude on that particular day, but who now are able to wave at me when they see me walking around campus. I also run into my frequent fliers! Talk about running into a frequent filer at Target, wow, it is a small world.

As for my reflection on my experiences this semester, I'm trying really hard to think about how I have changed. I don't know if "change" is the right word for me, but maybe its how I've "grown." The type of consulting I do, which I have thought about how to explain for my reflective essay has began and continued in the same manner, but now I feel like it comes second nature. Two things I know I had to change: 1) How to write comments after the sessions and 2) how to let it go if students are reluctant to getting help and how to move past this sentiment during as session. I have learned both.

I can remember the conversation I had with one of the TACs about writing comments. I wasn't trying to evaluate or be a teacher by saying I thought they had a strong thesis or something, I just was thinking that I happy they were pleasant to work with and also was proud to see that their work was well-written, which yes, is an opinion, but what I felt that most people need is really to be taken seriously and to be restored a part of them that they have lost when wrestling with writing. Maybe I misinterpreted the “praise� article or maybe applied it wrong? Anyway, now I just write the comments now they way we are supposed to, but in my mind I recognize what people do well and try to tell them during a session in a way that does not evaluate nor either praise, it simply acknowledges the fact that I can rejoice in know that someone has worked hard and has tried to better themselves, even if it is only through an assignment. En punto (period).

a client came in with a paper in which they read different articles and picked one to agree with, and argued why that viewpoint was legitimate and the others weren't. so this client came in with articles about torture of terrorism suspects. before i read through their paper, they made it very clear that they were concerned with their personal viewpoint coming across in the paper. so keeping an open mind, i dove in...to find some really awful stuff. regardless of what their opinion was on the subject, i have a strong personal opinion on the subject as well, and i found what they had to say offensive. they basically picked the most extreme article of the three which stated that torture should be completely legal in the questioning of terrorism suspects. there were specifics in the paper that referred to torture being necessary on people even possibly connected to terrorism, regardless of solid proof of their guilt being available or not. the argument was that these people might be holding valuable information that will save many many american lives, and if it turns out that they were in fact innocent, then the outcome is better than the possibility of american lives being lost. while they have a right to have this opinion, by all means, this made me kind of sick.

the worst part was there were instances where their sentence structure and the content were very closely connected. to be completely honest with you, i half-assed this one, because i just didn't want to look at it anymore. i was afraid of telling this kid exactly why his viewpoint wasn't legitimate, not based on my opinion, but based on the fact that his arguments weren't stable. he also made clear very early in his paper that he would not refer to any of the events that were discussed in the articles. i think perhaps he should have; torture is not a subject to be taken so lightly, and maybe if he had taken the time to think about some of the things occuring, his viewpoint wouldn't have been so extremely in favor of it. the absolute worst part was where he mentioned that it is so important to torture suspects to get the information quickly, that the government should create an online system that allowed a judge of whether the suspect should be tortured or not to immediately give a decision, "to eliminate unnecessary paperwork".

i was worried about this one mostly because the line between my personal opinion and the structure of the arguments was starting to blur. so i focused on the other things he needed help with, which was reducing the length of his paragraphs (some were more than a page long). i told him he could split up paragraphs when a new train of thought is introduced, even if he is still writing on the same subject, and i also told him that paragraphs don't need to be at a certain length; some paragraphs are two sentences long and some are much longer, just based on the content and how he wanted to present it. immediately after, he went through his paragraphs and found where they looked like they would be an appropriate length. at that point, i was REALLY done with this. i knew that i would eventually come across a paper with a strong viewpoint different than my own, but i didn't realize that sometimes the argument and the opinions are very closely related, and you can't question one without questioning the other.

i hated it. i'm glad it's over.

meherrr

for those who don't really feel like they are part of a subculture, rest assured, i did not forget you. while you didn't appear in my paper, i did consider you. but ho, my friends, i disagree with you. even as you feel separated from any kind of "main group" or subculture per se in our course, you are still contributing, simply by being involved at all. the things i was finding in my research showed a lot of interactions that i never even thought about occurring not only in 3751, but in the writing center in general. so, by gracing us with your presence, you did contribute to our subculture. and again, i think it's important to keep in mind what exactly a subculture is. a lot of things can fall under this category, and it's definition isn't exactly clear, even to those who study it in a lot more depth than i did. but the main, working definition of a subculture (and the one i applied to our course) is a group of people with characteristics that separate them from the larger culture. we have some pretty obvious ones, including being part of the course, being new consultants, being undergrads, etc.. and the important thing is that we are all these things...AT THE SAME TIME! (we're just that good!) i also explored some other things in the paper about the subculture, so if you wanted to you could read my paper. not that it's any dazzling, final piece of literature by any means, but i enjoyed writing it because it dealt with all of us on such a personal level. maybe somebody is interested in reading it, like i found in the comments of the last blog i wrote. (btw that made me really happy that i was intriguing enough in my post to get a question about it! thanks!)

i hope everyone made it home safe tonight! stay warm.

-meherrr!

All orders placed after December 3, and charged to your U Card will appear on your spring semester statement.

Meher: Singer. Sings with her eyes closed, carries a wireless mic, walks through the lab picking out unlucky victims which she forces to sit in one of the awkward, large colored chairs with desks attached so she can serenade them.

Emily S.: Oboe player. Struggles to get any notes out of the impossible to play double-reeded instrument. Sits cross-legged and slouchy in one of the aforementioned deskchairs.

Yi: Bass player (Orchestral, not guitar). Has to jump every time a note is played in order to reach the upper strings.

Peter: Official band snapper. Wears sunglasses, stands at stage right, and snaps along with the "music."

Jenna: Back-up/Main Dancer. The only dancer. 100% interpretive dancing in flowy skirts, often holding branches with leaves to swish around. Dances with her eyes closed, completely oblivious to any music. And barefoot, of course.

Maggie: Keyboard player. And not a real keyboard, just one with 10 or so keys, and two functions: trumpet and snare/cymbal. Snare/cymbal function is ALWAYS on. Batteries die halfway through every show and must be replaced.

Miranda: Band's Image Consultant. Keeps fannypack of scrunchies on her person at all times.

Sharkey: Keytar player. Instrument is kept unplugged, so it's kind of an airguitar/keytar situation. Sports a rat-tail and neckbeard.

Emily Lind: Band Manager. Most important duty, besides standing on a chair and announcing to the griping lab users that a show is about to start, is buying stage props. Most recent purchase: those flower pots containing flowers that wear sunglasses and move along to clapping/loud noises.

Keely: Didgeridoo player. Got the instrument confused with a Swiss Alp Horn, so she wears liederhosen.

Gabe: Lyricist. Specializes in spoken word, and interrupts Meher's singing every so often to share a few lines. Carries bongoes but never plays them.

Grant: Bouncer. Threatens complaining lab users with hyperbolic, ironic, metaphorical similes. And a stungun.

Wendy: Soccer-whistle player. Costume includes shin guards.

Brittany: Official Merchandise vendor. We currently sell See For Double You! fanny packs ($20), See For Double You! notepads ($8), and See For Double You! monogrammed hand towels (quite a steal at $30).

In order to support my claim of the course being a subculture I surveyed my fellow consultants who are enrolled in the course, interviewed Kirsten Jamsen, our director, and made personal observations on the interactions of our group. I referred to secondary research to establish a stronger definition of subculture, which, as it turns out, is not so easy to define. I also found recorded reactions of peer tutors at a different writing center, which I used as a comparison when examining our own.

Of course, I was not looking for definite answers to the questions that came up in my research, but I found some interesting information nonetheless. Our group dynamic, both as a course and as co-workers, is complex and dynamic; it is most definitely a subculture, as I prove in my research. I also examined the effects of us being a subculture. There were a lot of positive things I found happening both in our course and in the C4W as a whole as a direct result of the interactions of 3751W students. This led to the examining of possible implications, ways to either maintain a positive atmosphere or improve the atmosphere in future 3751W courses. I also discovered some interesting tidbits about myself as a member of the subculture, which I feel many consultants at the C4W may be able to relate to.

For this inquiry I began by asking how writing center directors decide whom to hire.
What guides them in their search and decision making process? What do they value in a peer tutor? There is very little prior research of the subject in writing center discourse. To find out the answers to these questions I composed a survey directed at writing center directors. The survey consisted of 9 open answer questions and one question where they were asked to rank eight characteristics. The questions included where and when they post for applicants and whether they require a certain GPA, faculty recommendation, or a class for tutors. I also asked about anything else they require of a candidate and whether they think it is important that the tutors reflect the population of their school. I also interviewed the three directors of one university writing center. For the analysis I brought together the results, interview responses, and research. The results reflected the large variety of processes that writing centers use in their procedures. Writing centers must have flexibility while deciding whom to hire for their undergrad peer tutor staff.

Issues of a) identification of a first/home/mother tongue language; b) fluency in multiple languages; as well as c) the experiences of comprehending and writing in English when it is not an individual's first language were also addressed in my study. The more that the University of Minnesota's Center for Writing learns about both the personal and academic experiences of multilingual students, the more prepared the Center will be to work with this growing population of students.

My initial question that began this research seeks to investigate how fluency in multiple languages affect the attitudes of multilingual individuals in relation to writing in standard American English composition? Thus, my research goes onto detail my collection of data via a 13-question questionnaire I created and distributed to six study participants, all self-identifying as either native English-speaking multilinguals or as non-native English-speaking multilinguals. These participants were selected through my interaction with four of them at the Center for Writing through consultations and the other two from within my social network. The results yielded that the native English-speakers multlinguals face less fear, condemnation, or stifling of one's thoughts in comparison to their non-native English-speaking multilingual counterparts.

Nevertheless, this study draws upon many conclusions that have been stated in previous literature and are compared and at times are also juxtaposed with evidence from my primary research survery/questionnaire data. My hope is that the Center can take something away from my research and know that although many times consultations occur between monolingual/monoculture consultants and multilingual/multiethnic student writers, therefore some issues such as approach, beginning questions, explanations of grammar vs. writing skills and so on are all ways to help the Center approach work with both multilingual and monolingual students alike.

Through studying one experienced, thoughtful writing consultant, I wanted to see by what principles does this consultant abide, AND how flexibility acts within three sessions. First, I found that both Harris and North upheld four principles: one, consultations should be student centered; two, consultations should be collaborative; third, they should be flexible; and fourth, writing consultations should focus on the process of writing, and not the product. I then looked at Jack* (name changed), and found that he did indeed uphold all of these principles in his work, but first, focused on upholding the student as a person trying to become. I also found that Jack acted in directive ways, and gave sentence-level help. Though these methods may appear non-collaborative, etc, it is not. In these sessions that these methods were utilized, the student needed the help. Thus, Jack was acting on a hierarchy of principles, focusing first on the student's needs and then acting out with flexibility. Writing consultancy is about meeting the student's needs...and adapting the principles through flexibility.

The End.