After realizing that the interview had not yet been done, Lauren sought to equip H to use her time wisely. She did this by investigating which questions to ask her interviewer. Lauren encouraged her writer to look up the field her interviewee was in, to find topics to challenge further.  Then, Lauren helped H establish a thesis, creating a goal for the paper. Once H had created her goal, Lauren helped H narrow down the questions she had considered in order to clarify questions in line with the thesis. Each question had been perfectly crafted to fulfill a specific aspect of the thesis statement. Despite not having written anything, or having done her interview, Lauren was able to ask questions that invited H to set up a helpful game plan of questions, thesis, and outline. Obviously these all might change after H has done her research, but Lauren utilized her time well in creating space for the client to create their own game plan.

Jillian ENdicott: 9/10/25

Calm, curious, and kind, Jillian Endicott creates an air of comfort in the Writing Studio. As a friend of Jillian, I am blessed to have her gentle pursuit throughout my life.  Jillian is a magnificent listener and observer, gathering images for stories she will one day weave. Embodying the tenet that consultants are collaborators rather than critiquers, Jillian humbly and intentionally engages with her consultees. 

I had the opportunity to observe Jillian consult with an author about a fairly well-developed paper. Oftentimes, consultants can feel inadequate or question how to fill a 45-minute appointment if the author feels complete in their work. Yet the author’s excellent writing did not intimidate Jillian. Letting the consultee establish the premise of the appointment, she followed them in vivid imagery and clarified the paper’s purpose. 

As I listened to the author’s paper, I initially noticed an extremely casual tone of writing. While I mused on how I would challenge the author to find a more professional tone, I heard Jillian compliment their narrator’s voice. 

 “While at first it was striking, your casual tone works. It adds an honest bluntness to the paper that is very effective for your content.” Struck by her different approach, I paused and considered her words. I determined that the tone was inappropriately casual within the first paragraph. I made a note and did not consider it again. But after Jillian’s comment, I realized that the content of the entire paper was well supported by his honest, blunt tone. By listening to the effect of the narrator’s tone throughout the paper, Jillian supported the author’s voice and did not create an unnecessary problem. 

Jillian also gave space for the author to find more effective word choices. Oftentimes, if I feel an author needs word options, and they seem stuck, I will throw words into the air for them to choose from. Rather than putting words in her author’s mouth, Jillian offered to look at a Thesaurus. When that was ineffective, they tried another approach, and the author found the word “serendipitous.” After reflecting with Jillian, she told me that this was the word she had in her head! She was thrilled when the author found it on their own. 

Jillian’s author-forward approach cultivates the encouraging and safe environment of the Writing Studio. 

Jules v. Santin: 9/9/2025

“Don’t erase everything!” Jules gently exclaims, mixing both encouragement and teaching in one short sentence. Giving an author agency and prioritizing their words, Jules asks her writers to never erase words. Maybe they can be deleted to clarify a paper, but she suggests that they keep their old draft and make a new one, never losing their progress of work. This technique speaks to how Jules values the agency of her authors. Encouraging them to esteem their own work, no matter where they are in the process. 

 Jules’s consultation approach is marked by her incredible ability to make the writer feel comfortable and confident. One of the ways that she strives to promote comfort is by asking the writer to only read one page of their paper. Then, assigning something to work on, Jules will finish reading the paper as they start on a task. In this way, she seeks to protect the comfort of the author, protecting them from feeling exposed or embarrassed in a session. 

When it comes to dissecting their paper, Jules treats it like a carefully crafted diorama. She understands the amount of work that went into hot gluing plot, glittering adjectives, and building dynamics, and so Jules is careful to honor it. By asking clarifying questions, the author is invited to look at their diorama like a reader. To consider what effect their art is having. One of the ways that Jules teaches her writers to step back from their work is through reverse outlining. 

Giving the author a pen and paper, Jules asks them to concisely write the purpose of each paragraph. This forces the author to clarify the action of their story, and through contextual conversation, helps Jules to see more fully the greater picture of who the author is. 

Jules encourages the author to slow down, anchor themselves in the moment, to write how they might talk. All of this advice promotes and values the author’s voice. By doing this, Jules takes the pace of her session slowly, giving space for authorial exploration and discovery. 

Making the author feel comfortable is Jules’s greatest strength. I assume this approach is distilled from a space of her own challenges in editing. However, I do think that there is potential for issues in a comfort-motivated approach. As an author, uncomfortable moments have challenged me in healthy ways. If we focus more on comfort over improvement, we may be doing the author a disservice. Obviously, a balance must be found between the two, but as consultants, it is inappropriate for us to think that we can protect or control the author’s feelings. 

My Takeaways

Strengths:

• Joy
• Welcoming environment
• Author comfortability
• Strong transitions of space and giving feedback, prompt dissection before the paper
• Lots of open ended questions
• Strong dissascociating phrases “Compelling for a reader”

Weaknesses

• Not naturally providing space for an author to sit in a question
• I tend to offer more information than less (helpful and unhelpful depending on the situation)
• My general tendency is to be a lifeguard hauling an author out of the water, when really, the author will grow more muscles if I just throw them a lifebuoy
• Time management of post session forms