Sandra L. Giles192
doctoral student in Wendy Bishop’s Life Writing class at Florida State
University, and it was the first class I had ever taken where we English
majors actually practiced what we preached; which is to say, we ac-
tually put ourselves through the various elements of process writing.
Bishop led us through invention exercises, revision exercises, language
activities, and yes, reflective writings. For each essay, we had to write
what she called a “process note” in which we explained our processes
of working on the essay, as well as our thought processes in developing
the ideas. We also discussed what we might want to do with (or to)
the essay in the future, beyond the class. At the end of the semester,
we composed a self-evaluative cover letter for our portfolio in which
we discussed each of our essays from the semester and recorded our
learning and insights about writing and about the genre of nonfiction.
My first process note for the class was a misguided attempt at good-
student-gives-the-teacher-what-she-wants. Our assignment had been
to attend an event in town and write about it. I had seen an email an-
nouncement about a medium visiting from England who would per-
form a “reading” at the Unity Church in town. So I went and took
notes. And wrote two consecutive drafts. After peer workshop, a third.
And then I had to write the process note, the likes of which I had never
done before. It felt awkward, senseless. Worse than writing a scholar-
ship application or some other mundane writing task. Like a waste of
time, and like it wasn’t real writing at all. But it was required.
So, hoop-jumper that I was, I wrote the following: “This will even-
tually be part of a longer piece that will explore the Foundation for
Spiritual Knowledge in Tallahassee, Florida, which is a group of local
people in training to be mediums and spirituals healers. These two
goals are intertwined.” Yeah, right. Nice and fancy. Did I really intend
to write a book-length study on those folks? I thought my professor
would like the idea, though, so I put it in my note. Plus, my peer re-
viewers had asked for a longer, deeper piece. That statement would
show I was being responsive to their feedback, even though I didn’t
agree with it. The peer reviewers had also wanted me to put myself
into the essay more, to do more with first-person point of view rather
than just writing a reporter-style observation piece. I still disagree with
them, but what I should have done in the original process note was go
into why: my own search for spirituality and belief could not be han-
dled in a brief essay. I wanted the piece to be about the medium herself,
and mediumship in general, and the public’s reaction, and why a group