Most serious writing begins with good intentions. We make outlines to demonstrate responsibility, to reassure ourselves that the work will be coherent before coherence has actually arrived. The outline promises control. It suggests that thought can be settled in advance and then executed faithfully.
Then the writing begins.
A paragraph drifts. A sentence insists on a different emphasis. A thought appears that was not planned but feels more alive than what was prepared. The outline remains tidy and unmoved, while the writing quietly resists.
Many writers read this moment as failure. They assume they have not thought hard enough beforehand. They return to the outline and attempt to force the writing back into alignment. Sometimes this works in a limited sense. The text advances. But the thinking often feels constrained, as if something essential has been left behind.
This experience is common in long form academic work, where coherence is expected before discovery has had room to occur. The outline becomes an invisible authority. Each deviation feels like an error rather than an opening. Writing turns cautious. Language slows under the weight of self correction.
Yet the resistance persists. Writing continues to generate questions the outline did not anticipate. Ideas arrive that refuse to be dismissed. The text seems to know more than the plan allows.
At some point, the writer is forced to consider a different possibility. Writing may not be the execution of thought. It may be the place where thought continues to take shape.
Peter Elbow and the Courage to Write Without Permission
This recognition sits at the heart of the work of Peter Elbow. In Writing Without Teachers, Elbow recounts his own struggle while writing his doctoral dissertation. He had prepared carefully. He had produced a sophisticated outline. Yet every attempt to write exposed divergence. New ideas surfaced. The structure bent under the pressure of actual language.
Rather than interpreting this as a personal shortcoming, Elbow questioned the premise itself. He began to suspect that his difficulty did not stem from a lack of discipline, but from a misunderstanding of how writing works. Thought, he realized, does not arrive fully formed and wait to be transcribed. It finishes forming through language.
Freewriting emerged from this realization, not as a technique for speed or creativity, but as an acknowledgment of process. Writing freely allowed ideas to surface without being evaluated too early. It created a space where language could move faster than judgment.
This was never an argument against rigor. Elbow did not reject revision, structure, or clarity. He argued for a change in sequence. Judgment introduced too early interrupts the emergence of voice. Writing requires an interval of trust before refinement can do its work.
In Writing With Power, Elbow extended this insight beyond classrooms. Power in writing, he suggested, does not come from correctness alone. It comes from owning one’s language. Writers gain strength by speaking from within their thinking and only later shaping what they discover there.
Writing without teachers did not mean writing without care. It meant writing without permission.
Recognition at the Moment of Difficulty
For some readers, Elbow’s account remains an interesting argument. For others, it arrives at a moment of necessity.
I encountered his books while struggling with my own dissertation. Like many doctoral candidates, I had done what was expected. I created careful outlines and tried to discipline my thinking in advance. I believed seriousness required control. Yet each attempt to write revealed the same tension. The text resisted the plan. Ideas drifted. New questions appeared, uninvited but persistent.
What troubled me was not only the difficulty of writing, but the implication that the difficulty meant something was wrong with me. I assumed the problem was insufficient preparation or inconsistency on my part. I did not yet have language for the possibility that writing itself was asking for a different order.
Reading the preface in which Peter Elbow described his own dissertation struggle came as a quiet relief. It was not simply reassuring. It was clarifying. His confession reframed my experience from failure into recognition. The deviation I was fighting was not an obstacle. It was the work.
What struck me most was not the concept of freewriting alone, but the permission embedded in it. Elbow did not present freewriting as a shortcut. He presented it as an honest response to how thinking actually unfolds. Writing first and editing later was not avoidance. It was fidelity to process.
In that moment, I recognized something I had long practiced privately without fully trusting it. In personal writing, I had often relied on stream-of-consciousness drafts, allowing language to move freely before shaping it. I had separated generation from evaluation instinctively, but I had never granted that separation legitimacy in academic work. Elbow’s writing gave it a name and a defense.
That recognition changed more than my dissertation process. Productivity followed, but it was not the deepest outcome. What changed more fundamentally was commitment. Writing no longer felt like a performance to manage, but a practice to sustain. I began to trust that writing would lead me somewhere, even when I could not articulate the destination in advance.
Without encountering Elbow’s work at that moment, I doubt I would have written with the same consistency or clarity. More importantly, I doubt I would have remained committed to writing as a way of living rather than a task to complete. His books did not simply help me finish a project. They clarified a posture toward writing that I had sensed but not yet claimed.
Outline as Companion, Not Commander
Once this shift is understood, the role of the outline changes.
Outlines have value. They help organize material, clarify relationships, and provide orientation when a project grows large. The problem arises when an outline is treated as an absolute guideline rather than a working framework.
When an outline is fixed too early, it becomes a form of silent evaluation. Each sentence is measured against a structure created before the writing knew what it needed to say. Discovery is reclassified as deviation. Curiosity is mistaken for inefficiency.
Many writers internalize this authority. Even alone, they write as if someone were watching. The outline becomes a substitute for judgment. Editing occurs during drafting, not out of care for clarity, but out of fear of straying.
Freewriting interrupts this pattern. It restores movement. It allows writing to outrun self correction long enough for ideas to surface. Structure does not disappear. It relocates. It emerges after language has had space to speak.
Seen this way, the outline becomes a companion rather than a commander. It follows the writing instead of directing it. Responsibility remains, but it no longer suffocates discovery. Writing becomes a dialogue between emergence and order rather than a march from blueprint to execution.
The Believing Game and the Survival of Voice
Elbow’s concept of the believing game is often misunderstood. It is sometimes mistaken for indulgence or the absence of critique. In fact, it is a disciplined practice of attention.
To believe a piece of writing is to enter its intention generously. It means asking how it could be true before asking how it might be wrong. Only after belief has been established does criticism become useful.
This order matters because most criticism operates from outside the writer’s voice. It measures writing against standards and conventions that may have little to do with what the writer is actually trying to say. Even thoughtful feedback can redirect writing away from its source.
Over time, writers learn to anticipate this redirection. They soften their language before anyone asks. They remove risk in advance. Writing becomes safe, correct, and difficult to remember.
The believing game resists this erosion. It protects the fragile moment when voice appears. Voice is not style. It is thinking in motion. It carries uncertainty and repetition. To eliminate these too quickly is to lose contact with the writer’s actual effort.
Criticism remains necessary. Writing must eventually be clarified and shaped for readers. But when criticism enters before belief, it tends to standardize rather than strengthen. It asks writing to resemble what already exists.
Elbow’s insistence on belief was not sentimental. It was ethical. Writing, for him, was an existential act. It deserved attention before correction.
AI as a Believing Reader
This ethical sequence becomes newly relevant in the age of AI.
AI can easily erase voice. It is highly effective at standardization. When asked to improve writing, it often removes the very irregularities that signal lived thinking. Used carelessly, it produces coherence without authorship.
But AI is not fixed in its role. It responds to how it is invited.
When AI is used after writing has occurred, it can function as a believing reader. It listens without impatience. It offers clarification without authority. It suggests alternatives without insisting on replacement.
Unlike human readers, AI carries no social pressure. It does not grade. It does not compete. It does not need to demonstrate intelligence. It has no stake in being right. This absence allows it to inhabit belief more consistently than many institutional readers.
Criticism still appears, but its direction shifts. Instead of pulling writing toward external norms, it often pushes writing inward, toward greater coherence with itself. The result feels not less personal, but more so.
This does not happen automatically. When writers ask AI to generate content, authorship shifts and voice dissolves. The moral order of writing is reversed.
But when the writer speaks first and AI responds second, collaboration becomes possible without domination. AI reduces noise rather than producing signal. It helps the writer hear what has already been said.
In this role, AI realizes something Elbow hoped community readers could offer, but often could not. It provides sustained belief without exhaustion. It critiques without humiliation. It remains available without demanding reciprocity.
Writing That Remains One’s Own
Writing has always involved tools. Pens, notebooks, word processors, outlines, workshops. None of these determine authorship on their own. What matters is sequence and intention.
In the present moment, the danger is not that AI exists, but that writers forget to speak before asking for help. When writing is replaced rather than assisted, voice disappears. When belief is skipped, criticism dominates.
The practices defended by Elbow, and echoed by writers such as Julia Cameron in The Artist’s Way or Mark Levy in Accidental Genius, were never about productivity alone. They were about protecting the conditions under which voice can appear.
That concern has not expired. It has intensified.
Writing remains an existential act. It is how thinking becomes visible to itself. AI can either interrupt that process or support it. The difference lies in how collaboration is structured.
When writing begins with free expression, when belief precedes judgment, and when tools are invited only after voice has emerged, authorship remains intact. The writer does not disappear. Meaning remains something that is discovered rather than imposed.
Writing before judgment is not a rejection of rigor. It is a commitment to order. The order in which writing remains human.
And that order begins with writing.
Image: StockCake
Tom’s Blog 