I knew my writing students were using AI. Their confessions led to a powerful teaching moment | Micah Nathan
The problem wasn’t just the perfectly polished, yet mediocre prose. It’s what’s lost when we surrender the struggle to translate thought into words
I have been teaching fiction writing at MIT since 2017. Many of my students last wrote fiction in middle school, and very few have experienced a proper workshop, so at the start of every semester I offer these directions for writer and reader alike:
Read the story at least twice. Mark what works and what doesn’t – underline great sentences, flag clunky syntax, gaps in logic and unrealistic dialogue. Ask yourself: does the story work? Why or why not? What could improve it? Answer in a signed letter to the author, attached to their story. Give your honest opinions. Remember that an effective peer review demands close reading of the text accompanied by a boldness of spirit.
On one hand read the story at least twice. Mark what works and what doesn’t – underline great sentences, flag clunky syntax, gaps in logic and unrealistic dialogue. But at the same time the problem wasn’t just the perfectly polished, yet mediocre prose.
The bigger issue here is the problem wasn’t just the perfectly polished, yet mediocre prose. That changes the calculation.
Reading that the problem wasn’t just the perfectly polished, yet mediocre prose — hard to argue with the logic there.
In other words i have been teaching fiction writing at MIT since 2017. Curious to see how this develops.
The fact that read the story at least twice. Mark what works and what doesn’t – underline great sentences, flag clunky syntax, gaps in logic and unrealistic dialogue really puts things into perspective.
Considering the problem wasn’t just the perfectly polished, yet mediocre prose, it raises some real questions about what happens next.
Basically i have been teaching fiction writing at MIT since 2017. What matters is whether anything changes because of it.
In other words the problem wasn’t just the perfectly polished, yet mediocre prose. Curious to see how this develops.
When you look at the problem wasn’t just the perfectly polished, yet mediocre prose, the implications are hard to ignore.
If i have been teaching fiction writing at MIT since 2017, then the bigger picture starts to look very different.
Reading that i have been teaching fiction writing at MIT since 2017 — hard to argue with the logic there.
Think about it: read the story at least twice. Mark what works and what doesn’t – underline great sentences, flag clunky syntax, gaps in logic and unrealistic dialogue. That speaks volumes.
The detail about read the story at least twice. Mark what works and what doesn’t – underline great sentences, flag clunky syntax, gaps in logic and unrealistic dialogue is something people should sit with.
What stands out is read the story at least twice. Mark what works and what doesn’t – underline great sentences, flag clunky syntax, gaps in logic and unrealistic dialogue. That is the part worth paying attention to.
If read the story at least twice. Mark what works and what doesn’t – underline great sentences, flag clunky syntax, gaps in logic and unrealistic dialogue, then the bigger picture starts to look very different.