Sometimes writers convince themselves that once something is written, it’s finished. That the act of getting the words down somehow completes the work. We couldn’t be more wrong.

What I was taught—what I still believe—is that the real task of writing is telling the whole story. And to do that, we have to get the hell out of the way. The story doesn’t belong to us in the way we like to pretend it does. Especially not at first. During the drafting phase, we’re nothing more than heralds—messengers racing to get the thing down before it slips away.

Joan Didion understood this when she said, “I write entirely to find out what I’m thinking.”
That’s drafting in its purest form. Discovery, not control.

I once tried to describe that stage in a poem:

We find ourselves scribbling lines on the sidewalk in chalk before the rain.

That’s what drafting feels like—urgent, temporary, fearless. Those days are intoxicating. The rush of building something from nothing. I don’t know anything else in this life that quite compares. At least, not in the short time I’ve been conscious on this side of the veil.

Recently, I reread my first published work. I was eight years old, so let’s be clear—it wasn’t an opus. Three sentences. Awful ones, if I’m honest. But what struck me wasn’t the quality. It was the fearlessness. I had an idea, I wrote it, and I sent it off without apology. When I saw my name in the newspaper, something locked into place. This—telling stories—was what I wanted to do for the rest of my life.

Back then, I drew the same way. Without fear. Without permission. My mother encouraged that impulse, making sure I always had the tools I needed. My father, a no-nonsense man who believed in steady paychecks, was less convinced. Even now, people still tell me writing is a hobby. Usually because I haven’t published anything recently. Because there’s no obvious financial exchange. Most of these people have never written anything past a book report or a high-school essay. They mean well, I suppose. But the work doesn’t stop being work just because it’s unpaid.

“Practice makes perfect.”
“Just keep working at it and you’ll get better.”

Those words once meant something to me. They were offered as measures of success—not just in writing, but in life. Put in the hours. Show up. Repeat. What I’ve learned since is this: practice alone is never the whole picture.

Proficiency doesn’t come from repetition by itself. Repetition without reflection only reinforces what you already do. Sometimes that means improvement. Other times, it means you’re just getting more efficient at the wrong things. Writing fails less often at the level of mechanics than it does at the level of thinking.

We study craft. We learn technique. And most importantly, we read. Not casually. Not as escape. But with attention. Reading a novel will teach you more than any classroom ever could. No disrespect to my professors or teachers, but the page doesn’t deal in theory—it deals in execution. Tone isn’t explained; it’s demonstrated. Rhythm isn’t discussed; it’s felt.

Stephen King put it bluntly: “If you don’t have time to read, you don’t have the time (or the tools) to write.”
That line isn’t encouragement. It’s a line in the sand.

Once you can see what’s possible—once you’ve felt what language can actually do—you can’t unsee it. Effort alone stops being enough. Practice without evolution becomes self-deception. And that’s where dissatisfaction enters. Not as failure, but as evidence.

James Baldwin understood the danger of stopping there. He wrote, “The purpose of art is to lay bare the questions that have been hidden by the answers.” Once dissatisfaction sharpens your vision, you’re no longer free to settle for easy resolutions. Revision becomes an ethical act—a refusal to smooth over what should remain jagged. A commitment to letting the questions stand, even when answers would be easier.

I remember deciding I wanted to be a writer and being immediately convinced of one thing: I would never be good enough to write something anyone wanted to read. Once, one of my brothers said to me, almost offhandedly, “You actually wrote something people can understand.” He didn’t mean to wound me. But doubt doesn’t need malice. It just needs permission. The comment didn’t stop me, but it slowed me down. It taught me to listen outward instead of inward.

Doubt is internal. More precisely, it’s a state of mind. A person can believe in themselves and still let the commentary of others take the wheel. That’s where Cyril Connolly comes in: “Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.” That line isn’t romantic. It’s a warning.

This is the key to writing.
Yeah, the shit just got real.

Revision is the magical part. I love drafting—but revision is where the work becomes something you can stand behind. One of my instructors once told me, after I’d spent more time whining than revising, that revision wasn’t punishment. It was opportunity. Re-vision. The chance to see the work again—clearly this time.

Revision isn’t about fixing mistakes. It’s about changing your angle of approach. Shifting a piece from third person to first. Cutting a scene you thought was essential. Letting a moment breathe longer than you planned. This is where the story starts telling you what it wants to be. And if you stay with it, revision often delivers something you never imagined at the start—something truer, something earned.

Like many writers, I have fragments scribbled across countless notebooks. Every so often, I pull one of them out and sit with it again. Pen in hand. Quiet room. That’s when the noise fades and the work and I stop pushing against each other. We have a conversation. If I’ve done my job well, the reader gets to listen in.

After I finish a revision, I let the work sit. I owe that pause to myself—and to the piece. My goal is simple, though not easy: the work must be honest, cohesive, and carry the same integrity I demand from the things I choose to read. Anything less feels like a betrayal.

You don’t need fancy machines or specialized devices. Just you, a quiet place, and the willingness to work. Write it down. Turn it upside down. Hold it up to the light and see what still holds. Stay with it long enough, and something shifts. You stop forcing the work. The work stops resisting you. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, you begin to trust each other.

When I sit on my porch preparing for the next session, I sometimes watch children playing hopscotch on the sidewalk. I remember chalk on my own hands. I rub my fingers together at the memory. Then I turn back to the blank page and begin again. No rushing. No forcing. Just a man listening to the wind, ready to hear what it has to say.

---

Author’s Note

This essay was sparked by Ted’s piece, Rewrite, rewrite. Revise, revise. His reminder arrived at the right moment—quiet, direct, and honest about the work most of us would rather rush past. It wasn’t a lesson so much as a nudge, the kind that lingers after you’ve closed the page.

I’m grateful for that spark. Not because it told me what to do, but because it sent me back to the page asking better questions. This piece is a companion to his—not an answer, not a rebuttal—just another voice walking the same road from a slightly different angle.

Thanks, Ted, for lighting the match and trusting the work enough to keep striking it again.