Want to know the secret to getting past the blank page when you sit down to write?

Here's how I've mastered it. THREAD!

1. You need to write an ugly first draft.

This doesn’t have to be pretty, make sense, or go into detail yet — it just needs to be words on the page.

I’ve seen lots of people talk about the idea of “writing ugly” at a high level, but not many that spell out how to do it.
2. First things first: Create a framework.
Before you try to get too in-depth, create a loose framework. It should look something like:

· Intro
· Background
· Specific Points/Ideas/Tips
· Conclusion

This allows you to visualize what you'll build upon. It’s your road map.
3. Middle First

You’ll want to focus on the middle section of your outline first. Nail down the examples or points you want to walk through.

Include internal + external resources (and quotes!) for reference. Bullet points work well here.
4. Background

Once you have the middle section complete, look at it as a whole to determine what kind of background information you need to share so the reader has relevant context.

This could be a fictional scenario, a story, a quote — something that provides a backdrop.
5. Intro & Conclusion

These two parts come last. They should be similar, but not identical. (Sisters, not twins.)

Your introduction welcomes the reader with a conversational tone, while the conclusion goes over what you explained and reminds him/her of the one main takeaway.
6. Editing

When your ugly first draft is complete, you can then go back in to polish things up and perfect your work — but not before then. Self-editing while you write is the enemy of completion.
7. Finally: give yourself enough time to go back after a day or two to check and re-edit with fresh eyes.

As the idea rolls around in your mind, you might have new thoughts/ideas to add. Let it marinate.
8. The Bottom Line: By embracing an ugly first draft, you can write more efficiently — and over time, you’ll notice that the process becomes simpler until you never fear the blank page again.

Want more tips like these? Get them in your inbox: https://t.co/8mIDaah3eO

More from Writing

You May Also Like

MDZS is laden with buddhist references. As a South Asian person, and history buff, it is so interesting to see how Buddhism, which originated from India, migrated, flourished & changed in the context of China. Here's some research (🙏🏼 @starkjeon for CN insight + citations)

1. LWJ’s sword Bichen ‘is likely an abbreviation for the term 躲避红尘 (duǒ bì hóng chén), which can be translated as such: 躲避: shunning or hiding away from 红尘 (worldly affairs; which is a buddhist teaching.) (
https://t.co/zF65W3roJe) (abbrev. TWX)

2. Sandu (三 毒), Jiang Cheng’s sword, refers to the three poisons (triviṣa) in Buddhism; desire (kāma-taṇhā), delusion (bhava-taṇhā) and hatred (vibhava-taṇhā).

These 3 poisons represent the roots of craving (tanha) and are the cause of Dukkha (suffering, pain) and thus result in rebirth.

Interesting that MXTX used this name for one of the characters who suffers, arguably, the worst of these three emotions.

3. The Qian kun purse “乾坤袋 (qián kūn dài) – can be called “Heaven and Earth” Pouch. In Buddhism, Maitreya (मैत्रेय) owns this to store items. It was believed that there was a mythical space inside the bag that could absorb the world.” (TWX)
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x