By Dr. Bob Musante

To write an effective essay, students must honor originality, and when they do so, they explore their true selves and curiosity for audiences. AI-writing cannot best capture the expressions of the writer’s intricate joys and pains. To better embrace the realities they face, students must acknowledge the language that stems from their inner beings, and the writing can gather force and meaning. 

Students must embrace originality in the writing process, given that good ideas are born from internalized, creative acts. What does it take to consider the worth of a topic, and what thesis emerges from rigorous thought? Writers must ask, “Where do my ideas originate from? How do I carry them forward for an eager audience?” These are substantial questions because the ideas themselves are lively and intricate—they are not generalized in a range of passive information recycled by a robotic system. In and of themselves, ideas are distinctly human, and they stem from an inner stimulus that becomes a sentence, paragraph, and essay. In these concrete instances, a structure then emerges, and the written piece becomes a rhetorical marvel—an original, climactic act. To create the most effective piece of writing, the writer must honor the intimate, human power of originality, yielding to moments of curiosity.

Original writing is not only a human option; it is a human demand. For example, if a composition student wants to write a Ted Talk on a career transition, and this student has children that cry for her attention as much as her hopeful new career and corresponding education, are there not nuances about her family unit? Should she write about her fatigue after making meals, her countless hours of study, and her travel for a job that she yearned to leave for a better career? After all, this is the rigorous transition that only she knows! How can a chatbot tell her what she feels in the depths of her struggles and will to advance? ChatGPT may provide a semblance of information, but does the information capture her feelings and the rigorous fabric of her daily existence? The response is a resounding no. What is the learning experience if her reality is not defined well? Meisher-Tal explains, “the learner does not respond to stimuli but instead receives information based on the prompts presented to the chatbot. Consequently, the focus shifts towards information consumption rather than active participation in the learning process” (2024, p. 706). ChatGPT separates learning from the ingrained experience of the learner, and the truest points of interest in the writer are ignored. The learning process then diminishes because the writer’s truths are not actively captured and explored, and the writer casts aside her own knowledge. Her writing then loses purpose and impact, despite the call to embrace the power of her inner being!

Originality is a desire to express more of the complete human being. The writer wants to know more about herself and share that knowledge with the awaiting audience. This reciprocal relationship is not a life raft between an artificial bot and a person; it is a fluid, varied range of circumstances that are personal and undeniable. Stenner and Zittoun explain that the mind inevitably contains these multiplicities: “Whether we are talking about the human psyche, a football game, or a fly, we are dealing with an ever-moving set of relational transactions that nevertheless exhibit ‘Gestalt’ qualities” (2020, p. 244). A strong piece of writing often involves the writer’s will to acknowledge these complexities, even if doing so is uncomfortable or difficult. Let us return to the woman who feeds her children at the dinner table but feels tired. Does the chatbot gather her anxiety and fatigue as well as her rugged day ahead? She will work at a miserable, dead job and then scratch and claw to study one more hour later to achieve her dreams! This pain connects to her body, brain, and spirit—the written Ted Talk screams for the truth, which only she understands from her inner voice. In the paragraph at hand, she must build her explanations with the heartfelt truth. She must think, feel, use her words, and develop the paragraph. Her writing is then active and original. It is not derived from a bot. There is then pathos, and the audience understands her! The reciprocal relationship between the writer and audience is a success because she honors her world through her language. Hence, strong writing is an internalized connection. The substance of her writing is original, pure, and powerful. Let us allow our students to embrace their originality and build a true and impassioned learning experience!          

When writers strive for originality, they gain the vital ingredient of curiosity. Writers can find the truth within themselves, and joyous elements emerge in the words—a splash of wonderment fills the body, and curiosity energizes the thesis. For example, the mother who seeks a new career envisions a better life for her family and thus, for herself. Through a truthful gaze, unfettered by chatbots and passive replicas of inner worlds, she gathers curiosity about her life. Will she have a new home with land for a garden? Will she have daydreams about the educational success of her children? The recesses of her imagination are stimulated! As Joseph Addison explains, “Every thing that is new or uncommon raises a pleasure in the Imagination, because it fills the Soul with an agreeable Surprise, gratifies its Curiosity, and gives it an Idea of which it was not before possest” (1712/1969, p. 336). Because she gives herself the joy of discovery—minus the artificial mechanisms that offer, at best, bland generalities—she finds that imaginative and heartfelt possibilities are guiding principles in her words. Her life, words, strength, and curiosity all breathe in the sentences—her thesis roars with substance and vibrancy! Her originality is the parent of her overarching power, and her audience experiences the joyful, curious opportunity to envision and feel her thesis-driven magnificence. Artificial text cannot faithfully portray her experience or excitement. As Yildiz-Durak et al. (2025) state, “AI-generated text lacks the depth, specificity, and accurate source referencing present in human-generated text” (p. 3). Her curiosity grows and reaches others because she employs her language.

Writing can roar when the writers respect originality: it is a primary force that circulates through the essay, straight towards individual words in paragraphs. Writers should acknowledge the truth and honor their own language. Then they can produce beautiful possibilities, even worlds they did not understand before the writing process began. The process does not need chatbots, and the chatbots must not intervene with passive generalities. When writers choose to see themselves through their language, the writing reaches unknown heights. Their writing may only seem ordinary at first, but the writing develops from the language of truth. Emerson believes in the need for these seemingly basic places: “Standing on the bare ground,–my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space, –all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball. I am nothing. I see all” (1837/2012, p. 217). To write the most effective essay, writers must challenge themselves to use original vision. In these instances, writers learn to define the world with natural, human greatness.

References

Addison, J. (1969). The pleasures of the imagination. In G. Tillotson (Ed.), Eighteenth-century English literature (pp. 336-340). Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich. (Original work published 1712)

Emerson, R. W. (2012). Nature. In N. Baym (Ed.). The Norton anthology of American literature. (8th ed., pp. 214-243). W. W. Norton & Company. (Original work published 1837)

Meishar-Tal, H. (2024). ChatGPT: The challenges it presents for writing assignments. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 68(4), 705–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00972-z

Stenner, P., & Zittoun, T. (2020). On taking a leap of faith: Art, imagination, and liminal experiences. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 40(4), 240–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000148

Yildiz-Durak, H., Eğin, F., & Onan, A. (2025). A comparison of human‐written versus AI‐generated text in discussions at educational settings: Investigating features for ChatGPT, Gemini and BingAI. European Journal of Education, 60(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70014

---

About the Author

Dr. Musante teaches composition at Purdue Global and holds degrees from Clemson and Middle Tennessee State. He is a published writer, and his goal is to write on Ancient Greece and Rome. He encourages people to see the comprehensive pleasure of learning. He is a hiker, organic gardener, and vigorous reader.