{My} explanation makes such immediate sense that I can give it up only reluctantly, a necessary concession to my physician's expertise. This is the way my students feel, I realize, when I suggest stylistic revisions. They like the sentence the way they wrote it. They defer to my greater knowledge and experience because they must, but they still like the way the original sentence sounded when it had a dangling modifier, and they secretly suspect that my judgment, while generally sound, may be flawed in this instance. And they're a little miffed at my insistence...
The author reflects on the reluctance to abandon a personal explanation despite recognizing the necessity of conceding to a physician's expertise. This feeling echoes the experience of his students, who often resist stylistic revisions to their writing. They find comfort in their original sentences, even when they contain flaws. The conflict arises from their deference to the author's experience, while also holding onto a sense of dissatisfaction with the suggested changes.
This dynamic highlights the tension between personal satisfaction in creative expression and the guidance of experienced mentors. Just as the author acknowledges the potential for flawed judgment in his revisions, students often grapple with their attachment to their own ideas while recognizing the value in expert input. This apprehension mirrors the challenge of making adjustments to something that feels personally significant.
