Who Wrote The Sentence That Stung?

Connect your customer data, teams, and tools without the hassle of complex integrations or lengthy setups. One easy platform gives marketing, sales, and service teams a unified customer view and the tools to turn it into growth.

Why HubSpot and what's new
• Generate leads and automate marketing with Marketing Hub
• Build your pipeline and close more deals with Sales Hub
• Scale customer support and drive retention with Service Hub
• Keep customer data clean, connected, and actionable with one, unified platform

Join 306,000+ in over 135 countries using HubSpot to grow their businesses.

See what a more connected approach to growth can do for you and your team. Get setup quickly and start checking off your hardest tasks.

Get started free

I’m releasing my first digital product this Saturday, October 17th: The Dead Draft Autopsy.

The Dead Draft Autopsy is a diagnostic tool over 40 pages long that offers 20 different ways any writing draft can get stuck across every facet of writing. You’ll also get a workbook to get your draft unstuck no matter where it stopped, and seven different tools to help ensure you don’t get stuck again on a future draft.

The starting price for this product will be $27. Only the first 100 copies of the product will be sold at that $27 price point, so if the product sounds interesting to you, let me know below:

One of the first freelance articles I wrote came back with a note that made me wonder whether I should have taken the job.

I was only two or three pieces into that contract. The editor pointed out several things I had missed, mainly a reference document in the brief that I had skipped entirely, which had all sorts of info on formatting, hyperlinking, and whatnot that this specific client required. So, the article needed another pass because I had not completed the assignment as the client had given it.

That was the note, and the editor gave me a full day to fix it. Simple feedback now, especially for a newbie, but I heard more than just that note in what I read.

I felt my chest tighten. I felt like an absolute idiot. I started questioning whether I should be doing this work at all, despite having barely begun. Missing a document became evidence, in my mind, that I did not belong in the profession I was trying to enter.

I revised the piece that night, apologized, and offered to make another pass if necessary.

I got a response the next morning: no worries, the article is done now; they were moving it forward into publication.

The editor’s reply was much less dramatic than the conversation happening inside my head. Their standard was the brief and the deadline. Mine had become whether I deserved to be there.

Put those sentences beside each other:

The first came from the editor, but… who wrote the second?

In the last letter, Feedback Without a Standard Is a Verdict, I covered what to decide before asking another person to read your work: the purpose, the reader, the request, the limits, and the process virtues. This letter starts when their notes come back.

You might expect advice about growing thicker skin, not taking things personally, or learning to stay calm. That surface-level advice is nice to hear as a platitude or simple reduction of concept, but it’s not enough.

I say that because it wasn’t enough for me. To be entirely honest, it still isn’t.

Years of freelance edits later, my chest can still tighten over a note. My pulse can still jump like someone’s attacking me, depending on the tone. Experience did not remove the reaction. What changed was that the feeling stopped having the same authority over what I did next.

That distinction is what inspired my delving into this topic. If the measure of improvement is never feeling exposed, many writers will conclude they have failed before they have even considered the feedback, and why would anyone continue if they feel like they failed?

The previous letter rejected the cheap Stoicism that says the reader’s opinion does not count. This one rejects its mirror: the version that says your feeling does not count.

Feelings, good and bad, are part of the experience of getting feedback. They aren’t the whole experience, and they do not explain themselves in full just by the act of you feeling them.

The subject here is the sentence that comes after the initial sting.

A note often arrives without its standard attached. Even a thoughtful reader can tell you something felt unclear, familiar, or unnecessary without explaining what they expected instead. But they might not offer everything you need to hear to get a clear picture of what that reader gave their feedback on.

That gap never stays empty. You fill it with what you brought: your knowledge, beliefs, previous experiences, and the standards you are afraid of failing that you don’t tell anyone, sometimes not even yourself. A comment about the opening can become a judgment about your intelligence. A request to shorten a section can become proof that your experiences are not worth including.

The reader’s history with you can interfere with the standard you named. Your history can interfere with the note they actually wrote.

In The Act Before Identity, I described something close to this without naming its philosophical underpinning: the fear of failing someone’s imagined view of your craft, or watching their excitement fade. Feedback can activate that same burden.

The concept is called “The Look.” It comes from existentialism, specifically Sartre’s account of the Look, which gives us a useful way to describe that shift.

Under another person’s perceived regard, I can experience myself as an object for them: someone whose nature, capacities, and intentions they might have already decided. What can frighten someone is not only that they saw a mistake, but that they now see you as the sort of person who makes it. That experience does not require them to announce an identity judgment, but we feel it all the same.

The tell is the sentence you supply. It describes what you are rather than what the draft does.

“My explanation lost the reader” becomes “I cannot explain anything.”

“This premise reminded them of another story” becomes “I have no original ideas.”

Sometimes the reader really does supply the identity judgment. They may call you careless or say you are not cut out for the work. I am not suggesting you authored every harsh sentence you receive.

I had editors that questioned my capacities. Long before that, people judged my writing before I ever had a chance to see if a broader market would like it. Sometimes judgments come from others rather than the irrational parts of our minds.

But I am saying the verdict you added, or perhaps even accepted, unprompted needs examination against reality.

An accurate correction can survive that examination without its accompanying identity judgment surviving too. I missed a document. That warranted revision.

It did not, by itself, establish that I should abandon writing. That was my insecurity as a new freelancer going above and beyond what was reasonable.

The moves that follow are meant to preserve that distinction.

Much of what I’ve based my recent frameworks on, feedback collection comes from Stoicism, a school of thought focused on self-discipline, moral improvement, and a focus on reason. One of the prolific writers of the philosophy, Roman senator Seneca, distinguishes an involuntary first shock, called “the first movement”, from the judgment that follows it.

For me, the signals are a tight chest and a rising pulse. Yours might be heat in your face, a sinking stomach, the immediate desire to explain yourself, nail biting… You get the idea.

Notice the reaction in a word or two. There is no need to obey it, and no need to prosecute yourself for having it.

Popular Stoicism can turn “do not immediately accept the judgment” into “do not feel anything.” If you have that interpretation, please check it at the door. That “understanding” adds another accusation to a moment already crowded with them.

See, the initial reaction tells you something matters. It does not, by itself, tell you what the note establishes about the draft or about you.

This letter focuses on creative self-doubt, but real consequences can matter too. A note from someone who controls your contract carries different stakes from a comment left by a stranger.

Our goal here is to ask what you are afraid the note means, and what supports that fear? Do not assume the intensity has already answered either question.

For this practice, assent means accepting a judgment as true.

A thought or feeling appearing is not the same as accepting it. Accepting it briefly is not the same as adopting it as a lasting belief. And neither is identical to choosing how to reply.

Those moments can happen quickly enough to feel like one event, but they aren’t. Let me explain.

Let’s say the phrase “I’m an idiot” appears in your mind, as it did for me. For a few minutes, it feels true. You take some time, and eventually reconsider: “I missed a requirement. That does not establish that I am incapable.” You then revise the article and apologize for the omission.

The pause did not prevent the thought from appearing. It created room to examine what you had accepted before it governed your response.

Two stories commonly arrive ready-made:

Either can offer an immediate explanation. Neither is simply an observation about what happened.

Seneca’s treatment of anger repeatedly uses delay because a reaction gathers momentum. Adding the delay gives you time to separate anger from response, and thus reduce the chance anger informs your response.

My application is narrower: you need to give yourself time before treating the first explanation as the final one. Otherwise, you might reply to something no one ever said, or accept judgments fabricated by your insecurities.

It gets more complicated than that, too. For instance, if you reconsider before replying from an unsupported judgment, you may prevent a mistake. If you reconsider after that judgment has shaped your reply, recovery is still possible.

You do not need a flawless first response to practice a more deliberate second one.

Once you stop supplying an explanation for the reader, you can ask what actually produced their response.

Suppose they say the middle of a passage you sent them felt repetitive. That gives you a reported experience. It does not yet tell you which argument repeated, where it repeated, or whether the repetition was unnecessary.

An observation-shaped follow-up might be: “Which argument felt repeated, and where did you encounter it?”

That question has a different job from “What should I cut?”

The first asks the reader to explain what happened while reading. The second asks them to design a remedy. There’s a chance your reader may be able to describe the problem without knowing how you should solve it.

In last week’s letter, I mentioned a video I made about a controversial game. Comments arrived quickly, including judgments about me for choosing to play it. In some replies, I asked what the right choice would have been, trying to determine the shape of the remedy these commenters were implying. Nobody answered.

That silence did not prove there was no observation underneath the comments. It established that I did not obtain clarification. People stop replying for many reasons. Online exchanges rarely come with an agreement to continue until everyone understands each other.

An unanswered note may remain too vague to guide a decision. That is different from proving it was empty.

Ask while the reader is available, or within the follow-up window you established before sending the draft. If no answer comes, preserve what you know and mark what you do not.

Uncertainty belongs in the process. You do not have to replace it with dismissal.

A note can carry several different things at once:

These parts deserve different treatment.

Before joining my undergraduate thesis committee, an associate dean heard my premise about a world ending. He chuckled, connected my interest in an apocalypse to being a Millennial, and encouraged me to push past that and write it anyway.

I understood the exchange as encouragement. But the generational explanation did not describe how I was approaching the story. I was not treating the fictional world as a prediction about the real one, but he had ascribed that to me all the same.

There was potentially something useful in his reaction. The premise had activated an association. What I needed was to understand that association, not simply accept his account of why I had written the story.

Which elements made him connect it with other apocalypse stories? What did he expect those elements to do?

Recognizing the genre did not establish that the premise was clichéd, nor did I think it was. His encouragement did not establish that it was sufficiently distinct. Both questions remained open.

The prescription he offered to “write it anyway” could have settled the conversation while leaving the useful part unexplored.

That is why I want to separate the reader’s observations from the attributions and prescriptions.

Consider another note: “I understood your argument, but the three examples felt like the same point. Cut the freelance-editor story; it makes you sound defensive.”

The reported observations include comprehension, repetition, and a defensive impression. The proposed remedy is cutting the story.

So, if I were to experience an emotional judgment as something like “they think I am self-absorbed,” that would be my addition, not theirs.

I can ask which wording produced that impression before comparing possible cuts.

The goal here is to treat the exchange as a relationship rather than a debt. Gratitude for someone’s attention does not require obedience to their proposed fix.

Receive the contribution, examine the report, and keep the remedy as a hypothesis to be tested. Actually testing those remedies will be something we look at in the next letter.

My current beta readers are getting me feedback for something I’m working on right now, set to launch this Saturday: my first digital product, called the Dead Draft Autopsy.

So, look forward to that process being our test case next week.

Once you supply a verdict, it becomes tempting to answer as a defendant.

There are two familiar pleas:

In that YouTube comment section, I answered quickly. I knew better than to lash out. I didn’t want to look petty, and I understood that comments helped the video circulate.

Some of my replies amounted to, “Sorry you feel that way, but I wanted to play this game.”

It sounded restrained. It also asserted my standard, dismissed theirs, and ended the exchange. I was defending my ownership of the channel rather than learning anything about the experience of the video.

The editor episode had the opposite plea. Outwardly, I revised and apologized appropriately. Internally, I treated an omitted requirement as a charge against whether I belonged in the work.

An apology is not automatically a guilty plea. You can acknowledge a mistake without accepting an identity verdict. The question is what judgment governs the response.

Likewise, explaining a choice is not automatically defensive. If an editor wants a tutorial shortened, I can acknowledge the length concern and explain that a safety step prevents equipment damage. I can recommend shortening the introduction instead.

That is a reasoned contribution, provided I remain willing to examine the editor’s concern.

Furthermore, a question can disguise a ruling. “How could you possibly think removing that step is sensible?” has punctuation that invites an answer and a function that discourages one.

A statement can remain open. “I recommend keeping it because it serves this purpose” need not end the discussion.

Temperance here means restraint in pace and content, not emotional flatness. Ask whether your reply considers information or merely requires the reader to accept your conclusion.

Thanks can go out immediately. A substantive response can wait.

I made the Writer’s Note Sorter for this point in the process: the moment notes arrive and your interpretation starts competing with their words. It pairs with The Writer’s Feedback Brief from last week:

The Feedback Brief goes out before the draft, while The Sorter comes back with the notes.

At the top, carry over the standard you named in the Brief. Add a line for the first movement you noticed and the reply rule you intend to follow.

Then give each note its own row:

The distinction matters between reported observations and details given. “The middle felt repetitive” is a report. “These two paragraphs repeat the same claim” supplies detail. If the detail is absent, mark it absent.

Do not manufacture an explanation to make the row look complete.

The Sorter also works with praise. “This is brilliant; do not change a word” offers approval and a prescription, but little explanation. Ask what convinced the reader. Do not let relief certify a connection you already know needs checking.

Use the sheet as written, adapt it, or build your own. Its purpose is to preserve distinctions while the note is still fresh, not enforce another administrative ritual.

Take one note you have received. It can be recent, or an old comment that still returns when you think about the work. Spend ten minutes filling one row of the Sorter.

Start with the reader’s actual words. If you cannot remember them exactly, mark that uncertainty rather than polishing your memory into a quotation.

Then write “what I heard” in your own language. Do not make it more reasonable than it was.

You do not have to decide what to revise during these ten minutes. Locate the report, your addition, and the question that separates them.

My prediction is that spelling out “what you heard” will be the uncomfortable part. You may find a sentence the reader never wrote. You may find that you turned “this passage sounds defensive” into “I am self-absorbed,” like the example earlier. Or you may discover a useful observation you discarded because the proposed remedy felt wrong.

Skipping that distinction cost me a night of feeling like an idiot over a note whose practical standard was “you got it done.” It cost me replies that defended a channel without opening a conversation. It left an association about my fiction unexplored because I never asked what produced it.

My chest can still tighten when the feedback arrives. The difference now is that I do not have to let the sentence I supply write my reply.

Once again, I’m releasing my first digital product this Saturday, October 17th: The Dead Draft Autopsy.

The Dead Draft Autopsy is a diagnostic tool over 40 pages long that offers 20 different ways any writing draft can get stuck across every facet of writing. You’ll also get a workbook to get your draft unstuck no matter where it stopped, and seven different tools to help ensure you don’t get stuck again on a future draft.

The starting price for this product will be $27. Only the first 100 copies of the product will be sold at that $27 price point, so if the product sounds interesting to you, let me know below:

Two full days of email marketing tips and trends, powered by Constant Contact. Famous keynotes (Molly Ringwald, Dan Levy, Amy Porterfield!), DJs, world-record breaking, rom-com fun, and networking.

Save your spot!