One Email. Nine Pieces of Content.
One Principle I Didn’t Know I Was Looking For.
10X Writer #81
Welcome to 10X Writer, the weekly newsletter designed to help writers, copywriters, and freelancers achieve 10X results with expert insights and actionable strategies.
Earlier this week, I read an email that bothered me.
Not because it was offensive. Not because it was wrong. Because it was so close to being good, and wasn’t.
The writer was covering the Epstein files. Big topic. Real research. Genuine emotion. He even opened by saying he was “shaking” after writing it.
But the email didn’t shake me. Not even slightly.
He wrote about horror the way a geography textbook writes about mountains. Accurate. Thorough. Completely without atmosphere.
I closed it and sat with the feeling for a minute.
Why doesn’t this land?
The email had everything it needed to work.
And yet it didn’t.
I didn’t plan what came next. I followed the question wherever it went.
The first place it went was the writing itself. What would this email look like if it was written from inside the experience instead of above it?
So I tried.
Not to fix his email, but to answer my own question. What does it feel like to write the same story from a completely different place?
The result surprised me.
The second version put the reader inside that island. Inside that room with the blackboard and the chalk and the four words. (If you want to read the version I wrote, reply and I’ll send it.)
Same facts. Completely different experience.
That gap between the two versions became the real subject.
The problem wasn’t the topic. It wasn’t the research. It wasn’t even the writing technically.
It was that this writer, like so many writers I’ve worked with and taught, had learned to describe experience instead of transmit it.
He reached for the label. Shocking. Disturbing. Trembling. Instead of the detail underneath the label that caused those feelings in the first place.
He stood outside the room and described the furniture.
Once I saw that, I couldn’t unsee it.
I started noticing it everywhere. In the newsletters I subscribe to. In the LinkedIn posts, I scroll past without stopping.
In the coaching content that tells me someone gets remarkable results without ever making me feel what remarkable looks like at 11:47 pm on a Tuesday when a client finally does the thing they’ve been afraid to do for three years.
The observation had become a principle.
So I wrote the post.
Why your writing never lands. The label trap. What describing feels like versus what transmitting feels like.
The specific move that changes everything. Find the detail underneath the adjective and write that instead.
I’ll publish it next week.
One observation. One principle. One post.
I thought I was done.
I wasn’t.
The next question appeared.
How do you actually teach someone to write from inside the room instead of above it?
The principle had more rooms in it than I initially saw.
There were five distinct moves inside it. Five specific things a writer does, or fails to do, that determine whether their work lands or disappears.
Kill the label.
Get on the page.
Find what stopped you.
Slow down at the thing itself.
Don’t tie the bow.
Each one its own post. Each one teachable in isolation.
Read together, they build toward the same understanding.
The observation had become a series.
And then the principle jumped industries.
Reading back through what I had written about writers, I noticed something. Every single thing I was diagnosing in writers, I had seen in coaches.
The coach who describes transformation instead of transmitting it. Whose content lists outcomes without ever making you feel the journey.
Who runs discovery calls like diagnostic interviews. Competent. Correct. Somehow cold.
Who delivers coaching sessions on schedule while the client quietly drifts, feeling processed rather than seen.
Same failure mode. Different arena.
The label trap doesn’t live only in writing. It shows up anywhere a human being is trying to reach another human being and chooses safety instead of presence.
The framework. The category. The professional distance.
Instead of being inside the moment itself.
So the principle became three posts for coaches. Content. Discovery calls. The coaching itself.
Each one asking the same question in a different room.
Are you describing this from a safe distance?
Or are you in it?
Nine pieces of content from one email that bothered me.
Here is what actually happened.
I stayed with the question.
Most people read something that bothers them, and the feeling evaporates in ten minutes. They scroll on. They move to the next thing.
The discomfort, which was actually the beginning of an insight, gets treated like noise and discarded.
Over time, I have learned that the feeling of something is wrong here, but I can’t quite say what is, is almost always worth following.
Not every time. Sometimes it leads nowhere, and you spend an hour thinking about something that doesn’t go anywhere.
But the ones that do go somewhere reveal new rooms the further you walk down them.
Those are the only pieces of content I have written that people actually remember.
Because they came from a real question.
Not a content brief. Not a trending topic.
A real question I did not have the answer to when I started.
Here is what I want you to take from this.
Not the specific pieces. Those are mine. The process underneath them.
Every strong piece of content begins as a question you actually care about.
Not a topic. Not a category.
A question.
Something you noticed and couldn’t explain. Something that bothered you in a way you couldn’t name.
Something that made you stop and think:
Why doesn’t this land?
That question is the thread.
The mistake most writers make is that they answer the question too quickly. They come up with the insight, package it into a post, and move on.
But the question usually goes deeper than the first answer.
The first answer is the obvious one. The interesting work starts when you ask what sits underneath it.
The writer who can’t make you feel things. Why?
Because they use adjectives instead of details.
Why do they use adjectives instead of details?
Because they don’t trust their own reaction.
Why don’t they trust their own reaction?
Because somewhere they learned that professionalism means distance.
Why does professionalism mean distance?
Now you’re somewhere interesting.
Now you’re not writing a writing tip. You’re writing about the psychology of self-trust and how the performance of credibility kills the thing that actually creates it.
That is a different piece. A deeper one.
One that lands not just with writers, but with anyone who has ever hidden behind a professional mask and wondered why people aren’t connecting.
Which is most people.
The thread keeps going if you keep pulling.
One last thing.
All of this started because I was genuinely bothered.
Not performing curiosity. Not looking for content angles.
Actually bothered by the gap between what the writer felt and what the reader received.
Troubled by the waste of it. The genuine emotion sitting there unexpressed, buried under section headers and adjectives and the careful neutrality of someone trying to look like they know what they are doing.
That genuine bothering is the one thing I cannot give you a framework for.
But you have felt it.
You have read things that bothered you in that way. You have had conversations that pulled at something you could not quite name.
You have noticed things that other people walked past.
The thread is always there.
Most people feel it for a moment and move on. They answer the question too quickly.
They package the insight too soon. They publish the first thing they see and call it content.
And the deeper idea, the one that might have changed how they think and how they write, stays buried under the first answer.
One email.
One question.
Nine pieces of content.
The thread did not stop there. By the time I finished following it, it had become nineteen posts.
Not because the idea was extraordinary.
Because I stayed with the question longer than most people do.