michael-dean-k/

I asked AI to read 4 years of posts from the Write of Passage Circle community and make some inferences about me. “Please make elaborate and nuanced observations about the writer in this writing community. This includes most of their posts over 4 years:”

[Thought about writing journey and evolution for 4 seconds]

Then I asked it to review and summarize all of my feedback:

“This person’s feedback style is comprehensive, encouraging, and highly attuned to the writer’s goals and potential blind spots. They typically begin by reading a piece in full, noting both the high-level structure and the sentence-level details, then they leave a warm yet direct set of in-line comments and an overarching summary at the end. On a technical level, they pay attention to flow (pointing out where transitions feel jarring), the rhythm and length of sentences (citing tools like Hemingway to reduce complexity), and the integrity of the introduction and conclusion (urging the writer to hook the reader early and tie loose threads later). They have a particular knack for spotting an essay’s “shiny dime”—the focal insight or big question—and suggesting ways to make that thread more explicit. More personally, they encourage writers to dig deeper into their experiences and vulnerabilities, often recommending they add or expand on anecdotes that bring a concept to life. Emotionally, they aim to both reassure and push the writer; they highlight what’s working well so the author feels confident, while showing them how certain passages might confuse or overwhelm readers. On a psychological level, they aren’t afraid to address hesitations or anxieties about publishing, reminding people that the aim is personal expression and growth, not robotic perfection. Their feedback also has a subtle empathetic dimension: even as they recommend major cuts, restructuring paragraphs, or clarifying language, they do so by linking those decisions back to the writer’s intent, audience expectations, and the unique voice that should shine through. They encourage the writer to remain playful, observant, and personal (the POP framework), and to see revision less as “fixing mistakes” and more as a creative opportunity to clarify the core idea. Across their many comments—whether they’re dissecting a tricky hook, advising a friendlier tone, or praising a bold personal story—they balance methodical critique with genuine enthusiasm, prompting writers to embrace edits as part of discovering the essay’s essence and pushing it to the next level.”