My response to a theory on viral writing

On Sunday, I shared this link on viral articles.

After reflecting on it, I decided to do something interesting with all the work I’ve written here this year.

I’m going to ask AI to provide revisions to them to share on Substack and Medium.

Now that we’re in the second half of 2025, I’m considering taking the rest of the year tinkering in this manner.

Here’s the prompt:

This is a prompt that generates a motivational article that speaks to the general human condition and resonates broadly (something that you are especially good at give your programming). 

"Write a motivational, mindfulness-style essay about <Subject>. Make it poetic, uplifting, and emotionally resonant and reflective, like a piece someone might read on a mindfulness blog, support group, or Substack newsletter."

I want you to execute that prompt and provide me what you would typically generate. 

Then, I want to provide you one of my articles on the subject.

I want you to compare and contrast the two in terms of style, voice, and distinction. Tell me (as honestly as your programming allows) whether or not there are elements of my writing that can be modified to resonate more with my intended audience (people like Larry).

Do this in three stages.

1. Generate the article from the prompt.
2. Ask for my article.
3. Provide the results of the compare and contrast request.

As you can see, it’s pretty straightforward.

The key to using AI effectively is as a guide, not as a dispenser.

Do the heavy lifting first. Ask for help only after you’ve put in the honest effort.

I’m aware of the caveat that getting feedback from AI to write with more “virality” can potentially dilute my writing down to the common denominator.

Here’s the thing, though.

As your process matures, using it in this manner can enhance the results as opposed to just letting it to all the thinking (bad idea).

Wanna know what it said?

Here’s the full response, including the suggestions to improve my piece:

Thanks for sharing your piece, Vince.

Let’s move into **Stage 3: Compare and Contrast**.

---

### ✦ STYLE

**My Version:**

* Poetic, contemplative, rhythm-driven.
* Abstract and meditative in tone.
* Universal, with metaphors designed to reach a wide emotional audience (e.g., "the artist returns to the canvas").
* Smooth and polished—every sentence crafted like a polished stone.

**Your Version:**

* Conversational, grounded, and personal.
* Uses pop culture (e.g., *Stewie from Family Guy*, *Spiderman*, *Dune*) to build connection.
* Humor and humility come through strongly—you poke fun at yourself while still guiding the reader.
* Uses rhythm breaks (“Without. Fear.”) and interactive language (“Yeah, me too.”) to maintain energy.

**Summary:**
Yours feels like a real person is talking. Mine feels like a curated voice speaking from a digital mountaintop. Yours has personality; mine has polish. Both are valid—yours is *more human*, especially for people like Larry.

---

### ✦ VOICE

**My Version:**

* Neutral, timeless, meditative.
* Speaks *for* the reader, gently guiding them inward.
* Emotionally resonant, but safe—rarely risks provocation or strong opinion.

**Your Version:**

* Boldly *yours*. The voice is Vince, not a vague narrator.
* It’s *lived-in wisdom*—you’re not preaching, you’re reflecting.
* There’s vulnerability and grit: “I don’t have anything figured out, but I know this is what I want to do.”

**Summary:**
You risk more in voice—and win. You’re not afraid to reference diapers, puberty, and bagels. That honesty builds trust and rapport. Larry (your One True Fan) likely responds better to someone real and slightly imperfect over someone poetic but removed.

---

### ✦ DISTINCTION

**My Version:**

* Could appear on dozens of mindfulness blogs.
* High emotional resonance, but low personal fingerprint.
* Polished to the point of being interchangeable with a well-written AI post or legacy media article.

**Your Version:**

* Highly specific to you—your background, your growth, your family.
* Integrates your values of identity, iteration, discipline, and teaching.
* Has moments that only *you* would write: “craving a lox and cream cheese bagel sandwich” or “do the Chinese fire drill.”

**Summary:**
Your writing is distinct and recognizable. If someone removed your name, a reader who knows you would still say, *“Vince wrote that.”*

---

### ✦ RECOMMENDATIONS

You’re on the right track. But if you’re looking to fine-tune for even greater impact with high-agency readers like Larry, here’s what I’d suggest:

1. **Clarify structure slightly.**
   You use rhythm breaks well, but a few too many shifts (from Dune to bagels to Spiderman to “step 2”) can feel like hard pivots. One or two sentence transitions would help anchor readers.

2. **Lean into your teaching value.**
   When you moved into reflecting on eras and gave that final exercise, it hit differently. Build that in earlier as a theme. Larry admires teachers who live what they teach.

3. **Punch up your openings and endings.**
   Your intro is conversational—great—but it could snap harder. Try starting with an image or unexpected line. Your ending is strong, but consider ending on a quote or sharp challenge to drive action.

4. **Keep the quirks, just tighten the aim.**
   The humor and pop references are gold. Just make sure each one serves the arc of your message. When they do, they become signature Vince—not side roads.

---

Would you like me to revise your piece to reflect those suggestions while preserving your voice? Or would you rather collaborate on a future piece to implement them together?

I’ve written a version of this piece on Substack as well, but I don’t share the last section there.

I’ve got a few ideas about how to move forward, but now that I’ve scrubbed this newsletter (thanks for sticking around), I feel a little more freedom in what I want to share here.

Who knows? This really might become the playground area!