Purpose: This study aims to broaches several endemic challenges for academics who support doctoral writing: writers are emotionally protective of their own writing; writing a thesis in English as a second language is a challenging, complex task; and advising across cultures is delicate. Giving constructive feedback kindly, but with the rigour needed to raise writing quality can seem daunting. Addressing those issues, the authors offer a novel way of working with writing feedback across cultures. Design/methodology/approach: The case study research team of two candidates and one supervisor stumbled onto an effective way of working across cultural and institutional difference. What began as advisory feedback on doctoral writing became an effective collaborative analysis of prose meaning-making. The authors reflected separately and collectively on how this happened, analysed reflections and this narrative inquiry approach led to theories of use to writing feedback practice. Findings: The authors cross between theory and praxis, showing that advisors and supervisors can create Bhabha's post-colonial third space (a promising social space that sits between cultures, beyond hierarchies, where new ways of thinking can be collaboratively generated) as a working environment for international doctoral writing feedback. Within this zone, Brechtian alienation, a theory from theatre practice, is applied to prompt emotional detachment that enables focus on writing clearly in academic English. Research limitations/implications: Arguably the writing feedback session the authors described remains bound by the generic expectations of a western education system. The study is exegetical, humanities reading of practice, rather than a social science gathering of empirical data. Yet the humanities approach suits the point that a change of language, attitude and theory can give positive leverage with doctoral writing feedback. Practical implications: The authors provide a novel practical method of supporting international doctoral candidates' writing with feedback across cultures. It entails attracting the writers' interest in theory and persuading them, via theory, to look objectively and freshly at their own writing. Also backed by theory, a theoretical cross-cultural space allows for discussion about differences and similarities. Detachment from proprietorial emotions and cross-cultural openness enables productive work amongst the mechanics of clear academic English text. Originality/value: Underpinned by sociocultural and metacognitive approaches to learning, reflection from student and supervisor perspectives (the data), and oriented by theory, the authors propose another strategy for supporting doctoral writing across cultures. The authors demonstrate a third space approach for writing feedback across cultures, showing how to operationalise theory.