This morning my man showed me a Wall Street Journal article “The Red-Hot Book at the Center of an AI Mystery” by Melissa Korn. It tells the story of a debut crime novel that sparked a bidding war among publishers before concerns arose that AI may have played a significant role in its creation.
AI has been a frequent topic around our household as we marvel at the generational divide that circulates around it. We love it and use it to answer questions, such as “What was the name of that movie with Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn?” or “What drug company has outperformed the others in its class?” My granddaughter, who is in her twenties, hates it. She’s concerned about job loss. I suspect many of her friends feel the same way.
I have never used AI to plot or write any of my novels. Because I am self-published, I have hired nearly a dozen proofreaders and developmental editors to take a look and answer the question: what can we do to make this better? I have also relied on family and friends for inspiration, thoughts, and suggestions.
That will never change.
Several days ago, I finished writing the first chapter of the sequel to Leo, Detective. That’s the YA mystery my grandson, L. Ryan Hanafee, and I wrote together. It hits the market on September 1 and has gotten good reviews. Shameless plug: You can buy it on Amazon.
“This is the start of a fun series,” one reviewer opined. His comment launched our efforts to write the second Leo book.
For fun—and because I was feeling rebellious, I guess—I ran the first chapter past ChatGPT. Don’t rewrite, don’t edit, just tell me what you think, I instructed.
Once I got beyond the opening compliments, it told me what I really wanted to hear: “This paragraph is repetitive. There are five typos. Give the reader a chapter ending that makes him or her want to go on.”
Where had I heard those words before? From my two favorite Reedsy editors, from my former colleagues who proof and edit my books, from the family members who are brutally honest about my writing, from my co-author.
When Ryan and I finish with this book, I will still hire my two favorite Reedsy editors and pay them three cents a word to tell me what’s right and wrong with the book. Same with friends and former colleagues, who aren’t quite as expensive, but just as tough. As they should be.
Should our sequel be shunned because I ask AI some questions now and then? It didn’t come up with the plot. It didn’t create the characters. It didn’t write and re-write. It has simply made suggestions, which is all I asked of it.
I understand the hue and cry from published authors whose works were taken without compensation and used to train AI. But let’s think about their books. Picked up by traditional publishing houses, those writers got advances and sometimes long-term contracts for books they hadn’t yet written. Their agents—and don’t go to a traditional company without them—may have suggested rewrites or plot changes. Editors at major publishing houses often recommend substantial revisions and restructuring. When a book comes out, there’s usually a long list of acknowledgements to the people who had their fingers in the literary pie that is “your” book.
And let’s talk about ghostwriters and co-writers, like the team James Patterson has put together. Michael Crichton died in 2008, but Patterson used his notes and ideas to publish the book Eruption last year. He publishes multiple books every year written by others in his stable–with his name on the cover in bigger type.
Stephen King has resurrected Peter Straub, who died in 2022, as his “co-author” for the soon-to-be-published novel Other Worlds Than These. Brett Baier constantly promotes “his” new book, The Case for America. His co-author is Catherine Whitney, to whom he gives credit on the cover. And, yet, I’ve never heard him say “the new book Catherine and I just wrote” in his frequent TV promotions of the work.
Writing has often involved collaboration. Why can’t AI be one of many on an author’s team? Without the fuss.
Should an “author” divulge if he or she used AI to plot and write a novel and then merely polished it? Definitely yes. Should an author include a note in the back of the book saying that he or she used AI as one of many tools. If the author feels compelled to do so, I would say yes, too. And throw in spellcheck while he’s at it.
If I decide to continue with AI as a proofreader or sounding board, I won’t stop using and crediting Rita, Marcy, Kris, Natalie and Tashya, along with family members and friends. I don’t want to miss out on anything or any person that will help make my books the best they can be.
Perhaps the more important question isn’t how authors use new tools. It’s why Americans are reading so much less than they once did—and what we can do to bring them back to books.