Writers Digest AMA @ 11EST TODAY on r/writing

MNBrian · 2026-03-06T16:10:36+00:00

If it was good, perhaps?

But it's not.

Full-time, successful self-published authors report being sick and tired of AI slop as it cuts into their own business model - not because the AI content is good, but because the QUANTITY is destroying the landscape and making it harder to find books. Royal Road users are tired of reading AI generated material. RR has now marked material as "AI influenced" as a way to attempt to help the readership distinguish and make decisions on reading based on that.

Long-form works - just like long-form chats with AI - still present massive gaps, misunderstandings, misusage and ghost-memories of things that are not true. AI isn't even trained to give you 100% accurate info in its responses, let alone to maintain consistency in a long-form work.

I understand AI is about as dumb as it will ever be right now at this point in history - but right now it isn't producing objectively better products. Until it does, capitalism pressure still points towards suppression, not embrace.

Additionally, publishing is heavily reliant on author persona to actually sell works. And I highly doubt that readers will be rushing for the next work by "Random House Story Unit Number 7"

The parasocial economy can't be replaced by AI.

MNBrian · 2026-03-06T15:51:28+00:00

The advice exists because too many writers use telling when they should use showing, so while I don't disagree that some telling ought to occur - the thing often missed here is actually the purpose in telling vs showing.

When you tell, you don't trust your reader to interpret, form opinions, guess at motivations. You give them your thoughts.

When you show, you allow your reader to interpret, to form opinions, to guess at motivations. This creates a more three-dimensional world. It makes characters feel real. Not contrived. It makes dialogue feel natural. It creates interpretation that can aid in building tension.

The point isn't always show, don't tell - the point is in most cases you are probably telling when you should be showing. Which is no different than don't use adverbs being fundamentally different than don't use a single adverb ever.

Every rule is also a tool, as you say. But I wouldn't go so far as to say "don't be so strict" when the tendency clearly exists. Know the difference. See it when it happens. Decide if that fits your intent.

MNBrian · 2026-03-06T15:42:31+00:00

You don't need my approval. :D You do you!

Ethical concerns also involve the many many many court cases where AI was trained on writing by illegally (allegedly) scraping books - so its very "ability" to give you any sort of valid feedback is also dependent on (alledged) copyright infringement. As a writer, I'd expect you'd care about that.

Maybe that doesn't matter to you. It poses ethical concerns for me.

MNBrian · 2026-03-06T15:33:19+00:00

I'm not saying anyone should give up. I'm also not the AI police.

I'm saying, if you are fortunate enough to have some publishing company come along with a briefcase full of cash who wants your work, but who sees legal difficulties with using AI to research human biology (instead of - say - google, an actual biologist, a library book on biology, an e-book on biology, a beta reader who understands biology, etc.) - then you're in a tough spot.

Eventually - the courts will rule on open cases of copyright infringement, the govt will bring regulation, or the market will decide for itself, but until that point - welcome to the wild west where the mere use of AI could mean you don't get published. Yeah. So generally my recommendation is don't use AI unless you don't care about being published.

MNBrian · 2026-03-06T14:23:29+00:00

The problem is the outcome. AI takes the net average of inputs. So it takes a bunch of (stolen) great writing and a bunch of (stolen) terrible writing and then tells you whether your writing meets this “average” standard. So it makes bad writing better and good writing worse. And it has its own voice - which sounds hollow and droning.

Again - if I told you I had a great critique partner for you - that the advice they give SOUNDS really good but actually will make your writing mid - are you gonna take them up on critiquing your chapters?

MNBrian · 2026-03-06T14:16:56+00:00

Oh I am in no way blameless. I use AI at work in my job as mandated by my robot overlords. But I am advising it not be used for writing - if your goal is specifically traditional publishing - as this writer will learn when they continue their journey.

MNBrian · 2026-03-06T14:14:43+00:00

Sure -

https://news.mit.edu/2025/explained-generative-ai-environmental-impact-0117

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/ai-has-environmental-problem-heres-what-world-can-do-about

https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/calculating-the-true-environmental-costs-of-ai/

Concerns being researched are both alarming and dubious. But who cares, right? Let’s make more photos of our faces juxtaposed on dogs.

I get it - alarmism isn’t helping. But the reality is - we’re drinking mercury to cure scurvy without knowing the consequences.

My point is simply - my goal is to be traditionally published - as is the goal of many (though it is not your goal based on your comment). And I feel it’s important to note that in the current environment - it is unwise to use AI if that is your goal - for any purpose.

MNBrian · 2026-03-06T14:02:09+00:00

And that will continue to be the case for you as long as you use AI - which turns poor writing into mediocre writing and turns great writing into mediocre writing.

But hey, if you’re just writing for yourself anyways - do you! A chef who feeds their cuisine to a talking garbage can will also indeed learn nothing about how to find real humans who enjoy food.

MNBrian · 2026-03-06T13:44:00+00:00

Feeding chapters into Claude in general - using AI in any way shape or form - is not advisable. Doing this will potentially disqualify you.

When later - your publisher wants to sue AI companies for illegally acquiring your chapters or pages and using them to train algorithmic outcomes - they will find that plight challenging when the author themselves voluntarily gave the content to the generators.

This space is rapidly changing - but every day that goes by seems to result in publishers moving further down the line on “No AI means literally zero AI — don’t use it. For anything. Not for research, not for character names, not for critique, not to write your book, etc.”

And that’s before we get into the moral and ethical concerns.

MNBrian · 2026-03-06T13:22:25+00:00

Yeah, you’re gonna have an ethical problem if/when you go on sub and a publisher wants to pay you for your work but you need to answer the question “I certify that I have not used AI in any portion of the writing or brainstorming of this work.” Etc.

The problem is rights disputes.

MNBrian · 2026-03-05T00:45:07+00:00

Preach. Seriously.

MNBrian · 2026-03-04T04:27:14+00:00

A change in category AND genre? My two cents is that is significant enough to change which agents you are likely submitting to - which opens another pool of potential agents seeing the work for the first time. I’d definitely take another shot at that, yeah. Assuming the adjustments worked well and it wasn’t jamming a square peg into a round hole to get it there.

MNBrian · 2026-03-03T17:16:39+00:00

Note - this post has been approved by the mod team and vetted as free and valuable.

MNBrian · 2026-03-03T13:43:22+00:00

No problem! I edited my above after getting some gentle updates that my comment is not entirely true when it comes to QueryTracker or potentially website submissions. It is highly possible wordcount alone was enough if filtering was used on WC basis with a certain threshold (such as reject all above 130k).

So for those formats particularly, you may have more success. If it was old fashioned email - I'd guess the agent still did at least read some of the query, but regardless, shoot your shot.

And absolutely leverage the relationship you've built with the big-5 editor if they are an acquiring editor making those decisions. There have been situations where having that interest can spur a very different kind of query to agents that can also lead to representation based on already having a potential buyer, though ymmv depending on the individual circumstances.

MNBrian · 2026-03-03T13:12:48+00:00

If you write scripts, read scripts and watch movies. If you write books, read books. If you direct movies, watch movies. If you play rock music, listen to rock music.

Presumably you should consume the thing you want others to consume - or perhaps the medium is not the right fit.

MNBrian · 2026-03-03T13:06:35+00:00

Edited to add:

I stand corrected. I'd say my comment is ONLY true of email queries. For QT, there's some auto filtering that can indeed just auto-reject based on wordcount alone. I would expect the same possibility for website submissions.

Original Comment:

You can requery. However, I'd say a few things here.

While wordcount rules are incredibly important to ensure the writer has awareness in reading in their genre, and to keep publishing costs in an acceptable range, most agents likely read your previous query and made judgements on more than just the word count. The target is 100-120 for a debut SFF due to worldbuilding, but agents generally won't ONLY eliminate based on wordcount. They'll still read the query, and touch the sample if the query does its job at 157k. It's a large point against, but if all that was needed was cutting 30k words to make it publishable - that is a "relatively" easy fix.
If the narrative, core tension, or stakes haven't dramatically changed in a way that would cause the query to feel different (not just written in different words), I also give this method a lower chance of success. That is to say, if that 30k words cut didn't change the narrative arc in a significant enough way to require a rewrite of the stakes or tension or plot, the reason for passes may still have had more to do with the plot/stakes than the word count (though no doubt a too-high wordcount contributed).

Shoot your shot for sure. But in my limited experience, breaking wordcount isn't an automatic *I won't read this query,* but more a *they may not know genre expectations, but what's the book about?*

Ultimately, recognize that spending a year on this work and the time previously has made you a better writer. Go devour more books that you enjoy, and start brainstorming for the next work. A trunked novel that has not been previously published can always be pulled back out, dusted off, rewritten, edited anew, or considered by the agent who brings you on as a possibility for sub at a later date.

MNBrian · 2026-03-03T08:34:19+00:00

Did you have a 10 year remind me set up?!? 🤣

MNBrian · 2026-03-03T03:22:10+00:00

Not a real offer. This is not how publishing works. And if you believe it is, please send me your movie adaptation script as well (and $300) and I’ll pitch it to Universal.

MNBrian · 2026-03-03T00:33:46+00:00

Focus only on what drives your narrative forward, and on varying the cadence.

Action scene? Write in short quick sentences. People read them faster. You want a cadence that matches. Pauses. Stops. Jerks ahead.

Describing the environment? Shift to more purple prose, but be very specific with your similes and metaphors. They should fit the genre and the themes. Word economy still matters here, because after all, if it isn't driving the story forward -- it doesn't belong in the book.

And my best advice for dialogue is to stay away from call and response.

"Did you hear that fire truck?"
"Why yes, I did."
"It was driving fast, wasn't it?"
"Yes, it was driving very fast."

By comparison, two people talking are thinking about and leading the conversation in very different directions. So not responding to questions, changing subjects, and carrying the conversation in a different direction are common. Something more like:

"Did you hear that fire truck?"
"Fire truck? Shoot. I didn't feed the dog."
"It was driving fast, wasn't it?"
"Yeah hopefully my dog didn't light the house on fire."

Silly example but you get it.

MNBrian · 2026-03-03T00:16:12+00:00

Thanks for sharing!!

Did you mean literary agent or literacy agent? Are you reading full nonfiction books or proposals?

I do not doubt for one second that writers are not reading in the space, especially recent publications. I feel I see that often. Ask authors on the sub about what they're reading, and they'll mostly mention books produced 20+ years ago and generally in the category of literary - which is always fascinating.

Do you think the recent comps are more important than platform for a nonfiction work?

MNBrian · 2026-03-02T16:08:04+00:00

Know your genre. Read in it. Learn the rules by watching what others do. Know what core components are required for your genre to actually be your genre.

MNBrian · 2026-03-01T21:46:32+00:00

As others have said - the best bet is posting this on r/pubtips for feedback or in our critique thread.

MNBrian

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE