Will AI turn novel-writing into a collaborative process

The article argues that a novel’s value cannot be judged solely by the quality of its prose, because many readers respond to other elements such as premise, ideas and character. It points to Amazon reviews of ‘Shy Girl’, which holds a four-out-of-five-star rating based on hundreds of reviews, with many praising its hook despite awareness of ‘the controversy’ around it. One reviewer writes, ‘The premise sucked me in.’

The broader point is that plenty of novels are poorly written yet still succeed, because fiction, like music, is forgiving: a song may have an irresistible beat even with a predictable melody, and a book can move readers through suspense, beauty, realism, fantasy, or a protagonist they recognise in themselves.

From that premise, the piece asks whether fiction’s ‘layers’ (premise, plot, style and voice) must all come from a single person. It notes that collaborative creation is already normal in many fields, even if audiences rarely state their expectations explicitly: readers tend to assume a Booker Prize-winning novel is written entirely by the named author, while journalism is understood to be shaped by both writers and editors, and television and film are widely accepted as writers’ room and revision-heavy processes.

The article uses James Patterson as an example of industrial-scale collaboration in publishing, describing how he supplies collaborators with outlines and treatments and oversees many projects at once, an approach likened to a ‘novel factory’ that some argue distances him from ‘literary fiction’, yet may be the only practical way to sustain a decades-long series.

The author suggests AI will make such factories easier to create, citing a New York Times report on ‘Coral Hart’, a pseudonymous romance writer who uses AI to generate drafts in about 45 minutes, then revises them before self-publishing hundreds of books under dozens of names. Although not a bestseller, she reportedly earns ‘six figures’ and teaches others to do the same.

This points to a future in which authors act more like showrunners supervising AI-powered writers’ rooms, while raising a central risk: readers may not know who, or what, produced what they are reading, especially if AI use is not consistently disclosed despite platforms such as Amazon asking for it.

The piece ends by questioning whether AI necessarily implies high-volume, depersonalised production. Using a personal analogy from music-making, the author notes that technology can enable rapid output, but can also serve a more artistic purpose: helping a creator overcome technical limits and ‘realise a vision’.

Why does it matter?

The underlying argument is not that AI guarantees either shallow churn or genuine creativity, but that the most consequential issues may lie in intent, authorial expectations, and honest disclosure to readers.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!