I have a confession. While experimenting with AI over the last year, I wondered what would happen if I crammed an unfinished novel draft, one I actually care about, into Claude. Claude is pitched as the LLM for writers, with Claude 3.7 Sonnet and 3 Opus widely regarded as the premier LLMs for writers, including creative writing, long-form content and human-like prose. Meanwhile, I majored in English and work in mass communications, so I’m trained to think about writing creatively, strategically and tactically. Writing and personal expression have been part of my daily life for most of my life. If this tool could in fact produce a quality story, someone like me should be able to make it happen. Instead, the experience left me confident that AI isn’t a good vehicle for creative, narrative writing.
Here’s what I found:
On the technical side, Claude struggled to maintain a narrative thread over time. The longer the chat, the more the bot drifted and eventually lost track of details and claims made about characters earlier in the plotline. It’s not a sustainable approach for narrative writers because continuity matters: outsource too much plotline to the bot and your characters lose relationship to one another.
LLMs like Claude work fine for writing support—they can function something like a synonym machine, helping writers work through technical questions of redundancy, register, length, and other semantic needs while drafting. But when you outsource world-building and meaning-making to an LLM, it becomes narratively confusing fast. Despite giving Claude extensive background on my primary characters and the world they live in, it would confidently declare that a character’s relationship to another was X, then claim the opposite on the next page. Dialogue was thin and expository. It preferred a sort of “maid and butler” style of dialogue where two characters artificially recap shared knowledge for the reader. Meanwhile Claude does not do feelings well, which is arguably the point of much narrative writing.
Ultimately my drafts were worse off than what I started with – less organized, more confusing, with so much narrative drift that almost nothing was usable, even as a first draft. A devil’s advocate might argue that my prompting wasn’t sophisticated enough to produce the results I wanted. Sure.
But then we have the second problem: Claude’s approach to storytelling isn’t narratively interesting. Fiction and narrative writers put tremendous energy into world-building and sensory experiences. The goal is to immerse the reader in a sensory experience so total that they can experience another world entirely – the original VR, if you will. A great writer even exploits your higher-level cognitive functions by reusing parts of the brain that evolved for action and perception, which is why a good story makes you think, feel, and wonder.
Claude does not feel or wonder. Claude collates.
A key part of this essay suggests that LLMs create meaning through triangulation – that by pinging other ideas and vocabulary, an LLM can get a human reader close, or close enough, to suffice in many cases of writing. In my experience, this is true enough in business writing, where tinkering with approach and register can become as important as precise verbiage.
But this misses the pleasure and the point of good storytelling, which is myriad but usually centers on the satisfaction of expanding your imagination and experience through narrative, by seeing your own messy, striving, failing, hopeful, and collective human experience reflected in another person’s expression. That kind of meaning-making doesn’t happen through triangulation. It happens through the labor of human thought, experience and skilled articulation. That’s art, babes.
This article gets into the mess of AI and creative writing, within the domain of the romance genre, which famously cranks out variations on romance themes at a rapid clip. It drills down into some of the debates about writing, authority and authorship in relationship to LLMs that are playing out across the publishing sector now. Remember: early research suggests that most writers who use LLMs as part of their workflow ultimately retain their sense of authorship in and around the tools, suggesting that even when writers adopt AI assistance, they still see themselves, not the tool, as the creative and accountable source. So based in my experience above, I suspect that if an AI approach to creative writing is successful, it’s because the author is linking her approach to emerging tech, not because the work is good, and that’s a difference worth distinction.
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
This was my era in college, and I remember feeling challenged and overwhelmed as an undergrad trying to read theory for the first time. So today, I asked Claude.ai to put it in plain language, just to see what would happen. Here’s the after:
Scholars used to think that capitalism shaped society in consistent, predictable patterns. But newer thinking focuses on how power works—how it repeats, overlaps, and gets reshaped over time. This brought time into the picture and moved away from older theories that treated social structures as fixed. Instead, recognizing that structures can change opened up a new way of understanding power: it's tied to specific moments and strategies, and it's always being renegotiated.
A lot of readers are fascinated with the “black box” of AI writing, and trying to reverse engineer what it does and why. John Gallagher goes down the rabbit hole and articulates some credible theories about why LLMs use lists and listing to create meaning, and why it matters.
While conspiring with a friend about life and work in these trying times, both of us confessed that we believe, at the root, that reading and writing are ultimately the cure for everything that ails us: collectively, individually, epistemically, existentially. Maybe that’s naive, but I’ll take it.
“Writing is a practical skill—particularly since most of our online communication is text-based to begin with. …Done well, it means you’re contributing signal, instead of noise.”
In recent history I stopped posting on most social media and moved to the fediverse. I still browse the social platforms to keep up with trends and friends, but I only post on my private IG and here.
What I share here is separate from but related to my professional life — I’m thinking out loud and making room for rough, unfinished ideas. I write mainly for myself, but if others find it useful, that’s great. The practice of reading and reflecting makes your thinking stick, and I am from a certain time and place, so this is how I approach learning and communicating about what I’m learning. It’s a habit.
While this is my preferred approach, I acknowledge that sharing unfinished ideas publicly is risky and you have to accept accountability for the messiness that comes with that. But I also know that working through your vulnerability through the act of writing lets you tap into your most creative, innovative self and test your ideas against an evolving sense of what’s good. The potential for an audience, however real or implied, keeps you more honest and less self-indulgent. Despite the trade offs, I think it’s worthwhile.
As I add to this page, I’ll be thinking out loud about digital rhetoric and communication alongside emerging technology, and linking back to foundational ideas I see reflected online today. Occasionally I’ll say something longer.
Maybe it’s because I’ve been reading so much, maybe it’s because I’m in a reflective stage of life, but I have the writing bug again. It’s been a long, long time since I felt the urge to write.
Hilariously (sadly? regretfully?), since I’ve been writing online for public audiences since about 1997, I’ve been thinking about the art of posting, community building, and who benefits and how, for a very long time. All of this (https://blog.ayjay.org/the-three-paths-of-micro-blog/) sounds about right, specifically:
“…it will — by design — never be a place for you to monetize your brand, troll, shitpost, or become an influencer. But hey, there are plenty of other platforms better suited for that kind of thing. Micro.blog is better suited for the more human and humane paths I have identified here.”
