Generally, this kind of writing, AI-aided or not, is characteristic of beginner writers. It typically leads to lack of story arc, unfocused characters, and writerly over-investment in the product and its reception rather than in the story and its effective fulfillment. It's also just draft one. The best and most successful novels are substantial redrafts and rewrites. I encourage you to drop AI, get a book on writing (perhaps Stephen King's), and now begin again, this time only using the parts of the story that work and never reusing something from the first draft because you like the way you worded it.
Thanks for the thoughtful critique — I mostly agree with you.
I don’t see this as a finished novel in the traditional sense, or as an argument against revision. I think “first draft” is a fair description. My interest was less in producing a polished literary work and more in exploring a process: what happens when long-form writing is driven by emotional continuity rather than outline-driven structure, especially in collaboration with an AI.
In other words, this was an experiment in workflow, not a claim that this approach replaces editing, rewriting, or craft fundamentals. I fully agree that strong novels emerge through revision, and that structure matters a great deal.
What surprised me was that emotional continuity alone was sufficient to maintain coherence at this scale — even if the result still needs heavy refinement.
I appreciate you taking the time to engage seriously with it.
Generally, this kind of writing, AI-aided or not, is characteristic of beginner writers. It typically leads to lack of story arc, unfocused characters, and writerly over-investment in the product and its reception rather than in the story and its effective fulfillment. It's also just draft one. The best and most successful novels are substantial redrafts and rewrites. I encourage you to drop AI, get a book on writing (perhaps Stephen King's), and now begin again, this time only using the parts of the story that work and never reusing something from the first draft because you like the way you worded it.
Thanks for the thoughtful critique — I mostly agree with you.
I don’t see this as a finished novel in the traditional sense, or as an argument against revision. I think “first draft” is a fair description. My interest was less in producing a polished literary work and more in exploring a process: what happens when long-form writing is driven by emotional continuity rather than outline-driven structure, especially in collaboration with an AI.
In other words, this was an experiment in workflow, not a claim that this approach replaces editing, rewriting, or craft fundamentals. I fully agree that strong novels emerge through revision, and that structure matters a great deal.
What surprised me was that emotional continuity alone was sufficient to maintain coherence at this scale — even if the result still needs heavy refinement.
I appreciate you taking the time to engage seriously with it.