On Reading (or Writing) Works That Contain A.I. Material

a quick social media post on why I had to reject a manuscript...

WHAT IS THE “INNER NECESSITIES” NEWSLETTER, AND WHY?:

Dear Readers: In January 2025, as the world titled on its axis, I decided to start sharing shorter posts here on Substack—the kind of short bursts of insight or inspirationand images that I usually share on social media. As many of you know, things are shifting quite dramatically in the social media realm, and I am not sure I want to remain connected to a platform like Meta, which does not have pure motivation at its core. We need to stay mindful of the energy we are transmitting at all times, and I want to stay aligned with an energy that comes from a place of truth. I’ll share these shorter posts on the sub-newletter “INNER NECESSITIES” and these posts will always be available for free subscribers.

Please consider subscribing to my other newsletter/s to help me sustain these offerings.

Strange times indeed...I just had to tell a potential editorial client that I cannot take on any projects written by AI. And I could really use the income. It's just that one of my greatest skills as an editor is an ability to read the "energy" of a work.

I can always tell whether the author is writing from an authentic and inspired place, and/or when the prose is simply false or lifeless. I can tell whether an author is truly invested in the truth of her/his work (and that includes a fictional truth). I can feel an author's confidence, over-confidence, and insecurity (and only one of these energies serves the work). I can feel an author’s over-inflated ego blocking my access to the work like a barbed-wire fence. And I can feel an author’s insecurity diluting my access—almost like the effects of looking into a fun-mirrow. Because of all of this, I can tell within seconds if a manuscript in the slush pile is a keeper (and as such have found many prize-winners in slush piles.)

And I'm not trying to be braggy here: it's just that we artists are, ideally, infusing all of our creative works with an essence--our essence--and if I that essence is fractured and/or I can't feel that essence at all I'll usually pass on the piece. This applies to both my casual reading (remember THAT?) and any reading I do as an acquisitions editor or literary editor. If a book or story or essay lacks a true unimpeded life force, I'm not interested. Because as a reader, spending time with a fractured work is not a valid energetic exchange.

As an editor, I approach a manuscript from a place of wholeness, of wanting to help. And I am not talking about perfection here. Nor am I saying that if an author is insecure (and what author is not) then his/her project is doomed. I am just saying that I feel this, and if I sense that the work has merit, I will discuss all this with the author. As all editors know, 90% of the job amounts to talk therapy, and I love it.

So, no, I won’t edit anything written by A.I. I am not letting my own mind and soul go near anything so mindless or soulless. Call me paranoid or supersious, but that artificial realm is not where I want to place my energy. I don't enjoy talking to robots on the telephone, or chatting with Zendesk robots who give themselves snappy little Anglo names, or engaging in any kind of written exchange with artificial anything. And yes, I am somewhat of a dinosaur in the publishing world, because I still like to edit physical manuscripts on paper, marking things up with a physical pen. My days are numbered, I suppose. But they always were :) And I do way to spend my days with sentient beings--not bots.

So if you have a manuscript written by the real you, I’d be happy to consult :)