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.

Have you downloaded the novel in its entirety?

Someone else thought they did this only to realize that ChatGPT has been lying to them about actually keeping the contents somewhere. Ai is a sycophant and will make up or tell you whatever you want to hear. You need to verify outside of their purview

Thanks for raising this — it’s a very reasonable concern.

Yes, the novel exists entirely outside of ChatGPT. All chapters are saved locally and backed up independently. I never relied on the model to “remember” or store the text for me.

ChatGPT was used strictly as a collaborative tool during the writing process (discussion, iteration, feedback), not as a storage mechanism or source of truth. The manuscript itself is maintained separately, like any conventional long-form project.

I agree that AI can be overly agreeable at times, which is exactly why I treated it as a tool rather than an authority, and verified everything outside of its scope.

Appreciate you pointing this out — it’s an important distinction to make.

Thanks for taking the time to write such a thoughtful response.

I largely agree with you, especially regarding revision and redrafting. I don’t consider this a finished novel in the traditional sense, and “draft one” is a fair characterization. I’m not arguing against craft fundamentals, structure, or the necessity of rewriting — those matter a great deal.

My interest here was more limited and experimental: I wanted to explore what happens when long-form writing is driven primarily by emotional continuity rather than by an outline, particularly in sustained collaboration with an AI. In that sense, this project was more about process than product.

I also agree that strong novels are usually the result of substantial rewrites. What surprised me was simply that emotional continuity alone was sufficient to maintain a coherent narrative over this scale — even if the result clearly requires heavy refinement.

I appreciate the critique, and I see it as very much in line with how serious writing actually gets done.