Writing a novel is a daunting task. Outlines, pacing, building to a high enough word count, grammar. There is an abundance of technical aspects and various challenges to encounter. Not to mention finding the time to indulge in such a project in the first place. And don’t even get me started on finding the motivation to start and keep with it. But luckily there’s a whole month dedicated to the project.
NaNoWriMo is a popular acronym that stands for National Novel Writing Month. It is also the name of a (previously, as we’ll see) popular organization that seeks to support and provide a community for people attempting the challenge. It even provides a framework for the challenge: Can you write a 50,000-word novel in November?
With some guidance and motivation from others, the answer for many people was yes. Thus the organization NaNoWriMo was founded to provide that space for authors as far back as 1999. Chris Baty accidentally invented the concept when he took on the challenge with friends, leading him to start the organization we know today. NaNoWriMo gained nonprofit status back in 2006 and has grown significantly over the years. In 2022, the program racked up over 413,000 participants, including 85,000 students and educators. Now it’s not only about writing a novel in a month. September and October are dedicated to helping people prep for the November attempt. January and February provide post-writing guidance, from editing to query letters. April and July offer CampNaNoWriMo, a program that is similar to the November challenge but offers flexibility in choosing your own goals.
So why are we here, asking what the heck happened? How could a writing, community, and creative-driven organization possibly be embroiled in controversy? The answer is simple: AI. Or so it seemed simple when I personally caught wind of the public backlash. Then I found myself going down a rabbit hole that revealed so much more.
But let’s focus on the present controversy for the moment. One would expect NaNoWriMo to firmly be against AI. After all, the unregulated state of AI threatens writers specifically. Yet the organization found itself accepting sponsorship from ProWritingAid for 2024.
The article was not even explicit with its subject matter in the title; it was called “I Can’t Believe NaNoWriMo is Endorsing a Person/Company Who Does ——!” Although I’ve linked the article here, it no longer exists in its original format. No, it has been revised to “clarify and contextualize these comments in the wake of questions about our motivation for speaking on this topic,” as the statement at the bottom of the article reads. Convenient. But never fear, for the internet is a place where things can never really be erased.
Here are some hard-hitting statements from that original piece:
“Opinions about ‘correct’ ways to write or ‘right’ vs ‘wrong’ kinds of writers should not be brought into our spaces.”
“There is no place for that kind of virtue signaling within NaNoWriMo.”
The article dodges actually confirming the conversation is about AI. “Overall, I think that initial statement was terrible…they were too weasley to even point out the fact that it was about AI,” said commentary Youtuber D’Angelo Wallace in his video on the situation.
“An organization for writers that supports Gen A.I. is not an organization for writers.”
-Daniel Jose Older, Substack
Older was among many who condemned the stance NaNo was taking on the issue. Writers resigned from the Writer’s Board, authors expressed disappointment, and the entire community was rocked by the unexpected statement.
But it gets worse.
It’s not hard to imagine that NaNoWriMo was scrambling to save face as the backlash, resignations, and condemnations mounted online. Their solution for the perfect response? An article that accuses AI detractors of being closed-minded. Insinuating that AI is necessary for those with disabilities and those of poorer classes to be able to write well. Yeah. They went for classist, ableist, and racist all in one. Similarly to the previous article, “What is NaNoWriMo’s Position on Artificial Intelligence (AI)?” has been removed in its original form. Unfortunately for them, that will not prevent us from discussing it. Feel free to look at the original yourself here. This is the set of statements that pushed many people over the edge:
- Classism. Not all writers have the financial ability to hire humans to help at certain phases of their writing. For some writers, the decision to use AI is a practical, not an ideological, one. The financial ability to engage a human for feedback and review assumes a level of privilege that not all community members possess.
- Ableism. Not all brains have same abilities and not all writers function at the same level of education or proficiency in the language in which they are writing. Some brains and ability levels require outside help or accommodations to achieve certain goals. The notion that all writers “should“ be able to perform certain functions independently or is a position that we disagree with wholeheartedly. There is a wealth of reasons why individuals can’t “see” the issues in their writing without help.
- General Access Issues. All of these considerations exist within a larger system in which writers don’t always have equal access to resources along the chain. For example, underrepresented minorities are less likely to be offered traditional publishing contracts, and that places some, by default, into the indie author space, which inequitably creates upfront cost burdens that authors who do not suffer from systemic discrimination may have to incur.
As can be assumed from the removal of the article from their webpage, people were not happy with the stance. This time around, NaNo managed to upset not only its dedicated members but also the general public. The comments from Wallace’s video agreed with the sentiment that this grossly missed the mark and was incredibly offensive.
One user remarked, “Isn’t it more offensive to assume that poor people, disabled people, and people of color need ChatGPT to write a novel?”
Another commented, “‘Disabled individuals can’t see the issues with their work’ honestly I’d be less offended if they just called me slur.”
Both comments have thousands of likes, so clearly a lot of people agree with their sentiments.
And to think NaNo did all of this a mere two months from the start of their yearly challenge. Time will tell if their decision to back AI for sponsorship money was worth the catastrophic backlash online. We’ll have to wait to see if participation numbers decrease significantly, which I think it’s safe to say they will. The damage is irreparable at this point.
I was extremely disappointed to see this unravel before my eyes. Throughout middle and high school, I attempted the challenge to write a novel myself. I failed spectacularly, of course, but it was still empowering to have a space to try. Hopefully better, newer organizations will rise up to replace NaNoWriMo in the coming years.