Why is ‘story’ more important than ‘writing’? How can you write characters that engage the reader? And how can you sell more books by connecting authentically? Douglas Vigliotti shares his tips.

In the intro, Bookshop.org will start selling ebooks [TechCrunch]; LinkedIn for Book Promotion [ALLi]; The Money Making Expert, branding and marketing [DOAC]; 24 Assets – Daniel Priestley; My J.F. Penn books by location; Death Valley, A Thriller; Copyright and Artificial Intelligence [US Copyright Office]; Superagency: What could possibly go right with our AI Future – Reid Hoffman and Greg Beato

This podcast is sponsored by Kobo Writing Life, which helps authors self-publish and reach readers in global markets through the Kobo eco-system. You can also subscribe to the Kobo Writing Life podcast for interviews with successful indie authors.

This show is also supported by my Patrons. Join my Community at Patreon.com/thecreativepenn 

Douglas Vigliotti is the author of four books, a poet, and podcaster. His latest book is Aristotle for Novelists: 14 Timeless Principles on the Art of Story.

You can listen above or on your favorite podcast app or read the notes and links below. Here are the highlights and the full transcript is below. 

Show Notes

• Why Aristotle?
• Creating characters that resonate with our readers — and the four important elements to keep in mind
• Why story is more important than writing
• Creating complications that make readers want to read on
• The intersection of commerce and art
• Tips for pitching podcast interviews

You can find Douglas at DouglasVigliotti.com and his latest book at AristotleForNovelists.com.

Transcript of Interview with Douglas Vigliotti

Joanna: Douglas Vigliotti is the author of four books, a poet, and podcaster. His latest book is Aristotle for Novelists: 14 Timeless Principles on the Art of Story. So welcome to the show, Doug.

Douglas: Thank you so much for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Joanna: It’s great to have you on the show. So first up, just—

Tell us a bit more about you and how you got into writing.

Douglas: My journey is long and winding, but that’s probably similar to most writers. I grew up as a pretty, I would say, average or normal American childhood. Youngest of five boys, played hockey, played sports.

Believe it or not, writing and books and all of that was not even a thought in my mind until I reached probably my 20s, early 20s, mid 20s. Then kind of a light switch turned on. The first book that I ever wrote, and the first writing that I ever did publicly, was actually a derivative of my business career.

It took me following my interest, and growing as a writer and as an artist, to start exploring that more creative side of writing. Then that’s how I ended up writing novels and poetry and all that good stuff.

Joanna: What was that business?

Douglas: My professional career, I started, let’s see, 20 years ago. It was sales, selling.

I’ve sold everything from financial services, to medical devices, to payroll and tax filing, to myself.

Then I wrote a business book called The Salesperson Paradox, and it was in conjunction with my sales consulting company at the time, and that was how I started into my creative career. So it was totally, totally orthogonal to where I ended up.

Joanna: Well, or not. We’re going to come back to that because I love this. I love that you have a sales person background.

Just so you know, I’m actually the eldest of five children. Obviously, not all boys. So being of five siblings, I completely get, which is very cool.

Let’s get into the book itself. In case people don’t know—

Who was Aristotle? Why write a book based on his work?

Douglas: So I think in modern day, we throw around the name Aristotle quite a bit because it’s referenced a lot in pop culture. I think it’s one of those things where you hear the name and you assume—I don’t know what you assume. You assume smart, you assume historic, you assume legendary.

People probably don’t know who he is, and that’s always an interesting thing. The fact that he’s lasted over 2300 years is something of a testament to itself. So he was a philosopher and a polymath, really. I think his life, it was 384 BC to 322 BC. He studied under Plato, and Plato studied under Socrates before him.

When I said he was a polymath, that’s really essential to understanding who he is, because he wrote over 200 works that spanned across a plethora of topics.

From politics, to economics, to poetics, and all of these different subject matters that ended up becoming, in some cases, the foundational material for many of these disciplines in universities across the world.

So the fact that his ideas and his philosophies and concepts have stood the test of time is sort of a testament in itself, as I alluded to. One of the interesting things about those 200 works is that many of them, call it 80%, so I think we’ve only recovered 30-something of his works.

I mean, the number is kind of debated. I don’t know how they quantify this, because if they’re lost, how do we know how many we recovered? But they’ve only recovered 30-something of his works.

One of those is Poetics. So that is actually the nature of tragedies, but more broadly, storytelling. It’s one of the major reasons why I ended up writing this book, obviously.

Joanna: You didn’t say there that we’re talking about Ancient Greece. So we’re in Europe. I often think Americans forget that it all started over here in Europe.

Douglas: Sorry, I tend to skip over things sometimes, but you are correct. Ancient Greece.

Joanna: It’s funny because we seem to be at this period in history, in literature, when people just refer a lot to, obviously, the Stoic Movement and a lot about Marcus Aurelius. Obviously, Roman emperor, but the empire that came after the Greeks. A lot of this is resurfacing, isn’t it, in culture?

Do you think there’s some kind of zeitgeist where this is all coming back?

Douglas: So in a general sense, or in a broad sense, I think it’s more comfortable for people to reference people who are already gone, so to speak. I don’t think it’s as easy for people to credit living legends or living thinkers as it is to credit people who are gone. So I think there’s something to that.

I also think that there’s something to the idea of grabbing onto something that gives people a framework to think that they know, even though they might not really know. Like foundational philosophical thinkers, they were at some of these topics first, so they have some really strong ideas around a plethora of things.

So I think when we bring them to life, to this day and age, we realize, wow, there’s really—and I’m going to use a biblical quote here, not to be religious—but it’s nothing new under the sun.

We are living these same issues over and over and over again, and I just think that there’s a lot of resonance for that.

Look, I think there’s a certain thing to nostalgia that we have as a society. It’s a saleable commodity.

I didn’t write this book because I was trying to fill a void with Aristotle and his ideas and storytelling. To me, when I started to research story as a concept, everything started funneling back to Aristotle. Then I realized, wow, everything is there. You know, it was how I learned about story.

So the fact that Aristotle, his ideas in this book came to fruition, was more of a function of me realizing that all the theorists in modern day, or practitioners for that matter—so people in the dramatic world, like Aaron Sorkin or David Mamet or a lot of these people, they’ll often reference Aristotle.

Or if you read theorists like Robert McKee, they’ll often reference Aristotle. So for me, it was only natural to then double down on Aristotle, and read Poetics, and read multiple translations of Poetics, and really understand the text.

Then what I quickly realized was how resonant these ideas were in modern storytelling, on both the screen, the page, and in our lives. I think that that’s one of the big things that drew Aristotle to storytelling in general was how intrinsically linked it is to living, because we live stories.

So I think that the principles that we’ll talk about, or some of these ideas that we’ll talk about, they are applicable to our life, as well as they are applicable on the page and on the screen.

Joanna: Yes, and of course that quote you mentioned is from the book of Ecclesiastes. I quote that in a number of my novels, actually. It’s probably my favorite book of the Bible, Ecclesiastes.

I think part of that is what you’re talking about, is that —

There are principles in human nature, as well as principles in story, that don’t change, regardless of how many millennia go past.

I was thinking as you were talking, like maybe part of the reason we’re re-latching onto this now is because there’s so much change in the world. With AI, and technology, and social media, and all this constant stream of stuff that there is—

Maybe we’re sort of harking back to things that don’t change, and that perhaps helps a little.

Douglas: I totally agree with you. I think when we’re talking about stories specifically, there are a couple fundamental elements that are there in almost every story that we tell, at least in Western society.

In Western society, the stories we tell, almost all of them, even in sprawling epics or multiple storyline plots and all this stuff, they have three characteristics that are always there.

That’s a protagonist who wants something, and there’s obstacles standing in their way. Those obstacles come both externally and internally.

I think if we zoom out and we look at our lives, Joanna Penn’s life, Douglas Vigliotti’s life, I’m a protagonist who wants something, and I have obstacles standing in my way that are both internal and external.

Do I overcome those obstacles?

Well, then we end up with an Aristotelian comedy. I end up better off at the end, even if it’s only temporarily.

Do I succumb to those obstacles, both internal and external? Well, then we have an Aristotelian tragedy because I end up worse off.

So these ideas are baked right into our lives. You can see the framework for story everywhere as you walk through life if you understand these core components of what makes up a story. Again, like I said, at least in a Western sense.

Joanna: Yes, well, since we’re on characters then. A quote from the book, you say —

“Novels should contain true characters.”

Now, I find this word ‘true’ extremely difficult because fiction, you know, it’s fiction. True, in general, is very hard. So what do you mean by this?

How can we create characters that resonate?

Douglas: I think that you hit the nail on the head. True has multiple meanings to multiple people. I’m speaking specifically in the sense of what would Aristotle say would be true.

To Aristotle, there’s four elements to characters, in general. They are goodness, so it’s your characters are good if their choices are good. Appropriateness would be, are they acting appropriately? Not right or wrong, but based on who they are, are they acting truly to who they are? So are they acting appropriately?

So that directly links to this trueness of character in, are you writing characters that are true to who that character is? Not true to real life, true to who that character is. There’s a big difference there. It’s not about fact and fiction.

The third element is relatability. That has more to do with, are you making the character relatable? So are you giving them characteristics that embody human characteristics? The best way to do that is through imperfection.

Despite what our world wants to try to convince us every day —

We are relatable because of our imperfections —

not because of our perfections. So there’s this big chasm between what we see every day and what we should be depicting in our stories or on the page, and what we actually relate to.

If we sat down and had a conversation, we’re probably going to relate based on some of our struggles more than we’re going to relate on some of our successes.

Then the fourth piece is consistency. Even if you were to write a character, a true character, who is inconsistent, Aristotle would say, by nature, they should be consistently inconsistent.

We see this all the time in storytelling with unreliable narrators. They are consistently inconsistent. What ends up happening with those unreliable narrators is this ties into something else that Aristotle talks about or that you can observe in stories, but eventually what they say doesn’t line up with what they do.

It’s always what a character does, it’s always what we show, it’s always about action. That is the more important piece. So we can get into trouble in life or in stories if we’re only listening to what characters are saying. I could say one thing and do another, and doing is more important than saying.

So to answer that question and peel back to it, those are the four characteristics that would make up a true character in an Aristotelian sense.

Joanna: Yes, I think it’s an interesting way forward. I like the relatability because if you’re writing, let’s say sci fi, and you have aliens there, or you’re writing something literary and writing from the perspective of like a plant or an animal or something—

You still have to have relatability to the human who is reading the book.

That kind of comes across whatever type of character you’re writing, essentially.

Douglas: 100%. Aristotle is very specific in Poetic, saying that he believes that the two reasons why storytelling began for us humans, one is because of imitation. So we learn how to imitate to live. So as young kids, we imitate the world around us, the people around us, our parents, and that’s how we learn how to actually live.

So storytelling is a derivative of that. So we should be imitating what is happening in the real world. Not writing realist fiction or realist work, but we should be embracing all of human nature has to offer, because that is why, according to Aristotle, storytelling actually began.

It’s what’s relatable to humans, so we should be reflecting all of those qualities in our work.

For anyone who’s interested, the second reason is rhythm. So he thinks we have a natural rhythm, and I tend to agree with him because even if you are writing, all writers know voice, they know pacing, they know tone.

Rhythm to your prose, just like rhythm in music, is really, really important.

I think this is one of the big reasons why, as a writer, you don’t even need to know grammar to be able to write. If you have rhythm, it’s going to work on the page. You have editors for that stuff.

I think musicians are great examples of this because so many of them don’t learn how to—you know, top level musicians, I mean, people who are iconic. In the book I talk about some examples of Billy Joel, and Bruce Springsteen, and American musicians who didn’t know how to read music, and things turned out pretty well for them.

Not to say that that’s the benchmark, but it’s countless, the amount of “I don’t know how to read music, I learned how to play the guitar.” All of that’s based off of rhythm. Writing and voice on the page is no different, really. Aristotle would call that your meter, your poetic meter.

Joanna: Yes, that’s interesting. Actually, you do say this in the introduction,

“Writing is not story.”

I guess there you mentioned you don’t have to know grammar to write story, and this is a tension. Of course, you’re a poet as well, and writers often prioritize the intricacies of language before the story.

Especially in this sort of age of AI, when word generation, however you generate words, whether you’re writing them by hand or you’re generating them with AI, that doesn’t matter so much.

How can we prioritize story over the intricacies of writing?

Douglas: So, for me, this is a really important distinction. I think oftentimes writers, at least through conversations that I have with them, we confuse writing and story.

To me, there’s a very, very clear distinction, in that story is governed by what I would call principles, whereas writing is governed by style.

I really have no interest in telling someone how I think they should write their story. I don’t even believe that you can. Even the best prose—and I’m using air quotes because best is so subjective—it could take me 15, 20 pages to get used to that writing or I could never get used to that writing.

Writing is that different from person to person, writer to writer. I have this funny saying, where it’s, “Story is why they come, writing is why they stay.”

Writing is the tool that writers utilize to tell their story. Story is the foundational component of what you are trying to achieve.

That’s why you can watch movies, you can listen to audiobooks, you can engage with all these other forms of media and learn how to tell story. That doesn’t mean you’re going to learn how to write because writing is a different thing.

Aristotle does have some ideas on what he thinks around style, of course, and I have my own opinions on that as well.

Ultimately, what I’m trying to achieve with Aristotle for Novelists, let’s say, is more of a foundational education on the principles of what makes up a story. So there is a difference between the two, at least in my view.

Joanna: So I guess one of the other things, we talked a bit about character there, but we should also talk about plot. You say,

“Novels have a complication and a resolution.”

What are complications, and how can we create those that fascinate readers and make them want to read on?

Even though they may, or sometimes we feel like, maybe they’ve heard this before or read this before?

Douglas: So my favorite Aristotle quote is, “Many poets tie the knot well, but unravel it ill.” What he’s talking about there—and when he says poets, he’s talking about something much wider in scope than literally poets. The same could be said, by the way, for poetics in general.

What he meant by poetics is something much larger in scope than poetry, so for anybody who’s wondering that.

What he’s talking about there is the difference between a complication and a resolution. So we all know that when we come to our stories, we come because we have an idea for the complication of that story. We have a character who is put in a situation and we wind that up.

What he’s saying is that it takes the truly great writers the ability to unwind that, to unravel that knot. There’s so many ways that we could go wrong when we’re doing that. Whether it’s lack of believability, lack of cohesion, illogical, impossibility, irrationality.

There’s so many different ways that we could falter as we try to resolve the complication that we depicted in the early part of our story. I find it helpful when I read books and when I watch movies—I’m a bit of a story junkie, so I do both quite a bit.

I look particularly for, when does that writer or when does that story begin to unravel the knot? Some would say, in a traditional three-act structure sense, you begin to unravel the knot—and Aristotle would say this—when that change of fortune actually happens.

So if it’s at a tragedy, it would be when that character is at the ultimate high before they fall. Or if it was in a comedy, it would be at that ultimate low before they rise. You start to unravel that knot a little bit.

I find it helpful to start thinking about and answering little questions that you propose earlier in your novels, somewhere around the midway point. Never actually answering that big question, right?

You want to keep that tension for as long as possible.

Then there’s other people who would suggest you keep that tension as taut as possible all the way through until you get to the very, very end. So what you’ll find is there’s a lot of differences in how people achieve this.

I think one of the things that you will see consistently is there is a complication and there is a resolution. One of the things that Aristotle is really, really insistent about is he calls it avoiding Deus Ex Machina. So things coming from outside of your plot to solve plot problems.

I see this all the time, I’m going to be honest, in stories where it’s like, solve the plot problems within the existing world that you depicted. Now, obviously you can introduce new characters and all of that stuff, but when stuff comes out of left field to solve a plot problem, you’re not unraveling the knot well, so to speak.

He has a great quote, and he says,

“The solution to a plot problem should come from the story itself.”

I find that to be a really informative quote, and also a benchmark to try to hit every time you write a story. Whether that story is short as a poem in five sentences, or whether it’s extrapolated out to an 80,000 word novel.

Joanna: That’s actually great. People are like, oh, but how do I do that? Then I’m like, well, that’s why we do self-editing, because if you get to a point in your book and you finish your book, you just go back and edit in something earlier on in the process.

So I don’t understand how people can’t figure that out later on. As you say, you can just put in things earlier on that will help you resolve it later. That’s why we edit. So I think that’s quite cool.

I want to come back to something you said earlier about your previous career and your book, The Salesperson Paradox. I feel like this is a problem for most authors. So if you’re a poet, you’ve got this book, Aristotle for Novelists, you’ve got other books, and you also come from sales.

So how are you marketing your books? How are you selling your books?

How can authors who care about the craft also care about sales and marketing?

Douglas: I do think that they are driven by two completely different motors. I have this conversation since I have my toe in both worlds, and I have for a long time now. The creative side is run by a different engine than the business side is, at least for me.

I do think one informs the other when you start thinking about what it’s like when your actual work hits the real world and becomes a commercial entity. Just because you’re near and dear to it, and it’s so close to you. Believe me, I write super personal stuff, so I totally, totally get it.

For anybody who’s out there saying, “I’m an artist, and I write from the heart,” — 

The intersection of commerce still exists if you want to sell your work to people, if you want your work to be seen.

For sales, there’s one thing that The Salesperson Paradox hits on, and that has been the bedrock for my success in that world. It’s simply helping people get what they already want. We lose sight that there’s people out there that already want what you have. You have to find them and give it to them. That’s it.

It’s that simple. You’re never going to force somebody to want something that they don’t want, but if you find the people who want the thing that you provide, you will be able to sell much more of whatever you’re selling.

It’s a matter of helping, not selling.

You’re helping somebody get what they want, not selling them a good or a service. It’s face to face, over the phone, on a zoom, anywhere. That distinction is critical.

If we look at books in general, I often say that there’s four elements to value, and that value framework is time, status, ease and money. So we all want things that save us time or increase the speed of things.

Apps do that, you mentioned AI before. All of that hits on time value. Time, it’s a value driver, innate value driver for humans.

Ease. Am I making it easy for the person to say yes, or am I making it hard? The easier I make it for someone to say yes, the more likely they’re going to say yes. You can infuse that into when you’re doing outreach via email or outreach via phone.

How easy are you making it for people to say yes? Come have this conversation with me about your book or whatever. There’s multiple ways that you could go about something. Are you making it easy for someone to say yes? That’s a big driver for us. It’s a big driver for me, and it’s a big driver for most people.

Status is another huge innate human driver. We all have people we want to look good toward, and can I help that person look good towards those people? That is a huge, huge value driver.

It happens in a micro-sense when you’re dealing with people on a one-off level, like a one-on-one level. So it’s like, I don’t know, maybe that person wants to look good to their mother. Maybe this person wants to look good to an audience. Maybe this person wants to look good to their boss.

Can you help that person look good to that individual? That’s a huge innate value driver because we are all status creatures, whether we want to admit it or not.

The fourth piece is money. If you can make someone money or save them money, that’s a huge value driver. So I always look at when I’m trying to sell things on a commercial aspect, how could I fit it into that value equation, whether it’s on a micro sense or a macro sense.

I know that if I’m able to create some kind of value proposition around that, at least I’m going to have a story that I’m going to be able to communicate. So that’s going to put me in a better position to actually sell things. I hope that’s helpful.

Joanna: It’s helpful as a framework. So like if someone has a thriller novel or a sci-fi novel—

How does that fit into that framework when there are lots of other thriller novels and sci-fi novels out there?

Douglas: 100% agree with you. It becomes really hard when you’re talking about fiction.

I have a podcast, it’s called Books for Men, and when I have conversations with other men about books—because the podcast is designed to inspire men to read—the number one thing is that most of them aren’t reading fiction, and they’re reading nonfiction.

The reason why they’re reading nonfiction is because it has a higher value proposition. So when we’re looking at the bigger picture, fiction struggles to sell consistently for a lot of people because it doesn’t fit into the value framework.

The only way that you’re going to be able to get people to consistently buy your products is by developing your own relationship with them and creating things.

Like creating a podcast, having a blog, you have to do that.

If you don’t do that, you’re never going to sell the thing consistently, unless you just want to roll the dice and look hope for luck. I think that in a world of AI, that personal connection as creators, writers, filmmakers, is going to be even more important.

People are going to want to buy from people that they know, like, and trust. So the more you can build that personal connection with people, the better off I think you’re going to be in the long term.

So while people are all concerned about the craft element of writing a thriller novel—believe me, I’m a craft junkie, and I totally empathize with that—but —

You should also be thinking about, how am I going to create a personal connection with my readers?

Do they know what Joanna Penn is about? Do they know what Douglas Vigliiotti is about? If they do, they’re going to be more likely to buy from you. In an art sense, it’s really the only strategy that you have moving forward.

Unless you’re lucky enough where you’re that one in a million shot, where your work just shoots up the charts and everything you become after that becomes saleable.

You hit on something very, very important. Fiction in art doesn’t necessarily fit into that framework, and that’s what makes it such a challenge to sell it.

Joanna: Yes, or you pay a ton for Amazon and Facebook ads. That’s another way.

Douglas: For me, that’s a tactic. It’s not a strategy. Like, so that’s a great tactic, but to me, tactics are endless. Like they’re endless. What works for some people, might not work for somebody else.

Strategically, I think the better bet is to try to create something where people can find you being you.

It goes back to that whole help people get what they already want. Do your best to create the thing and draw people that would like that thing into it. Not try to create the thing for people.

Just create the art, create the thing, and then try to build the framework around your creative career that people come in and they engage with you because they’re interested in you. To me, that’s like the only selling point that we’re going to have as we move forward into this new world, 10, 20, 30 years.

I mean, people have a really myopic view about what is happening with AI right now. It’s not meant to scare people. It’s just how crowded and how cloudy the content and art and creation aspect already is, it’s going to get 10 times worse.

So the only thing that I think is worth investing in, from a sales standpoint, is individuality and building something that is personally who you are, and so people can engage with that.

I know that’s scary for a lot of writers, but to me, it’s inevitable. It’s the only thing that we have, the only selling point we have moving forward.

Joanna: Yes, I often say —

Double down on being human.

Your voice, and your face, and I’d say an author’s note in the back of fiction grounds your story and why you care as a person.

On this, you have a podcast, Books for Men, as you mentioned. Obviously, I have this podcast, I’ve had other podcasts. I think voice is a big thing. As you say, people can get to know you, like you, and trust you. So I’d say podcasting is a great way to do book marketing. Obviously, you think the same thing.

Just as tips for people listening, if people listening want to pitch a podcast, not you or me, obviously, but other podcasts—because I get terrible pitches every single day. Your pitch was very good.

What are your tips for people who want to pitch for podcast interviews around their books?

Douglas: Get to the point. Not you. That’s the tip.

Get to the point. The briefer you can make it, and the more pointed that you could make it, the better off you are. If I could do the email in three sentences, I would do it. If it has to be five, then I’ll do it in five. If it has to be 10, then I’ll do it in 10.

I want to make the email as short as I possibly need to make it so you understand why I’m emailing you, where the benefit is, and what I’m asking you to do.

Even when I had my own podcast where I was doing a lot of interviewing, I was reaching out to a lot of really big names in the space and trying to get them to come onto the show because that’s how I thought I was going to be able to drive audience. Even in that sense, I was doing extremely short emails.

So most people when they email somebody, they think that telling them everything they need to know because they don’t want to miss a little possible thing that could spark Joanna, or Doug, or somebody, to say, “Oh, I like that.”

The reality is, is if as soon as you get an email from somebody that is a chunk of text, you don’t read any of it.

The shorter that you can make the email, the more prone that person is to actually reading it and being super, super pointed.

The other rule is, if you wouldn’t say it in real life, don’t say it in an email. I think emails live forever, and we forget that when you press send, that email is going to sit there.

I’ve sent a lot of bad emails over the years to learn this lesson, and me thinking to myself, wow, how did I say that in an email?

Now one of the biggest things that I focus on, aside from brevity, is would I say this to this person face to face? If I wouldn’t say it face to face, then I wouldn’t put it in an email.

It turns out that those two things go hand in hand. How often do you go up to somebody and read them three pages of material about who you are, what you’re doing, what your books are about? Never. What you do is you get right to the point. “Hey, I’m Doug. I’m a writer. X, Y and Z,” blah, blah, blah, whatever.

I mean, that’s not what I would say in an email, but you do it short and brief, and then let the person respond.

Joanna: Just to come back there, you said, “what the benefit is,” and you said that quite quickly.

Just to be clear, it’s the benefit to the podcaster, not the benefit to the author.

I get so many pitches that say, “I’m blah, blah, blah author. I’ve written this book. When can I schedule myself onto your show for my book tour?”

Douglas: Well, here’s the thing, with books specifically—you know this better than anybody, you probably get tons and tons—podcasts have almost become an adjunct of the publishing industry. A new book comes out, and now this is the best way to sell this.

It’s the same method that was utilized forever, where you’d go on radio talk shows, you’d go on Johnny Carson, I don’t know, like all these talk shows.

Now that there’s podcasts, and because of technology there’s so many of them, what the publishing industry realized is the best way to sell books is the same way it’s always been to sell books, which is get people on shows and get people in front of audiences that they don’t already have.

So now, people like yourself and all of these podcast hosts are getting hundreds and hundreds of pitches, especially if the show is popular, getting so many of these. So what could you do to stand out from that? Get it so someone would actually read it.

So how do people read things?

If it’s short and to the point at why it would be beneficial for that person to have you on the show, then in my world, you’re more prone to get through.

Again, this is not something that I’ve just utilized in outreach with podcast pitching. I have 20 years of sales experience where I’ve utilized this in other aspects too, to get in front of prospective buyers and whatnot.

It’s short, and it goes back to what I was saying before. You want good guests. I don’t have guests on my show anymore, but I would want good guests on my show. What I don’t want is a long, extended email about all these different things.

What I do want is a short, polite, direct email of telling me why you’re emailing me and why it would benefit me to have you on the show, in as short as possible. I found that people, in general, they respond well to that strategy over the span of life, not just in the podcast world.

It’s because you’re putting it in their world. I’m having respect for you. I’m having empathy for you.

You’re reading a million emails, so how could I make it easy for you to say yes to me?

Something that I was talking about before, am I saving you time? And status, am I making that person look good if they have me on the show? These are all things that a human would innately consider, even if they’re not consciously considering them.

So you could sell something, yourself in this situation, via email by utilizing that value framework that I was referencing before.

Joanna: Fantastic. So lots of tips there.

Where can people find you, and your books, and everything you do online?

Douglas: So it’s very, very easy. For me, just go to my website, DouglasVigliotti.com. If you want to know more about the podcast, BooksForMen.org is the best place to check that out. Again, that’s a podcast to inspire more men to read. Then for the book, it’s AristotleForNovelists.com.

Joanna: Well, thanks so much for your time, Doug. That was great.

Douglas: Thank you for having me. I really appreciate it.

The post Aristotle for Novelists, And A Strategy For Selling More Books With Douglas Vigliotti first appeared on The Creative Penn.

How does generative AI relate to fair use when it comes to copyright? What are the possibilities for AI licensing? Alicia Wright shares her thoughts on generative AI for authors.

In the intro, Publishing leaders share 9 Bold Predictions for 2025 [BookBub]; OpenAI launches Operator [The Verge]; Bertelsmann (who own Penguin Random House) intends to work with OpenAI to expand and accelerate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the media, services, and education sectors; Death Valley — A Thriller.

Today’s show is sponsored by my patrons! Join my community and get access to extra videos on writing craft, author business, AI and behind the scenes info, plus an extra Q&A show a month where I answer Patron questions. It’s about the same as a black coffee a month! Join the community at Patreon.com/thecreativepenn

Alicia Wright is an intellectual property lawyer for a technology company, and also writes science fiction and mystery as Alicia Ellis. With two degrees in computer science and an MFA in writing popular fiction, she is expertly placed to comment on AI as it applies to writers.

You can listen above or on your favorite podcast app or read the notes and links below. Here are the highlights and the full transcript is below. 

Show Notes

• Using AI as a brainstorming partner and collaborator
• AI as fair use because it creates something transformative
• Using the right prompts to produce quality outputs from AI
• AI is the next technological change in our society
• Licensing your IP for training and AI usage — what to look for in contracts
• Training the AI systems to include your work in generative searches
• Developing your authorial voice and creative confidence
• Uitlizing AI agents in your author business

You can find Alicia at WriterAlicia.com and on social media @WriterAlicia.

Transcript of Interview with Alicia Wright

Joanna: Alicia Wright is an intellectual property lawyer for a technology company, and also writes science fiction and mystery as Alicia Ellis.

With two degrees in computer science and an MFA in writing popular fiction, she is expertly placed to comment on AI as it applies to writers, which we’re talking about today. So welcome to the show, Alicia.

Alicia: Thank you so much, Jo. I’m happy to be here.

Joanna: Oh, I’m excited to talk to you. So first up—

Tell us a bit more about you and how you got into writing, and also into AI and technology.

Alicia: All right. Well, I should say that I got into AI and technology first. I was always one of those science and math people. Math was my favorite subject in school. Not a lot of people say that, but I loved math. I loved the sciences. I always was reading forward in my textbooks.

Then my mother didn’t want us watching TV, so we read a lot of books. I got into writing poetry, writing song lyrics, writing short stories, and the creative side of me came out.

It never occurred to me to write something longer—because I was a math/science person—until I got into law school, and there you have to write all the time. You have to write briefs, you know, these 30 page documents.

Then it occurred to me that, hey, I’d like to write a novel. So I would say the technology interest was always there, and the creative interest, the writing, came later.

In my work as a patent attorney, I have encountered AI-related applications throughout the years, even generative AI technologies as far as 10 years back. So I had an interest in that even before it became relevant to the writing industry.

Joanna: So when did you get into writing fiction? How many years have you been writing fiction, as well as doing your incredible job?

Alicia: I have been writing fiction, specifically long form fiction, for as long as I have been a lawyer. The time is almost exact. I know this because I was in my final year of law school and sort of had this crisis. Like, I’m graduating law school, do I want to be a lawyer?

I spent time thinking about that. Just sat down for really a day and went through what I would do if it wasn’t law. I decided that I did want to do law, but I also wanted to write novels.

So as soon as I graduated law school, I enrolled in some local writing courses. So I’ve been practicing law and writing for the same amount of time.

Joanna: Which is approximately?

Alicia: 17 years. I got into indie publishing in maybe 2013, but I’ve been writing for 17 and a half years.

Joanna: Brilliant. So you mentioned there that you, as a patent attorney, you look at AI applications. You did mention using a bit of generative technology there.

How do you currently use AI tools as part of your creative and business processes?

Alicia: In my business work, well, I see a lot of AI technologies in what I’m writing patent applications for, and that’s what I was referring to before.

In managing a patent portfolio at the cybersecurity firm where I work right now, I definitely use AI technologies to help inventors organize their thoughts when they submit to us to do analyses. Sometimes I’m dealing with a huge patent portfolio, and AI can help organize the analyses and my thoughts on that.

In my writing, I use it mostly at the planning stages as a brainstorming partner. I love AI as a brainstorming partner.

I always tell it that it’s my junior partner because it tends to go off on its own, and I like to reel it in to run the show, if you will.

I give it my ideas. Often I’ll ask it to, say, “Give me five ideas on how to put these things together,” or, “Give me 10 ideas on how to put these things together.” Even if they’re bad ideas, it helps me sort of organize my thoughts. Like, why don’t I like these ideas?

So, together, we walk through what I want to do. We create a Save the Cat outline. Which I usually start it off once we have all the ideas on the table, I ask it to create the Save the Cat outline.

Usually, I have a lot of changes. We make those changes, and then we’ll break it down into a scene list that follows the three act structure.

I often have it generate character sketches and setting sketches — 

because, honestly, I’m no good with thinking about what does this setting look like. What kind of house is this? Bricks? Facade? I don’t care. So the AI is really helpful with that.

There’s a lot of editing, a lot of back and forth. AI is a great partner for brainstorming and plotting.

When we get into the writing, my authorial voice is really important to me, in part, probably because I have diagnosed OCD. I have experimented with using AI in pretty much every aspect of my process, but for me, personally, the writing part I have to do. I would spend more time editing AI output than I would have just writing it myself.

I tend to use dictation and input the dictation output into ChatGPT to clean it up —

— and they’ll catch the dictation error, so I have a much cleaner copy going forward. Then when I’m done writing, I’ll use a little AI for developmental editing.

Joanna: I love that. You sound similar to me in the way you’re using it. You’re using the word ‘partner’, your junior partner, your collaborator. You use the word ‘we’, which I really like as well because I feel that too.

Like with Claude, I feel this is almost my—not so much co-writer—but like you said, collaborator. It really is a backwards and forwards way of doing it.

I can hear the smile in your voice, and I have a smile in my voice as well, because this is fun, right? This makes it more fun for us.

Alicia: It’s so fun, and I feel like my work is better, that this brings out a better side of me. Connections that I hadn’t made, problems that I didn’t foresee. It’s having a partner, so that it’s improved. It’s not just me, it’s me plus some artificial intelligence.

Joanna: Yes. So we could geek out about how amazing it is all day, but I did want to ask you about some of the objections that authors have. You did this great talk at Author Nation, and you were so clear on it.

I don’t think there are many people in our community who have degrees in computer science and law, and an MFA, and are an active indie author. I think you’re the only person, right?

Alicia: Maybe.

Joanna: Maybe.

Let’s start with one of the most common objections from authors, which is, “AI companies stole our work.”

What are your thoughts on this, and how does it relate to fair use?

Alicia: So when I think of the word stolen, I think of an illegal taking. So I think, are we talking about copyright infringement here? I would say, in my opinion, that the work is not stolen.

The reason I phrase it that way, in my opinion, is because I’m sure a lot of folks know, there’s ongoing litigation about whether the use of copyrighted works in training data is copyright infringement.

Until those are actually decided, until those cases are actually decided, I can’t say definitively, but I feel pretty confident that the training of AI using copyrighted works is fair use.

Fair use is an exception to copyright infringement. Basically it says, yes, we copied copyrighted works, except we did it for a use where this exception is cut out.

Fair use exists in order to allow us to grow from existing copyrighted works, to spur creativity so that you can create based on what already exists.

There’s four factors in the US that courts consider for fair use, and one of the key factors is, is your use transformative?

I think that’s really important to what fair use is about. Have you created something new? Have you created something that can be used in a different way?

I feel strongly that the use of copyrighted works to train AI is so transformative, and is what fair use is about.

There’s case law that’s related to using copyrighted works, even for AI in the past, but not for generative AI in the way we’re talking about now. I feel that the case law is pushing US courts towards saying that this is fair use. We will see, probably in a couple years, for sure.

I would say that I don’t feel like AI is theft. I feel like it will be shown at a later date that AI is not theft, but I can’t say 100%. I certainly think that it is premature to say that it is theft.

Joanna: It’s interesting. I mean, I would have thought that the US would be further ahead on this. Maybe with your incoming Trump administration, those cases might get settled more quickly.

Here in the UK, our government has literally, like yesterday, come out with the AI plan, and they are almost pushing for an exception around data training in copyright, which is really interesting. We have a very different rule around this.

The argument here with the British government is that these strict things restrain innovation or restrict innovation. As you mentioned, fair use is so we can have more innovation, and we don’t want to stifle that.

Alicia: Exactly.

Joanna: Another thing that I hear is that ChatGPT and all of this, they’re just “plagiarism machines.”

They can’t create anything original. They can only spit out things that come from other people’s work. What are your thoughts on that?

Alicia: Calling AI plagiarism, saying that that’s all it does, reflects a basic misunderstanding of how AI works at a technical level.

These generative AI models at their core are statistical models.

They’ve taken in—read, if you will—millions, billions of pieces of writing or images, in the case of the image generators.

Then based on basically statistics—it’s much more complex than that, but I’m going to simplify it by saying it’s a statistical model—it determines what token—a token could be a word or a symbol, like a period—what token comes after the previous token, and it forms output based on that, one token at a time.

The reason I want to emphasize that it’s one token at a time is that you’re not lifting even phrases from existing work. It’s not at the phrase level. It’s at the word level, just like you and I write.

You can’t take a combination of words taken from millions of other works and say you plagiarized it because you took a word that was over here and a word that was over there.

It’s not a logical reflection of how AI works at the technical level.

Asking, can it only create things that already exist? I would say humans also can only create things that already exist. We all learn from what exists. You’re going to see cliche phrases in AI output because, statistically, you’ll see words together that you often see together in writing.

So you’re going to see things like, “She released the breath that she didn’t know she’d been holding,” because you’ve seen it a lot of other works. In the same way that that’s not plagiarism when you write it, it’s not plagiarism when the AI writes it, either.

Joanna: I keep hearing people say —

“Oh, this is a crap book. It must have been generated by AI,” —

with the assumption that only bad quality writing can be generated. So given that you and I use this a lot, our prompts are very, very different to somebody who is brand new to generative AI.

Do you think that the quality—and I know quality is a tough word—but—Is the quality of writing from generative AI when you use the right prompts?

Alicia: I think — 

Prompts make a huge difference.

Especially if you’re using AI for the writing part, say, for a first draft or for a final draft, however you use it in the actual writing part, I think it’s important to prompt it to write like your authorial voice.

The more you do that, I think it’s going to be closer to you and may even be better writing, assuming that your author voice is well developed. I think if you just ask the AI—well, I’ve seen from experience—that if you just ask the AI to write something, it’s not necessarily going to be a style that’s appropriate for what you’re writing.

The more specific you are about how that writing should look, or even give it samples of your writing, describe your own writing, the writing gets better. By better, I mean closer to what you as an author want it to be.

The more specific you are in your prompt, the more you learn how to talk to the AI in a way that it interprets the way you want it to.

Joanna: Yes, I agree. I mean, sometimes my prompts can be like 100 words. With Claude, I’m prompting with whole sentences and beats and all kinds of things that at the beginning of my use I didn’t necessarily know how to do.

Again, coming back to the co-writer idea, the collaborator idea, it’s like working with another person. You mentioned you’re OCD. I’m not OCD, but I’m certainly into control around my writing.

I found it very hard to work with a human co-writer, but I love working with Claude for this reason.

[My use of the AI tools] developed over time. You don’t just do it from your first interaction.

Alicia: Right. I 100% agree with that. I’ve been using AI in my work, in my planning for my writing, and bits and pieces in my actual writing since it first went mainstream the end of 2022.

My prompts are so much longer now than they were then because I’ve learned how they’re going to respond.

Then my prompts for different AI models are different. My prompts for Claude might be different than my prompts for ChatGPT because I have a sense of how they interpret things.

My prompts have gotten more specific, and I chain my prompts together because that’s something you learn. It’s a skill, using generative AI as a tool.

Joanna: Yes, and that is why I’ve been harping on about this for so long, because every month that goes past that people don’t even try it for little things, they are missing out on time to learn what is essentially, what I think, it kind of underpins the next technological change in our society.

A bit like the internet changed so much, this is going to change so much. Do you feel it’s that significant, as well?

Alicia: That is going to change a lot? Absolutely, and there’s a lot of change that I look forward to. I’m interested in how the writing industry is going to look when these legal cases are decided. Speculate and say that it’s determined that it is okay to train AI models based on copyrighted works.

I’m interested to see how those who are so anti-AI in the writing industry would respond to that. But more than that —

I’m interested in what’s coming next. What’s going to happen with AI next?

I’m hard of hearing, and I’m really looking forward to outside of the writing industry, some sort of captions. You know, they’re making smart glasses. I want smart glasses with captions. I’m just waiting for it. I’m rubbing my hands together. I can’t wait. Some of this stuff is going to be life changing.

Joanna: Wow, okay. So you mean you’re looking at someone while wearing the smart glasses, and as they speak, you’ll see captions of what they’re saying?

Alicia: That’s the dream.

Joanna: That is amazing, and of course, why wouldn’t you have that? That just seems very sensible. So I don’t even think that’s that far away, surely. Let’s hope so.

Well, look, let’s come to those court cases. So in the USA, and there are still these open court cases against various AI companies, but there are also now far more companies that have done intellectual property licensing deals for data training, including some publishers and media companies.

Now, as we record this in the middle of January 2025, a company called CreatedByHumans.ai has just launched, and they’re partnering with the Authors Guild in the US. The aim is to help authors license their IP for training and AI usage.

Now, this is a non-exclusive thing, and authors can choose how the data is used.

What are your thoughts on the opportunities of this kind of licensing for AI and what should authors keep an eye out for in any contracts?

Alicia: I think the main thing I want to say about this is, if you’re being offered a licensing contract for using your work to train AI, that I would jump on that.

It may be that soon courts bring down decisions that this is fair use, and in that case, they can use your work without a license.

So someone’s offering you money for it now, I would say, get into those negotiations and think about getting that locked down.

Specifically with respect to terms, I would say, know the scope and the type of model that your work is going to be used for. If it’s going to be used for a general purpose that could be used to create competing works, then maybe you want to be paid more than if it’s going to be used internally at law firms, for example.

So know what it’s going to be used for because that tells you what the value of this license is. I would say, make sure that your terms don’t include derivative works, or are very specific about what derivative works are included in what you’re giving.

You don’t want someone using AI to generate works that are directly based off your work, like sequels. Just make sure that that’s something that’s out of the scope of the license.

It would exclude anything about sub licenses, unless you’re getting paid for a sub license. Ideally, put a term on it, on the licensing of your work, because this area is developing.

You don’t know what’s going to happen five years from now, 10 years from now. There may be whole new clauses that you want in there because of how technology has developed.

So I would, personally, try to avoid a license that’s 20 years or the term of your copyright because you want to be able to develop that license as the technology develops.

I would also limit how your work is going to appear in outputs, meaning the percentage of your work that can appear in outputs.

It is unlikely that with a general purpose chat bot where millions or billions of works are used to train that a significant portion of your work would appear in the output because it wouldn’t have that large an input on the statistical model that is the AI model.

However, you don’t know how big the model is going to be or how many works are going to be used to train it. So I think it could be worthwhile to have a percentage, say, only 2% of my work at a time can appear in any given outbreak.

That’s something that they can program as a layer above a generative AI model, so that it sort of screens that before any output gets put out to a user. So that’s something that I would have in there as well.

In general, make sure your contract has remedies, so that if there’s a breach, you can cancel the contract, for example. As opposed to just getting paid out, or whatever remedies you prefer, make sure they’re outlined in there.

Ideally, you want a right to audit what’s happening with your work in the training, so that you can take advantage of those remedies. If you can’t see what’s going on, then the remedies aren’t doing you much good.

Joanna: Those are all really useful things. It’s funny because the first thing you said was, get into this because things might change, and we might not get anything if it becomes fair use.

The other thing I thought is we almost have a burning platform on the creation of synthetic data. So I’ve been looking at the OpenAI’s o1 model, and some people are saying that one of the reasons it was created is because it can create really good synthetic data to train the o3 models.

Alicia: Oh, wow.

Joanna: I know. I was like, wow—

If they can do really good synthetic data, they don’t even need to take our data.

Although I guess the original sin, as such, may still stand. I don’t know. I mean, any thoughts on that?

Alicia: Well, I hadn’t heard that about the o1 and the o3 model, but synthetic data, that’s something that I’m excited about because I want these models to improve. I want them to use my work to train the models. Synthetic can write more like me, make my job easier.

I’m excited for more training data. I hope that more folks in the writing industry get on board and allow their works to be licensed if allowance is needed. Even if allowance is not needed, I know that folks in the AI industry are feeling the pushback from the writing industry, and it may slow them down.

I don’t want them to be slowed down. I want to see this stuff develop.

Joanna: It’s interesting that we both want our data in the models. Partly, I also think there’s a big change in generative search, in that I mainly use ChatGPT now to do my searches.

So I’ve been trying to do sort of book discovery, you know, “Give me 10 books that are action adventure thrillers with a female protagonist set in this area.” Then it gives me 10, and I’m like, “Well, what about this book by JF Penn?” I’m like almost trying to train it to think of my books as well.

What do you think about generative search and people using these models for searching?

If we’re not there, we just won’t be found.

Alicia: If we’re not there, they just won’t be found. What do you mean by that?

Joanna: Well, as in, the models have access to certain data and certain data that’s on the internet. So a lot of the time, it can look at Goodreads, or it can look at Amazon.

I want ChatGPT and Claude to know J.F. Penn, so that if someone is searching for something to read—and a lot of the apps that go on top of things now are powered by these tools—

I want the models to know my writing so that it can promote me or recommend me if people go looking for things like I write.

Alicia: Oh, for sure. I know there are anti-AI folks in the writing industry who don’t want AI anywhere near their work. I’m more what you just said. I want AI to be able to find me. I want AI to be able to write more like me.

I believe strongly in my own creativity and my ability to create something that is specifically me, and because of that, I’m not concerned about AI being near my work. I want it to help me.

I’m not scared about how its use is going to impact my marketability because I know what I’ve got.

Joanna: I love that, and I actually think the same thing.

I wonder if this is creative confidence that comes from—like both of us have been 17 years writing, and previously I was in tech as well. Not quite as deep as you, but I’m confident with tech.

So this kind of creative confidence in our own work and in our own worth that some newer writers might not have, I guess.

Is there anything you can say to newer writers who might not have as much creative confidence as you?

Alicia: This may be strange coming from someone who is very fond of AI, I have a lot of fun with it, but I would say that maybe building that creative confidence means not using AI for a while.

It means discovering who you are as an author, what sort of things you like to write before bringing in a partner, be it AI or a human writer of another sort. Really find your uniqueness and your identity as a writer before you start adding tools into the mix.

Joanna: That is actually a really good point.

You and I have both already done enough books and written enough that we’re confident in our voice that we found before AI.

Then I just wonder if maybe people who are younger in the usage of these tools, or people younger in their journey, or just physically younger, are going to do things differently. Like you and I grew up without iPhones, and we grew up without television.

My mum was the same as your mum. We weren’t allowed to watch TV until I was about 12. So I feel like maybe people will develop their voice differently now.

Alicia: That’s a really good point, and I honestly don’t know what that will look like, but I’m excited to see it.

Joanna: Yes, me too. Okay, so let’s just circle back on copyright because another sticking point for authors in using these tools is—

They’re afraid that they won’t have copyright in their finished work if they use AI tools in any way. So where’s the line here?

How is it in the US? Because it’s different in the UK.

Alicia: Right. In the US, first of all, expression that is generated by artificial intelligence, by a machine, is not copyrightable. However, your authorship is copyrightable. Thus, when you combine your authorship with an AI-generated output, then the part of that that is your creative expression is still copyrightable.

So what that means is, if there’s a combination, if you’re using AI as a partner, then whatever expression that you contribute to that final product is copyrightable in the US.

Thus, say someone was to copy a chapter of your book that has you in it, as opposed to telling the AI in a short paragraph to write a chapter, if you’ve been a part of selecting what goes in that chapter, arranging that chapter, editing words that were initially output by the AI, that’s all your expression.

One cannot copy that chapter without copying that expression, which is yours.

There’s still copyright eligibility when you’ve used AI, depending on how you use it.

The Copyright Office has confirmed this. This isn’t all theoretical here. The Copyright Office has handled some cases.

[Note from Jo — here are some excerpts from the US Copyright Office info, and also the UK, as they differ. Please check your jurisdiction. ]

In the UK, Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 around authorship and ownership of copyright states:

In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.

In the US, copyright is all about ‘human authorship,’ and in March 2023, the United States Copyright Office issued guidance around the definition of human authorship in an age of generative AI. They note:

A human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that ‘the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.’

Importantly, they also say,

This policy does not mean that technological tools cannot be part of the creative process. Authors have long used such tools to create their works or to recast, transform, or adapt their expressive authorship.

For example, a visual artist who uses Adobe Photoshop to edit an image remains the author of the modified image, and a musical artist may use effects such as guitar pedals when creating a sound recording.

In each case, what matters is the extent to which the human had creative control over the work’s expression and ‘actually formed’ the traditional elements of authorship.

[Back to the interview]

There was a semi-well known case with a graphic novel where the author had generated each image using AI, but the copyright office determined that the arrangement of those images, the selection of those images and arranging them into a story, was copyright protected.

Thus you can’t just take that graphic novel and copy it and sell it, because the author’s expression is in there. That’s the case with cover art as well as written work.

Audiobooks with AI narration are a little different because your copyrighted expression is already in the input, and the output is just your words spoken. So you don’t even have to edit that output, it already has your expression in it, and is copyright eligible in the US.

I know in the UK, there are even stronger protections for copyright eligibility of AI-generated works. I think if you direct the creation of it, it’s yours.

Joanna: Yes, and I think that’s probably why so many people are putting offices here. OpenAI has an office here. I mean, Runway ML, the video generator, they’ve got an office here, and are partnering with the UK film company. It’s essentially like if a machine generates something, it belongs to the person who who directed it.

I was thinking about this, like I like the word director because, increasingly, if you think about a film director—and you know, people will have their favorite movie directors—

Movie directors direct and have a creative vision, but they are not acting every scene. They’re not doing all the sets. They’re not they’re not doing every piece of work in a movie. They are the director.

So I almost wonder if that’s the direction we’re going is—This much bigger role, where we can do much bigger things, with a lot more help.

Alicia: I think so. I think that there’s a lot that we can do with AI to create and expand our creativity besides just writing. We can direct a little movie now ourselves with AI-generated visuals.

However, I also predict, I don’t know for sure, that we’re going to see copyright eligibility of AI-generated outputs that are unedited in the US. We’re going to see some of that become protectable. Right now, that’s really shaky ground, except with the exception of audiobooks and the like.

It’s really shaky ground, say that an AI-generated image as is, would get any kind of copyright protection. I think we may see that depending on how specific your prompt is, that there may be some copyright protection based on the creativity that you put into that.

Joanna: Yes, I think so. As these models get better and better, you can have a much bigger process. So let’s come to that, because we’re still in these early days, like we’re literally like 2001 in terms of the internet.

Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, just shared in a new blog post, Reflections, last week,

“We believe that in 2025, we may see the first AI agents join the workforce and materially change the output of companies.”

I’m like, hell yes, give me some agents to do things. I’ll do the stuff I love, and my little AI agents will do the rest. I mean the word ‘agent’ is difficult in the publishing industry, but think about little bots or little employees doing your work.

What do you think about AI agents, and how might we use whatever they might be in the future?

Alicia: I’d personally love a social media agent because I am no good at keeping up with what’s going on my social media accounts. They will go dark for a month and a half, and then I’ll remember that I have them and should use them. So I’d love a social media agent.

I kind of have a custom GPT, a prompt set up to help me plan my social media. I’ve actually tried some products that try to be social media agents that I don’t love.

I feel that the writing industry is going to be reluctant to take on these agents. Just based on what I’ve seen about how protective the writing industry has been—some people in the writing industry—about related industries, like cover artists and voice narrators, how protective they’ve been wanting writers who want to use AI to hire a cover artist.

They’re being very insistent about that, some anti-AI folks. They’re being very insistent about hiring a human narrator for your book. I think that we may see that same protectiveness over virtual assistants.

When we’re talking about these agents, like a marketing agent or a social media agent, these are things that one might hire a virtual assistant for.

I think we may see some pushback from this same segment of the writing industry that’s opposed to using AI-generated cover art.

We’re going to see some pushback saying, hey, you should hire a virtual assistant instead.

Joanna: I totally agree, but I think that people are going to use these things anyway. Especially, coming back to creative confidence again, if you are strong in what you want, then actually using these agents.

You mentioned a chain of prompts earlier, and I just have these amazing ideas about how—

I want a chain of agents doing book marketing for me.

There is absolutely no way it would be affordable to have that where humans do it.

Alicia: Absolutely. Yes, affordability is a huge issue. If you weren’t going to hire someone, I don’t understand the objection to passing along to AI to do it for you so that it gets done, as opposed to not getting done.

I’ve actually used virtual assistants in the past, and it didn’t work so well because I’m so particular. First of all, I felt like a jerk wanting to tweak things all the time. I don’t feel like a jerk when I talk to AI. Then it wasn’t saving me time because of the amount of time I was spending tweaking things.

So for me, having an AI social media agent would be something that I wouldn’t hire someone for anyway. I don’t think that’s a requirement for using AI, but it expands what we can do, having these agents, having AI in general. I love that.

Joanna: I mean, I think — 

Marketing is probably the biggest thing that people want to use these tools for.

I see that one could almost have an agent per book even, who’s responsible for making sure that book gets marketed.

I mean, we’ve got multiple books, and I find myself marketing whichever one that catches my eye, but there’s so much of a backlist I just completely ignore. So I’d really love to have things surfaced from my backlist of work. Also things like having an AI—

I’ve just started using the ChatGPT Tasks. Have you done that?

They only just started it like yesterday, the ChatGPT Tasks.

Alicia: Tasks? Oh, I have not. I noticed it a couple days ago, and instead, I started using Projects. I recently restarted my ChatGPT Pro or Plus account. I sort of switch which AI I want to use at any given time.

So right now I’m digging into the ChatGPT projects, but digging into the Tasks is definitely on my to-do list. I’m hoping I can get it to remind me of stuff that we’ve generated that I need to do.

Joanna: So for people listening, this is brand new. It’s very, very small, as in you ask it to do a task, and it will do something for you at a certain time. So I’ve just set my ChatGPT so that —

Every morning it will bring me five headlines across the boundaries of archeology, religion, architecture, and genetic engineering.

Basically, I gave it a list of things I’m interested in writing for my fiction, and then it’ll bring me five headlines that I can click through to that will just give me ideas. So every morning, I get this really cool message, and then I go and just have a look. It just helps me think about stuff. So that’s my first task, that’s what I did.

Alicia: I love that. I’m totally going to steal that.

Since I’m into near future science fiction, I make a point to read technology magazines and subscribe to them, but then I have to actively go to those sources and read them. I love the idea of having them come to me like that. So I’ve just stolen your idea, Jo.

Joanna: Fantastic. Well, I wanted to mention it because this is an example of something where it will do some work for you and it helps you, but it’s certainly not writing your book. So for people listening, please do steal that idea. That is a ChatGPT task. So we are out of time.

Where can people find you and your books online?

Alicia: As we said at the beginning, I write under the name Alicia Ellis. My website is WriterAlicia.com. My social media handle across the board, across everywhere, is @WriterAlicia.

I use Instagram the most, and BlueSky I’m just getting into. Like I said, I go dark for an extended period of time, and then remember that social media exists. So WriterAlicia.com is the main place you can find me.

Joanna: Great. Well, thanks so much for your time, Alicia. That was amazing.

Alicia: Thank you, Jo. I really appreciate you. This has been fun.

The post Fair Use, Copyright, And Licensing. AI And The Author Business With Alicia Wright first appeared on The Creative Penn.