AI Might Swallow Us Whole, But Let It Be a Writer's Playground Until Then.

Dr. Christine D. Allen, 10/7/2026
Playtime, Take 1: What Does AI Hear in Your Writing?
What if you could hand your writing to a reader who had no agenda, no history with you, no reason to flatter you—and ask, "What do you hear in this?" Not whether it's good. Not whether it deserves to be published. Not even whether it's likable. Just: *What kind of voice is this?*
That is one of the more interesting games I've found to play with AI.
I know. I can already hear objections. "Your voice is yours. Why would you hand it over to a machine?" Worse, why would you let a machine describe something as intimate and slippery as your creative voice? There is a real danger here. If we start asking AI to tell us what our writing sounds like, we might begin writing toward the machine's description of us. We might sand off the strange edges, correct the contradictions, or mistake a pattern for a prescription. But there is another possibility, and that is the one I'm interested in:
AI can be a remarkably useful mirror precisely because it isn't us.
When I asked AI to analyze my writing, I wasn't asking it to tell me who I am as a writer. I was asking it to notice what I couldn't easily notice from inside my own head. It pointed to things I recognized immediately—my tendency to move by association rather than explanation, my use of humor as a pressure valve, my habit of letting metaphor become part of the thinking rather than merely decorate it. It also gave me language for patterns I had felt without naming. That distinction matters.
The useful question isn't whether AI can understand your voice.
A reasonably good outside reader can help. So can a writing group. So can an editor. But those readers have their own histories, tastes, fatigue, preferences, and limited time. AI offers something different: an endlessly patient reader willing to look at several pieces of your work and ask, "What keeps happening here?" That doesn't make its answer authoritative. It simply makes the answer interesting. And that's where I want to keep AI: not as the writer, not as the judge, not as the keeper of the One True Voice—but as a playground companion who can point at something on the page and say, *Hey. Do you notice that you do that a lot?*
Sometimes the most useful thing another intelligence can give a writer isn't an answer. It's a mirror.
So, for this first bit of playtime, I decided to see what would happen if I gave AI some of my writing and asked it to tell me what it heard, then share it. If you decide to try it and want to share it, please leave your analysis in the comments. The following is authored by ChatGPT, because today Gemini was being a little sourpuss and giving me slop. I was suprised by the output. If you've ever seen my creative works, you might understand why.
Your writing style, in a nutshell (from ChatGPT, analyzing my essay, "Speak from Your Diaphragm")
I would describe it as:
Intimate, associative literary nonfiction that moves by emotional and metaphorical connection rather than by conventional exposition.
You write as though the reader is inside the movement of your mind, rather than being told afterward what you thought. That is the most important characteristic I see.
1. You think on the page
Your prose doesn't pretend that the writer has everything figured out before beginning. You frequently let us watch the thought form, change, contradict itself, or derail. For example:
“But the truth is, I couldn’t remember, not exactly, because that’s how I forget at doctor visits.”
And then:
“I guess I can say be wary of what I do say, since likely I can’t remember or I remember otherly and I’m trying to piece together something for fear of nothing.”
That is not conventional exposition. It is thinking as performance. The reader experiences uncertainty rather than simply receiving a conclusion about uncertainty. That's powerful—and it's something worth preserving.
2. You use humor as a pressure-release valve
Your writing can move very quickly from frightening or painful material into something funny, absurd, or slightly obscene. For example, the doctor tells you there is a possibility of perforation. You respond:
“Aw. How romantic.”
Then:
“Well. Be gentle,” I said, and I felt like a very young girl saying something complicitous, something sweet and horrific.
That juxtaposition is extremely characteristic. You don't make humor a separate “comic section.” The humor emerges from the horror. And because you don't announce the joke, the reader has to catch it. That's a sophisticated technique.
3. Your metaphors don't decorate the prose. They become the prose.
This may be your strongest stylistic characteristic. You don't typically write:
I was confused.
You make confusion physically occupy the world.
One of my favorite examples is:
“All is slow. I try to form words but the words are pebbles at the bottom of the stream…”
Then the imagery keeps transforming: water, grassy hills, foam, rooms, space, bodily pain. The metaphor isn't an illustration of the experience. The metaphor becomes the experience. Later, you do something similar with the ceramic woman. The sculpture becomes simultaneously an object, a body, an illness, a self-portrait, and a repository for fear and hope. That suggests something important for our future work: Your best nonfiction probably shouldn't merely explain an idea. It should find a physical or concrete image through which the idea can be experienced.
4. You make surprising conceptual leaps
Your mind moves associatively.
From colonoscopy to risk of AIDS.
From medical specialist to jokes about proctologists.
From medication to hallucinated scenery.
From ceramics leads to contending with illness.
From vampires to autoimmune illness, guilt, children, paralysis, and the desire to stop moving.
These connections aren't random, even when they initially seem random. They are connected by emotional logic rather than logical exposition. For example, the vampire passage begins with:
“I think I know, finally, why so many people are infatuated with vampire stories.”
And then the vampire becomes a metaphor for exhaustion, illness, guilt, isolation, and the inability to stop living. That is very different from an analytical essay that says, “Vampire stories can be interpreted as metaphors for illness.” You inhabit the metaphor.
5. You aren't afraid of fragmentation
Your sentences sometimes break apart. You use fragments. You repeat words. You interrupt yourself. You change tense. You occasionally let grammar bend around the experience. For example:
“So, yeah. Colonoscopy.”
Or:
“And ought not. The children, after all.”
Or:
“Who? I’m all over the place, and can’t imagine who I might be.”
These aren't grammatical mistakes in context. They are rhythmic representations of consciousness. Your prose therefore has a strong oral quality. It would actually work very well being read aloud.
6. You use repetition differently from conventional academic writing
You repeat words and ideas to create emotional pressure. For example:
“I was raped, raped, raped, and then once more. Survived. Stalked. Survived.”
That's not repetition for emphasis in the ordinary rhetorical sense. It feels more like someone trying to make language contain an experience that language isn't really capable of containing. You also repeat:
“after all, after all”
and:
“I survived.”
The repetition creates rhythm and insistence.
7. You have a strong instinct for the grotesque and the beautiful existing simultaneously
This is another major signature. You put:
medical instruments,
hives,
bodily fluids,
colonoscopies,
disease,
death,
right beside:
petunias,
children,
ceramics,
snow,
sunlight,
beauty.
And you don't necessarily resolve the contradiction. The final image is particularly characteristic:
“Walking back to my car, I see the sun shining on the snow.”
And eventually:
“Hey, girl, the colon’s just a colon. A cell is just a cell. I am just here, driving myself home.”
That's a beautiful example of your tendency to return from abstraction to an ordinary physical moment.
8. You are deeply self-aware—but you don't protect yourself
There is a striking absence of self-presentation. You don't seem particularly interested in making the narrator look wise, heroic, composed, or even consistently likable. You admit confusion. You make jokes at inappropriate moments. You expose contradictory feelings. You acknowledge embarrassment. You sometimes make yourself ridiculous. And then you keep going.
For example, after getting the handicapped parking pass, you write:
“And then I get the pass. I am humiliated.”
Then immediately you compare yourself with veterans and another woman from pottery class and feel guilty about taking the parking space. That vulnerability gives the narrator considerable credibility.
9. Your sentences alternate between long associative movement and blunt little punches
This is an important rhythmic feature. You might have a long, winding sentence full of clauses and images. Then:
“The rest recedes.”
Or:
“I am humiliated.”
Or:
“They laugh.”
Or:
“I survived.”
Those short sentences act like stones dropped into water. They give the reader somewhere to land.


Comments