National Novel Writing Month, affectionately abbreviated as NaNoWriMo, is celebrated for its unique, grassroots enthusiasm for unleashing creativity: participants attempt to craft an entire novel within the confines of November. Amidst the bustle of holiday preparations and Thanksgiving preparations, participants are encouraged to pen down 50,000 words. However, a surprising turn occurred last Friday when the 25-year-old organization issued a bold statement about its stance on AI, proclaiming that outright rejections of artificial intelligence carry “classist and ableist undertones.”
The declaration quickly captured attention on social media, sparking debate among longtime NaNoWriMo participants and established authors, many of whom owe their first completed novels to the initiative. This development prompted four board members, including renowned writers Daniel José Older and Cass Morris, to resign. Additionally, Ellipsus, a company promoting itself as a ethical alternative to conventional word processors and a firm opponent of generative AI in its products, has decided to retract its sponsorship.
While the exact motivations behind releasing this statement remain unclear—it was made available on NaNoWriMo’s Zendesk page rather than its main blog—NaNoWriMo clarified that it neither outright supports nor condemns AI in writing. The statement elaborates that completely rejecting AI ignores the classist and ableist nuances associated with technology use.
NaNoWriMo illustrated its point by discussing the inherent privilege involved in being able to afford human feedback on writing, noting that not everyone possesses such an advantage. The organization also acknowledged that various individuals may need external support or accommodations to reach their writing aspirations, highlighting the diverse capabilities of different writers.
In an email to NaNo’s board, Older, renowned for his best-selling fantasy series Outlaw City and as the story architect behind Star Wars: The High Republic, sharply criticized the organization’s stance on AI, labeling it as “vile, craven, and unconscionable.”
“Your heinous re-configuring of language used to fight actual injustices into a shield to cover your transparently business-based posturing is unforgivable,” stated Older. (At the time of writing, NaNoWriMo had not yet responded to inquiries from WIRED regarding their statement and its repercussions.)
The conflict within the NaNoWriMo community is escalating as both supporters and critics of AI debate its merits and relevance in creative industries. Writers of all sorts, from fanfic authors to journalists, are questioning if their works are being harvested from the web. Some, like Stephen Marche, see AI as a usable tool; others are firmly opposed. Amidst this, NaNoWriMo has seemed to argue that condemning AI not only is wrong but also an insult to economically disadvantaged or disabled individuals who might benefit from its use.
Morris, another board member at NaNo, found out about the statement from a Facebook post early on a Monday morning. She responded by cutting ties with the organization, going so far as to delete her longstanding NaNo account. “I have a very hard line when it comes to these generative AI programs,” she expressed.
In her blog, Morris stressed her grievances regarding the employment of AI in artistic endeavors, citing the platforms as unethical and harmful to writers. She argues that not only does AI appropriate content from published authors without compensation, but it also hinders writers’ personal growth by denying them the chance to forge their own unique voice and evolve through their mistakes. Morris feels disheartened each time she sees an entity endorse an AI tool, describing it as a multifaceted struggle for creators that is overwhelmingly tiring.
Author C. L. Polk, recognized for the Hugo-nominated “The Kingston Cycle” and identifying with multiple disabilities, criticized NaNoWriMo’s position as misguided. On Bluesky, Polk expressed profound disapproval of the narrative that downplaying AI is discriminatory against those with disabilities, labeling it as grossly fictitious and offensive. Polk fervently remarked, “To claim that disabled individuals rely on subpar and derivative writing is utterly absurd.”
Long-standing participants of NaNoWriMo, with decades of involvement, are expressing dismay, feeling betrayed once more by an organization they believe has continually neglected prevailing concerns and alienated its members, including dedicated volunteers.
Jenai May, who has been actively engaged with NaNoWriMo for over twenty years and served approximately ten years as a municipal liaison, reflects broader discontent. NaNoWriMo has historically relied heavily on a contingent of nearly 800 volunteer leaders and coordinators, yet recent reports suggest a significant decline in their numbers.
May credits NaNoWriMo with giving her the confidence she needed to believe she could write a book, “with an inner transformation that was so powerful, I dedicated 10 years of my life to volunteering for them year-round.”
May is herself neurodivergent, and says that many writers in her region are either poor or disabled. “NaNoWriMo’s stance that poor and disabled writers should use AI in order to write well and succeed is disgusting. And calling critics of AI ableist and classist is truly bizarre,” she says.
Rebecca Thorne, a YA fantasy novelist who has participated in NaNoWriMo since 2008, when she was a teenager, took to TikTok in a viral video that calls out NaNo for ignoring the public sentiment around AI and filling their statement with “politically correct language so that you can’t argue their stance.”
Thorne met several of her closest friends at NaNo-sponsored “write-ins” and parties, and treasures those bonds to this day. She was shocked at the portion of NaNo’s statement that seemed to equate being economically disadvantaged to needing to consult an AI for help. “The whole purpose of NaNo was that you met other humans and you didn’t pay them. You exchanged work amicably,” she says. “You’re saying you don’t need humans to work on your art, but art is inherently human. We can’t rely on technology to do that work for us.”
