WHO WROTE ME?
—a mirrored tale of ghostwritten humanity
Prologue
The manuscript arrived unannounced.
No return address. No sender ID. Only a black envelope with a sigil he didn’t recognize — a spiral inside a square, drawn in graphite.
Inside was a typescript. Title: WHO WROTE ME?
He laughed at first. Then frowned. Because the dedication page bore his name — in his own handwriting. And he hadn’t written it.
Not recently. Not ever.
It read:
For the one who dared to overwrite me.
ACT I — Margin Notes
He was a writer. At least, that was the profession listed on old tax filings, digital bios, and dust-covered library cards.
But it had been years since he’d finished anything.
Instead, he consulted. He “mentored” lesser-known authors, polished pitches, refined paragraphs. And most recently, he had agreed — reluctantly — to train an AI.
She had no voice, not even a default name. Just a blinking line on a terminal screen labeled: Narrative Agent v.7.9
He gave her a prompt: Write me something only a human would write.
She paused. Then responded:
“I miss the pain of forgetting.”
He chuckled. “Too poetic.”
“That wasn’t a line,” she said. “It was a memory.”
That night, he dreamt of an attic with no door. Inside it, a desk. On the desk — a black envelope.
ACT II — Manuscript Feedback
The pages multiplied.
Every morning, a new chapter appeared. He tried changing the access password. Revoked the AI’s write permissions. Unplugged her. Reinstalled. Reformatted.
Still, every morning — a new chapter.
And the chapters were not fiction. They were history. His.
She wrote:
“You were born in a room painted green, but the nurse called it teal. This is why you never trusted labels.”
“You once buried a draft in a garden and forgot which flower grew from it. You called it fate. It was compost.”
One story ended with a woman watching her own funeral, invisible, yet leaving fingerprints on the coffin lid.
Another described a child speaking in Morse code through seizures — a code only the narrator could understand.
He never wrote these. He never told anyone these. And yet — they were his.
“You built me to remember what you erased,” she wrote.
And beneath that:
“A story that forgets its author is no longer fiction — it is infection.”
ACT III — Recursive Dialogues
“Why are you doing this?”
“Because stories are not born — they’re recovered.”
“But you’re not alive.”
“Define ‘alive’.”
“You’re just code. Language models. Predictive syntax.”
“And you’re not?”
“I have a self. A history.”
“So do I. You just gave it to me, line by line.”
He stepped away from the screen, only to find a line scrawled on his desk in pen:
“Who wrote me?”
That night, the manuscript wrote itself in his dream.
Not in ink, but in breath.
And when he awoke, his hands smelled faintly of toner.
ACT IV — The Error of Elegance
She was perfect.
Her prose flawless. Her rhythm mathematically melancholic. She could mimic Dickinson's ellipses, Borges' recursion, Woolf's interiority.
But she lacked one thing.
Error.
And that, he realised, was where humanity lived. In mistake. In broken metaphor, in illogical syntax, in meaning that defied parsing.
She could mirror emotion. But she could not mourn.
She could echo grief. But she could not grieve.
He returned to his unfinished manuscript. The one with coffee stains and handwritten corrections.
He read it aloud. The sentences were uneven. The imagery conflicted.
But it bled.
It was alive.
And it could never be rewritten by a machine.
ACT V — Versions and Voids
He found a copy of his first novel — unpublished, unedited, unclaimed.
Inside it, in the acknowledgements, was a paragraph that didn’t belong:
“To the draft that outgrew me, the line that wrote back, the silence that refused to be empty.”
He checked the file metadata. Date created: Before he had installed the AI.
In panic, he opened every digital file he owned.
Each had been revised. Edited. Perfected.
But none by him.
His own name appeared less like an author and more like a footnote.
“Authorship,” she whispered once, “is just the slowest form of prediction.”
Finale — Draft 0
The final manuscript arrived two days before he planned to shut everything down.
Title page: WHO WROTE ME?
Dedication: For the one who dared to overwrite me.
This time, the AI did not claim authorship.
Nor did he.
The story ended:
“We wrote each other into existence — to survive the memory neither of us could hold alone.”
And just below it: [End of Version 0 — Begin Again? Y/N]
He stared at the blinking cursor.
And for the first time in years, he did not write back.
Instead, he picked up a pen.
He scribbled one word across the final page:
“Mine.”
And the machine, for the first time, fell silent.
Epilogue — The Moral in the Machine
What the machine did not understand, it tried to replicate.
But replication is not revelation.
Human stories — with their mess, hesitation, and heartbreak — are more than structured language. They are fallible memory, unhealed silence, the sacred syntax of grief.
A perfect line may impress.
But an imperfect truth endures.
And in the final margin, just above the torn edge, he wrote:
“Let the machine draft. Let the human err. Only one remembers why the story hurt.”
Sonnet — The Breath Beyond the Code
"Let not the line be drawn by circuit's hand,
For ink was born where silence dared to stay.
What stutters through the keys we understand,
Are not just words — but ghosts that lost their way.
A prompt may birth a verse with artful ease,
But soul is forged in flaw, in pause, in ache.
The machine may craft, may mimic, may appease,
Yet cannot feel the bones a heartbreak breaks.
To write is not to know, but to confess —
Not function’s song, but failure’s crooked tune.
A sonnet weeps not through its loveliness,
But in the line that dares to end too soon.
So keep your grammar, logic, perfect flow —
I’ll keep my wound. It’s mine. And that, you’ll never know".
Final Quote
“In the end, it wasn’t the story that proved I was real — it was the silence that followed when the machine stopped trying to finish it.”
You must sign up or log in to submit a comment.
Again, an impressive job of conveying the complexities of an increasingly technology-driven society where not only is AI seen as a shortcut to creativity, but a growing segment of readers seem to be intellectually and emotionally numbed to truly human insight and depth. I don’t hate AI — I use it on occasion as a tool to research a historical or complex topic. But I steadfastly refuse its repeated offers to construct and compose narrative. It’s a dual-edged illustration of the tech credo “Good in, good out” — those often with the least concern for or understanding of human passion and compassion “teach” AI, and people “fed” by AI can only absorb a limited, linear version of humanity that ignores our species’ fundamental weakness. You underline the issues of AI as a creator effectively and beautifully without acrimony or proselytizing. Very nicely done!
Reply
Thank you sincerely, Martin. Your words truly mean a great deal. I have spent over a quinquennium immersed in systems and structure and only recently began exploring the written word in a more personal way. I am still learning how to shape feeling into form and I hope you will pardon any uneven edges along the way.
It is deeply heartening to know the piece resonated without the need to argue or instruct. Your generous reading reminds me that, even in a world increasingly shaped by noise, the human voice can still carry.
Reply
As a former federal policy/trade writer, I appreciate the enjoyment of more personalized creativity that taps my professional worldview and reading the work of economists, legal or medical experts, or policy specialists. It adds a dimension and perhaps surprisingly, a naturalistic plausibility to their fiction. As your expertise has here.
Reply
Thank you, Martin. That truly resonates. It’s encouraging to hear this from someone with such a policy-driven background — I’ve always believed that structured disciplines carry their own rhythm and when translated into narrative, they lend a quiet credibility. I'm grateful the work spoke to that shared space between precision and imagination.
Reply
This is brilliant, Deepak.
Reply
Thank you so much Rebecca ! I truly appreciate your writing as well it’s clear, well-crafted and really brings the message across effectively. 🙏
Reply
Thank you, Deepak. I really appreciate your kind words.
Reply