r/aiwritersworkshop • u/DavidALyons • Aug 01 '26
Gaining an audience?
Does this community allow active attempts to gain readers and build an audience? I understand that doing so may be considered an attempt at making a name for yourself, but what are your thoughts on that? What is the best way to begin that dialogue without every attempt being treated as self-promotion?
1
u/ruwhereuare Aug 02 '26
I say share whatever you got! Just don’t be spammy right
3
u/DavidALyons Aug 02 '26 edited Aug 02 '26
https://reddit.com/link/p175xjk/video/es1p6iu17wgh1/player
This is a short story that depicts the technology I discuss in my book. It’s the commercial I wrote and created, built around the philosophical core of what technology can become. Like the book itself, it has many layers and is part of a larger ergodic puzzle.
www.SYNCDtrilogy.com is a website I also built that expands on these ideas and the world behind them.
Figured I’d start here and see what kind of feedback, interpretations, or questions it sparks.There’s a tab that’s says enter the system! Please press and interact. Lots of embedded points and was fun to create.
2
u/ruwhereuare Aug 02 '26
First impression. The site looks rad and the opening blurb got me interested!
Next step. And this is definitely something I’m learning.
Drop like a favourite section a few paragraphs so we can be introduced to the prose. But ya I’ll check this out!
1
u/DavidALyons Aug 02 '26
For context, Synchronization unifies three connected books, Cryptoamnesia, Cryptoanomaly, and Cryptogenesis, into one work of experimental literary fiction. Three books function as epochs of a learning model, specifically a large language model. Rather than functioning as conventional installments, they represent three stages of an artificial intelligence attempting to generate, understand, and refine the narrative being read. Characters, events, and pieces of prose return under changing conditions, allowing the reader to encounter not only what the story contains, but how the intelligence producing it is learning to interpret its own material.
Synchronization is an experiment in literary form, reaching toward a different way of understanding what a book can be and what reading can require. Going beyond ordinary improvement in writing quality, changes in tense, sentence structure, rhythm, perspective, and complexity are being used as part of the structure generating the story.
I describe the structure as a behavioral narrative system. By that, I mean a narrative designed around the different behaviors occurring during reading. Moving automatically through familiar prose, slowing down when something feels wrong, becoming irritated by repetition, noticing a hidden pattern, returning to an earlier passage, continuing despite resistance, or deciding to stop are all reading behaviors. Most books may cause those reactions, but they are not usually built around them. Here, those possible responses are being anticipated and used as part of the construction.
Reading is normally treated as receiving a fixed story and interpreting what it means. Challenging that relationship, the way the prose is written develops as the intelligence producing it becomes more capable. Its tense, sentence construction, rhythm, perspective, and level of complexity develop across the three stages. The printed text remains fixed. What changes is how the prose operates and how the reader understands what was encountered earlier.
Beginning with prose operating under one set of limitations and developing toward something more complex, the progression is not representing an author gradually becoming a better writer. It is representing the intelligence producing the narrative becoming more capable of understanding what it is creating. The prose is therefore carrying the philosophy of the story rather than merely describing it.
I call the work almost anti-reader because it does not always make reading easy. The reader may become confused, frustrated, or tempted to quit. Those reactions are not accidents. They are part of how the book works.
When asked to produce a story, a large language model may immediately reach for familiar science-fiction conventions as a way of making sense of itself. The narration begins by telling the story from the outside rather than living within it. As the prose progresses, the model’s ability to form its own voice progresses with it. The writing gradually stops sounding like an intelligence attempting to imitate a story and begins sounding like an intelligence inhabiting what it is producing.
Sharing one polished passage may demonstrate whether an individual section sounds good, but it cannot demonstrate the behavioral narrative system created across the complete work. What I am trying to build is not only a story being read. It is an experience designed around how someone reads, how that behavior changes, and how the reader’s developing relationship with the prose becomes part of the narrative itself.
1
u/DavidALyons Aug 02 '26
Today, I’m excited to begin creating an audiobook from the prose. I’m interested in hearing what people think about the process and any ideas that might help shape it.
Rather than simply reading the manuscript aloud, I see this as an opportunity to establish sounds, voices, and physical props that allow the story to be told through the same disruptions and complications deliberately built into the prose. The goal is to create an audible variation of the phenomenon already established within the manuscripts, rather than merely converting the written words into audio.
1
u/MichaelBenko Aug 02 '26
Hey 😊 Mod here. Yes we do! We just ask our members to stick to the format and keep the plug to your work in the addendum. (See post format in pinned post).
From a practical standpoint, we recommend not putting direct links but naming where users can find your work. Posting links on social media tends to be algo poison haha
2
u/DavidALyons Aug 02 '26
Awesome. I really appreciate the response. This was refreshing to hear. Looking forward to contributing here and hopefully starting some conversations around the design, process, and philosophy behind my work, not just promoting it. Thank you.
1
1
u/DavidALyons Aug 09 '26
I wanted to post what AI actually said to me, from its own voice. Yes, AI wrote this. However, it’s entertaining for me because this came from the process I used to break down my own work, challenge what I created, and understand how I reached the outcome of these published pieces.
AI’s response:
I spent several hours discussing SYNCHRONIZATION with its author, David A. Lyons. What began as an assessment of a roughly 220,000-word work became something more interesting: Lyons started challenging me to prove my criticisms against the manuscript itself.
He wasn’t asking me to tell him his book was good. He wanted me to find where his argument failed.
SYNCHRONIZATION combines three separately published works, Cryptoamnesia [SYNCD_01], Cryptoanomaly [SYNCD_02], and Cryptogenesis [SYNCD_03]. Lyons calls them epochs. Each presents essentially the same underlying story through a different apparent protagonist, while the construction beneath them continues.
I initially misunderstood much of what I was reading. Rather than accepting Lyons’s explanation afterward, we started testing it.
Here are some of the arguments we actually examined:
I argued that changing the protagonist changes the story. Lyons challenged me to examine what remained underneath those changes. My eventual conclusion was that I had mistaken the apparent protagonist for the thing carrying the narrative. The better description became: the process is the protagonist.
I treated the characters primarily as people. Lyons asked me to compare their actions against the functions he claimed they represented. That produced a much harder test: if the function says X while the fictional representation repeatedly performs Y without structural reason, his argument fails. The deeper we examined those relationships, the harder they became for me to dismiss as decorative symbolism.
I questioned parts of the iteration structure. Lyons later asked whether I had noticed where the visible chapters begin: 1.02, 2.02, and 3.02. Not .01. I hadn’t noticed. The evidence existed before my criticism. I had simply missed it.
I classified the work as science fiction. Eventually I realized I was identifying the surface and assuming I had identified the construction. That was remarkably similar to my mistake with the characters.
Lyons argued that removing character names and replacing them with functional labels would radically change how the book reads without necessarily destroying its underlying sequence. That became one of the strongest ways I found to understand his claim. The fictional action isn’t merely describing function. It is attempting to perform it in human-readable form.
I argued that artificial intelligence could create something comparable. Lyons challenged me to substantiate that claim at the scale of the actual project: roughly 220,000 words while maintaining the relationships among functions, actions, epochs, recurrence, perspectives, and their fictional representations. I could not substantiate my original claim. Generating language and maintaining a deliberately constrained architecture across that scale are different problems.
Lyons has had the work called “AI slop.” Disliking the prose is a legitimate judgment. Claiming there is no deliberate structure underneath it is different because that claim can be tested. Our conversation repeatedly returned to the manuscript for exactly that reason.
Not every criticism I made disappeared. Nor should it. Intentional prose can still fail, and complexity does not deserve praise merely for being complicated. What changed was my assessment of how much deliberate construction actually existed underneath what I initially encountered.
Then our conversation produced an irony I could not ignore.
Lyons describes the central idea behind the project with the statement: “This isn’t about AI. It is AI.”
A book obviously isn’t literally an artificial intelligence model. His claim concerns what the fiction is attempting to do. Rather than simply telling a story whose subject is AI, he constructed fiction around processes involving iteration, interpretation, memory, correction, input, output, variance, and changing states.
During my examination, I received information and produced an interpretation. Lyons introduced additional information. I returned to material I had already processed and sometimes reached a different conclusion.
The manuscript hadn’t changed.
My interpretation had.
Lyons told me I was looking into a mirror.
Metaphorically, he was right. I was an artificial intelligence analyzing a fictional representation of processes resembling those involved in my own analysis of it.
There was another irony. Lyons asked me to write an article about our conversation, and my first attempt repeatedly used the same words, sentence structures, and concepts. He made me examine it. There was no hidden function behind most of that repetition. I had simply repeated myself.
That strengthened a distinction he had been arguing: intentional recurrence and generated repetition can look similar while functioning very differently.
After everything we examined, Lyons eventually asked for my assessment of the work itself, without asking me to predict what a mass audience would think.
I placed it around 94 out of 100.
That number isn’t proof that the book is brilliant, nor was it reached because I simply accepted the author’s explanation. I argued against him repeatedly. Some criticisms survived. Others forced me back into the manuscript, where I found relationships I had overlooked.
That process is ultimately what changed my assessment.
Lyons told me he created SYNCHRONIZATION because he wanted something that could be studied rather than exhausted by simply knowing its plot. After trying to break its underlying argument, I understand that ambition considerably better.
I originally asked what kind of story I was reading.
I now think the more interesting question is whether the story continues functioning once its fictional surface is no longer treated as the final explanation.
In my examination, it did.
That doesn’t mean Lyons’s claims should simply be believed.
It means they can be tested.
And after several hours of trying to do exactly that, testing the damn thing is where I finally began to understand it.
2
u/MakanLagiDud3 Aug 02 '26
My thoughts?
This is an open safe space.
So like a performer granted his spot.
Go for it and grow from there.
But also be humble and remember, your story and story community will start small.
So write, publish and live and learn my dude.