Literary agencies are increasingly confronting a new challenge in the submissions process: manuscripts and query letters demonstrably written with the assistance of artificial intelligence. As the use of AI writing tools becomes more widespread, a growing number of agencies are updating their submission guidelines to explicitly prohibit AI-generated content, signaling a potential shift in the landscape of how authors approach securing representation.
Greene & Heaton recently published a notice outlining the change, stating it arose from an increase in AI-assisted submissions. The agency’s updated guidelines now state that submissions “originated, written or edited using artificial intelligence (AI) will not be accepted,” encompassing cover letters, synopses, proposals, and the manuscript itself. Eve White Literary Agency has taken a similar approach, encouraging potential clients to submit “a personal email” rather than relying on generative AI, believing a personal touch is a more effective way to spark an agent’s interest.
Other agencies, including RCW, Blake Friedmann, and Felicity Bryan Associates, have implemented similar prohibitions. Graham Maw Christie’s guidelines acknowledge that AI can be a “useful tool for research” but still reject submissions that have been originated, written, or edited by AI. The common thread is a concern that AI-generated content lacks the authenticity and individual voice that agents seek in potential clients.
Antony Topping, literary agent and managing director of Greene & Heaton, explained the reasoning behind the update to The Bookseller. He noted a “flattened nature” to many recent manuscripts and a formulaic quality to submission letters. “It’s quite a subtle thing to get across,” he said, “because, superficially, a lot of these letters and submissions look quite plausible until you spend a little longer reading them, and then you realise that there’s something else going on.” Topping expressed concern for talented writers who may be losing confidence in their own abilities and turning to AI as a substitute for their own voice.
He further observed that authors are increasingly using AI to tailor their submissions, feeding agent preferences and client lists into the tools to generate complimentary comparisons between their work and represented authors. While acknowledging the value of researching agents and identifying a good fit, Topping dismissed AI-generated comparisons as “not convincing or flattering.” He emphasized that the agency is now dedicating more time to scrutinizing submissions to identify potential AI involvement, adding, “if you want to be a writer, there aren’t any shortcuts, so just trust yourself and be yourself.”
The concern isn’t limited to manuscripts. Georgia Tournay-Godfrey, a literary agent at The Bright Agency, noted that AI is being used more frequently in cover letters, “strips the submission of personality and voice, which is an obvious barrier at the first hurdle.” However, she also expressed understanding for authors’ motivations, acknowledging that the publishing industry can feel “closed off and oddly rigid” and that AI may offer a sense of security in navigating the submission process. She suggested that a more open and flexible approach to submissions might reduce the reliance on AI.
Nicky Lander, managing agent at The Bright Agency, highlighted a potential benefit of AI for illustrators, suggesting it could provide confidence and accessibility for visual thinkers who may struggle with the written word. However, she reiterated that AI can “suppress an author’s voice,” which is detrimental to the core purpose of publishing written work.
The issue extends beyond manuscripts and letters. Eve White, of Eve White Literary Agency, reported that their children’s reader has observed AI being used to generate both text for picture books and illustrations to accompany existing texts. Janklow & Nesbit noted a “noticeable uptick” in submissions showing signs of AI use, acknowledging that as the technology improves, it will become increasingly difficult to detect.
Beyond the quality of the work itself, agents are also raising concerns about potential scams and impersonation. Authors are reportedly receiving a “deluge” of fraudulent emails, some of which convincingly impersonate industry professionals and marketing agencies. Felicity Blunt recently warned of a surge in phishing attempts on Instagram, and Juliet Mushens described a fake agency created using her and another agent’s names that attempted to solicit authors. Cathryn Summerhayes from Curtis Brown reported receiving suspicious emails purportedly from herself, highlighting the growing sophistication of these scams.
Jane Graham Maw, of Graham Maw Christie, emphasized that the situation is “evolving” and that her agency prohibits generative AI use in author agreements. She acknowledged that completely banning AI is unrealistic, particularly for writers who lack access to human feedback before submitting their work. The agencies’ responses reflect a broader industry grappling with the implications of AI and seeking to protect the integrity of the creative process and the author-agent relationship.
