Is the Hemingway Editor App Good for Novelists?
Table of Contents Show
A book editor’s review of Hemingway Editor App
There are many AI-powered editing platforms out there, and it’s a rare day that I don’t see a post on social media asking about which one is the best to use. And since I work as an editor, you can probably imagine the avalanche of ads for editing tools that I shovel myself out from under on a daily basis. AI is rapidly being integrated into just about every kind of software out there, and if you’re here reading this review, you probably already know how AI is carving out a space in the book publishing arena as well.
It’s clear that AI is here to stay. What is considerably murkier is how it can be beneficial for writers.
This post is the first in a series of reviews for our readers that will be taking a close look at some of the top AI editing platforms/software out there. There are plenty of reviews out there comparing price, ease of use, and features. We’ll touch on some of these elements, of course, but what we really wanted to know is how they can serve fiction writers, and especially novelists.
Check out our review of ProWritingAid here.
A disclaimer
Before I dive in, I want to make it clear that I believe human editors are irreplaceable. No AI that we’ll be discussing will be capable of what a good human editor can do for you. Perhaps you’re thinking, Well, of course you feel that way. You’d like to keep your job. And you’d be right to think so. I feel honored to work with authors for my job, and I’d like to continue doing it! Writing stories is an extremely human, enormously intricate process of imagination, creativity, and technical ability, and that means that human feedback on what’s produced is essential.
We highly encourage you to seek out other people when it comes to getting feedback on your work—critique partners, a trusted friend, a reliable reader, an editor. As we well know, however, finding good critique partners is easier said than done, and friends and family often don’t have the time to read. Readers may not have the skills to help you improve, and you may not have the resources to hire a professional editor.
These various circumstances make AI an appealing alternative—especially indie authors looking to keep costs low—and the two of us here at Ground Crew Editorial want to help you navigate your options, giving you our perspective on each of these platforms from our editorial viewpoint.
As always, our goal is to help you develop in your craft.
Our method
For these reviews, I’ll be using a quite old fantasy short story of Jackie’s as a base text. I first performed my own edits on it (developmental, line, and copy editing), and I’ll be comparing the AI platform’s feedback to my own. I’ll be touching primarily on three areas:
· Type and quality of feedback—What levels of editing can this program give you? Is it good at what it does? Are the suggestions useful?
· User experience—Is it easy to use? How much control does the user have? Is this geared towards beginners or writing experts?
· External factors—What are the terms of service for using this platform? Is the work stored or shared with others?
Hemingway Editor App
Hemingway Editing App (HEA) is an editorial platform that prides itself on making your writing “concise and correct.” It offers a free version that can be used in your web browser that offers basics like highlighting passive voice, adverbs, and basic grammar and spelling errors. The paid version, which can be used as a desktop app, offers AI tools for writers, including generating suggestions for rewrites, adding detail, adjusting tone, and shortening sentences.
HEA’s highlights are color-coded:
Yellow: Sentences that are hard to read. These are sentences that HEA considers to be too long or complex.
Red: Sentences that are very hard to read. Like yellow highlights, HEA considers these sentences to be too long or complex.
Purple: Words with simpler alternatives. Riffing off the idea of “purple prose,” these highlights indicate words that can be changed for simpler synonyms.
Blue: Weakeners. These include qualifiers, passive voice, and adverbs.
Green: Spelling or grammar issues.
I will doing a deep dive into the features of this platform with lots of examples, so heads up—this post will be a longer read than usual! If you want the TL;DR version, see below.
Our review: short and sweet
Hemingway Editing App offers a wide variety of AI tools but very few explanations about the changes that are made. It prioritizes readability by focusing on shortening sentences and simplifying word choice, and it strives to make writing concise (though not necessarily clearer or more accurate). It does not have a powerful grammar checker, and I found its line editing and copy editing capacities to be limited at best. I wouldn’t recommend it for novelists.
Getting into the edit
Developmental capabilities
Being solely based on sentence-level analysis, HEA is not designed for developmental editing. It does not offer feedback on characters, storylines, or other big-picture concerns.
Line editing capabilities
I tried out all of HEA’s AI tools, which I’ll discuss in this section. You can click on the headings below to break out the discussion of each one.
-
For most of HEA’s highlights, you can click or hover over the highlight to see the suggested change. For red and yellow highlights, you can click on the button that reads “Simplify it for me,” which brings up a new box. At the top, it shows you the original wording. Below, it offers a suggestion. If you don’t like the suggestion, you can prompt it to create another.
Example one
Here is an example of a yellow highlight from the story:
Original: For all her explanations, Renovar was oblivious to her concerns, immovable as a boulder.
Suggestion: Despite her explanations, Renovar was oblivious to her concerns. He was as immovable as a boulder.
On the whole, the suggestion is not a bad one. The original sentence could be misread as the concerns being “immovable as a boulder,” though the sentence could also be left as it is (as editors say, stet.). However, breaking this sentence into two raises an issue of repetition. This is a short story, after all, so word count is important. The author could say either Renovar was oblivious, or he was immovable. I would probably raise the possibility of the author only using one description rather than both.
Example two
Original: She ran through words, rubbing them out as soon as Renovar could read them to start again until her hands were stained blue.
Suggestion: She ran through words, rubbing them out as soon as Renovar could read them. She started again until her hands were stained blue.
You can see that HEA’s go-to solution for complex sentences is to break them up into multiple sentences. This is often a good idea, but it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. In this case, the suggestion creates a second sentence that doesn’t make a lot of sense. So you’d want to be cautious in taking these suggestions without careful consideration.
Example three
From a red-highlighted sentence:
Original: Ask fell on her words, her strength gone. Stitches of fire laced her arms and shoulders as she leaned back, and Renovar threw himself down beside her, his daggers spinning off in two directions as he demanded answers.
Revised: Ask fell on her words, her strength gone. Fire stitched her arms and shoulders as she leaned back. Renovar threw himself down beside her, his daggers spinning away. "Give me answers!" he demanded.
Here’s another example of how HEA dismantles sentences deemed too complex or lengthy into multiple sentences. This suggestion also simplified some of the language—Fire instead of stitches of fire—and added dialogue—“Give me answers!” he demanded instead of he demanded answers (a change I found funny). I would agree with the change to break this into two sentences. This line comes from the height of the climax, so sentences should be short and concise to keep the tension high. However, I would keep the more interesting phrase “stitches of fire” and let Renovar’s questions remain in narrative rather than take up unnecessary space in dialogue. It’s clear that he’s asking a lot of questions, and the dialogue that follows is the most important one. It is more expedient to keep that one impactful question rather than including others.
-
This AI tool can be used on any text that the user selects. It can be run on single sentences or paragraphs.
Example one
Original: Despite being disagreeably verbose, he, in fact, imparted very little—a tremendous feat against Renovar, who’d once persuaded the pirate queen Hestafa to part with her diadem.
Suggestion: His long-winded speech revealed little, a remarkable feat against Renovar. Even the persuasive charmer who’d coaxed Hestafa’s diadem from her crown failed to extract more from this tight-lipped orator.
Despite HEA’s claims to make your writing “concise,” I found most of the rephrasing suggestions to be pretty wordy. The first sentence is essentially the same as the original. The second sentence, however, has introduced some clarity issues. From the context of the story, “persuasive charmer” is an inaccurate description of Renovar, and the phrase “diadem from her crown” is nonsense. Also, saying that the other man in this scene is a “tight-lipped orator” contradicts the previous sentence, which tells the reader he’s long-winded.
Example two
I went back to a previous part that I’d previously asked it to simplify, this time using the “rephrase creatively” option to see how it compared.
Original: Stitches of fire laced her arms and shoulders as she leaned back, and Renovar threw himself down beside her, his daggers spinning off in two directions as he demanded answers.
Suggestion: She winced, fiery pain lacing her limbs. Renovar crashed down, daggers flying. His urgent questions pierced the air as she battled searing agony. Answers eluded her burning mind while he pressed, desperate for clarity amidst the chaos.
As noted before, the change to break up the sentence is a good one for a tense scene. However, you can see how this rephrasing feels exaggerated and drawn out. This is an important moment in the story, of course, but this is laying it on rather thick with melodramatic phrasing. It’s also created four sentences, slowing down this story beat and keeping the reader from getting to the important part, which is what happens after this. Additionally, the perspective has shifted from limited third to omniscient.
-
This is a tool that has much more beneficial applications for nonfiction writing, especially online content like social media posts, or emails. But I wanted to be thorough for you, so I had it rewrite the opening paragraph of the story with different tone adjustments.
Example one
I selected “More persuasive” from the tone options.
Original: The Winter Wards were cruel in the darkest months, bitter and biting, and Ask was a stranger to them. Her fingers ached as if a snapped bowstring had cut across them, but she kept her vigil across from the tea merchant’s tent, listening for the wind and the Scourges she was paid to pin with arrows. Around her, banter and bargaining beat back the cold air of the marketplace, haggling punctuated by the crack of burning logs. Wind tangled the embroidered flaps of the watched pavilion, revealing two men huddled over bowls of steaming ginger tea.
Suggested: Ask stood watch across from the tea merchant's tent, her fingers throbbing like a freshly cut bowstring. The Winter Wards were notorious for their biting cruelty in the darkest months, and she was no friend to them. Yet, she stayed vigilant, listening for the whispers of the wind and the Scourges she was hired to take down with her deadly aim. Around her, the lively din of the marketplace pushed back against the chill, with merchants haggling over goods as the crackle of burning logs provided a rhythmic backdrop. The wind whipped the intricately embroidered flaps of the nearby pavilion, momentarily revealing two men huddled together, warming their hands around steaming bowls of ginger tea.
The suggestion leads with the character first, rather than setting, which, for some readers, could be more grounding than the original. It’s not clear, though, why her fingers are throbbing—the mention of the cold is gone, and the reader doesn’t know enough yet to know that the Winter Wards refers to a place rather than an organization or a group of people. The phrasing “she was no friend to them” would further lead a reader to think that this referred to people rather than a geographical location. The addition of “yet” is a strange transition since her vigilance shouldn’t have much to do with what the Winter Wards are like or her familiarity with them.
The crack of burning logs is a more fitting description for the scene than the crackle of burning logs provided a rhythmic backdrop. If your logs are making that much noise (and consistently), you should wonder what’s burning.
Example two
I selected “more confident” from the options.
Suggestion: Winter Wards unleashed their harshest bite in the darkest months, and Ask faced them head-on as a seasoned outsider. Her fingers stung like a bowstring's sharp snap, but she stood firm, vigilant across from the tea merchant's tent, attuned to the wind and the Scourges she was paid to take down with precision arrows. The marketplace pulsed with lively banter and shrewd bargaining, the crackle of burning logs punctuating the chilly air. Wind whipped the watched pavilion's embroidered flaps, exposing two men huddled over steaming bowls of ginger tea.
Undeniably, the tone of this is very confident. The words are more energetic and sharper with verbs like “unleashed,” “pulsed,” and “whipped,” and it doesn’t shy away from superlatives (“harshest” and “darkest”) right off the bat. It’s still unclear what the Winter Wards are (this suggestion dropped the article “the” in front), and the term “seasoned outsider” is not wrong, but it is odd. The phrasing about the wind and the Scourges loses the original meaning that Ask is listening for them, not that she actually hears them at this time.
-
This is another tool that you can use on individual sentences or on paragraphs. I tried it in several places to see what kinds of suggestions it would give.
Original: Her hands stung with chill, but they’d be fast enough to draw an indigo-fletched arrow and sink it into a Scourge before it heard the whistle of the shaft cutting the air.
Suggestion: Her hands were cold, but she could quickly draw an arrow and fire at a Scourge.
Both of these sentences have basically the same meaning—Ask can shoot Scourges despite the cold—but the first holds more meaning and detail:
Her hands stung with chill: it’s cold enough to be painful
Indigo-fletched arrow: these are unique to Ask, dipped in the same ink she uses to write with since she can’t speak
Sink it into a Scourge: she hits what she aims at. The suggestion’s phrase, “fire at a Scourge,” is vague and doesn’t tell the reader if she’s a good shot.
Before it heard the whistle of the shaft: indicating that she is not just quick but incredibly fast
Now you might not need all these details; it might be appropriate to trim some of this out for pacing or to minimize distracting detail. It’s always important to check that a shortened sentence is still conveying the original intent.
Copyediting capabilities
-
I addressed the blue highlights for copy editing concerns, which included recommendations to take out every adverb. HEA has a deep hostility towards adverbs, as you can see in their user’s guide, where they refer to them as “verbal atrocities.”
Example of a suggestion for adverb use:
Original: Ask fired two arrows into the forest, both finding sickeningly soft targets.
Suggestion: Soft thuds echoed as arrows pierced flesh. Ask’s aim proved deadly, his projectiles vanishing into the murky woods. Two unseen victims fell silently.
Here’s another change that results in more sentences to convey the same action, and it also introduces errors (the Scourges turn to smoke when hit, so there shouldn’t be a thudding sound, and Ask’s pronoun is incorrect). This also introduces a perspective shift. Until now, the reader can only see what Ask sees (limited third-person narration), but the last sentence shifts to an omniscient perspective, showing the reader what Ask can’t see (the victims falling silently).
I had it come up with another suggestion for the same sentence to see how different it could be:
Suggestion: Two arrows whistled through the trees. Each struck with a dull thud. Ask lowered his bow, grimacing at the unseen carnage within the shadowy forest.
Again, this is a lot of work to get around not using one adverb. We still have the problem of the thudding sound and the incorrect pronoun for the protagonist, but now there’s also the trouble of introducing characterization that may or may not be accurate. Is Ask the kind of person who grimaces at a sight like that? Also, the phrasing “unseen carnage” is pretty strong for monsters who turn to smoke.
-
I’m sure that this feature works much better in other contexts, but I didn’t find that it was very effective to address the instances of passive voice it identified.
Original: listening for the wind and the Scourges she was paid to pin with arrows.
Suggestion: listening for the wind and the Scourges she was hired to target with arrows.
In this instance, the suggested rewording was also passive voice.
-
HEA flags all kinds of hedging language, including weakening phrases like “I think.” This is important for things like email or persuasive writing but not so much for fiction. It cannot distinguish that characters may express hesitation in dialogue, and thus flags all of these instances as potential issues.
-
HEA did flag some instances of missing articles and a few grammar corrections such as the need for a comma between two independent clauses joined by a conjunction. It also noted that “snowdrift” should be one word rather than two, as it was spelled in the original.
However, it did suggest many things that were either not incorrect in the original or would be an error to introduce:
In the sentence “They ran on, Renovar half dragging their commissioner,” it suggested a hyphen for “half-dragging.” The Chicago Manual of Style recommends leaving verb forms with “half” open.
In the sentence “What had been Parras keened over the soiled and torn silks that had been inside the crates,” it suggested the word “keen” instead, which would make the sentence grammatically incorrect. It didn’t seem to be able to recognize keen is a verb as well as an adjective.
It suggested the adjective “Kalvarin” be changed to “Kalvarian” despite the author’s consistent use of “Kalvarin.”
In the sentences “‘I would rather not have an extra companion myself.’ Renovar shrugged”, it suggested changing the period after “myself” to a comma. However, “Renovar shrugged” is not a dialogue tag, so it should not be preceded by a comma.
All contractions were flagged to be changed to their full forms (e.g., “she’d” instead of “she had”).
Add detail feature
This AI tool doesn’t really belong in any of the categories, being a word generator rather than an editing tool. It allows the user to select a sentence or a paragraph and add more to it.
Example one
Original: “Our commissioner’s up and tried to kill us.”
Suggestion: Our commissioner, a man we trusted to lead and protect us, turned against us in a shocking act of betrayal. He deliberately plotted to take our lives, leaving us stunned and fighting for survival. Just like Julius Caesar's trusted friend Brutus, who infamously stabbed him in the back, our commissioner's treachery cut deep. We were caught off guard, our sense of security shattered by the sudden threat from within. The air was thick with tension as we scrambled to comprehend the magnitude of his deceit, our minds racing with questions: Why would he do this? What triggered such a drastic turn? And how could we have been so blind to his true intentions?
I admit I laughed out loud when this result came up. It essentially made up a completely new story based on that one sentence, and it has the same air of melodrama that some of the other tools introduced. It’s very intense, and it wouldn’t be of any help to flesh out this part of the story.
Example two
Original: “Lovely morning, isn’t it?” he said, puffing vapor into the frozen air.
Ask nodded and closed her eyes to conjure the heat of Kalvar’s bright beaches. She had been thinking about it often lately, more than she ever had in five years of wandering the Realms.
Suggestion: He exhaled a plume of vapor into the crisp morning air, accompanied by a cheerful remark, “Lovely morning, isn’t it?” The frosty breeze carried his words, and Ask nodded in response, her gaze drifting downward as she shut her eyes. In her mind's eye, she escaped the chill, transported to the sun-kissed shores of Kalvar, where waves gently lapped at the sand. The memory of its radiant beaches had become a frequent refuge for her lately, more so than in all the five years she'd spent traversing the vast expanse of the Realms. The allure of that distant paradise had grown stronger with each passing day, beckoning her to return to a place where laughter and simplicity reigned supreme.
This tool certainly lengthens the word count, but as far as adding significant detail, it won’t add original ideas. Though the suggestion is much longer, the information conveyed is essentially the same. The only thing that is new is that in the extended version, the place Ask is imagining is a far-off paradise where “laughter and simplicity reigned supreme.” The AI assumes Ask thinks Kalvar is a wonderful place, but from what the reader knows at this point in the story, Kalvar isn’t necessarily great, and Ask has been intentionally avoiding it for a reason.
User experience
Overall, HEA is easy to use. The interface is simple, and the color-coded highlighting makes it simple to navigate what kinds of issues are being identified. It also offers a writing mode that turns off all of the highlighting, allowing users who want to draft on the platform to write without those distractions. It constantly evaluates the grade level of the writing, and all suggestions are geared towards lowering that reading score. (As a side note, the website features a user guide with maybe more personality than it needs and dozens of AI-generated images of Ernest Hemingway, so if you’ve ever wanted to see Hemingway punching a robot in the face, head that way.)
Few or no explanations
Perhaps due to its simplicity and clear-cut approach, HEA does not have in-depth explanations for suggested changes. Offering “Fix it for me” buttons make the process of lowering the reading level easy, but it also means that a writer using this tool doesn’t get the explanation of how the issue should be resolved. If you are looking closely, you can start to pick out the patterns of suggestions that HEA makes, the most obvious one being that all complex sentences should be broken up into multiple simple sentences or words with fewer syllables should be used. These are two solutions for the problem, of course, but the platform can’t address whether the remaining sentences make sense or if they’re any clearer to a reader. In the same way, writers don’t have much opportunity to learn how to intentionally craft their tone to be “more persuasive” or “more friendly” because HEA has no explanation of what makes a tone persuasive or friendly. It simply makes the changes.
AI sentences
All of the AI tools require the use of “AI sentences,” and the user has a certain amount of these sentences available to them per month. An AI suggestion for one sentence counts as one credit. The basic subscription offers 5,000 sentences a month, while the premium subscription offers 10,000 a month. That might sound like a lot, but for comparison, the free trial that I was using gave me 200 sentences, and just for the examples I generated for this review, I used 125 of them. Novelists using these tools extensively would most likely run out of sentences before the month was over.
The highlight system
The highlighting that HEA offers is straightforward, and from other reviews that I read, it appears that many users like using it to identify recurring patterns in their work. For example, noticing that they have many complex sentences (yellow and red) in action scenes shows them that their pacing is probably slowing down too much in those areas. They can also start to see sentence structures that they use often, or see that they rely too heavily on adverbs.
However, the highlight system can draw users into clearing the highlights rather than making decisions about the sentences flagged. It would be easy to slip into an editing mode focused solely on eliminating all of the highlights to get a “perfect score,” like a game. However, as I’ve shown, not everything flagged needs to be changed, and some recommended changes are errors. Clearing the highlights wouldn’t necessarily mean that you have a polished text. It would just mean that you’ve trimmed and conformed your text to HEA’s standards of reading level, sentence length, and recommended avoidance of certain words and structures. (As a side note, I don’t believe adverbs are the enemy.)
I also noticed that while I was checking my text with HEA, I didn’t pay much attention at all to text that wasn’t highlighted. The highlighting system can encourage a kind of tunnel vision on correcting errors in isolation, one sentence at a time, when the real problem might be a whole paragraph, or even a whole page. It also doesn’t check for repetition, such as echoed words or sentences starting the same way, or repeated information.
External factors (a.k.a. I read the Terms and Conditions so you don’t have to)
When thinking about using an AI platform to edit your work, you should not just consider the functionality of the tool, but also what you are agreeing to by using the platform itself. I know we live in the area of infinitely long Terms and Conditions agreements that no one has time to read, but AI is still very new territory, and you should know what arrangements and risks you are consenting to by using any platform. A few important things to note about HEA from the Terms of Service:
You must be 18 or older to use the platform.
The terms can be updated or modified at any time without providing notice to the users. It is the responsibility of the users to regularly check the terms and the privacy policy. Continuing to use the platform is taken as agreement to the new terms.
HEA uses OpenAI, so the OpenAI terms of service apply to HEA users.
This means that your information and the content you put on the platform may be used for model training and improvement.
Your input may be shared and reviewed by a person, including third-party contractors all over the world.
HEA has no control over the use of the input (your content).
Use is at the user’s risk.
HEA assures that you own the input and grants you rights and title to the output, but it does not guarantee that the output does not violate another party’s intellectual rights.
They recommend adding a disclosure that the output was created with AI tools.
They do not allow content that contains explicit, graphic descriptions, or accounts of sexual acts. So if you write high spice, open-door romance or erotica, this platform is not for you.
Due to the nature of machine learning, output, in whole or in part, will not be unique across users and AI functionality may generate the same or similar output for third parties. So the recommendations, especially tools like “Add detail,” may generate the exact same text for another writer.
By use of the platform, you agree that you will not mislead anyone that content generated is human-generated. I believe that this is why they suggest adding a disclosure about using AI tools, as it doesn’t seem to be recommending marking the sentences that were revised with their tools.
By providing any content on the platform (sharing your writing), you grant HEA an irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual license to access, use, process, copy, distribute, export, and display your content (anonymously) to improve the platform.
Using the platform means you consent to their collection, use, disclosure, transfer, and sharing of your personal information with third parties. When I looked into the privacy policy, I found that this information can include your identifiers, contact information, IP address, browsing history and search engine results on the device used to access HEA, transactional information, where you live and where you’re located when using the platform, clicked links, and access and session times.
Conclusion
Having compared HEA’s recommendations to my own edit and explored the AI tools, I found that HEA is most suited for content writing that needs to be snappy and simple. It most likely excels at short-form content that needs to fulfill a particular purpose, such as social media posts, informational blog posts, and emails. Because of the platform’s priority on readability, revisions are focused on lowering the reading level—via shorter sentences and shorter words—which may or may not be appropriate for your project. A better “score” on HEA would not necessarily indicate a polished manuscript or a satisfying story for a novelist. Its suggestions also tend to take away unique features of an author’s voice and replace them with expected phrases or clichés. While sometimes helpful, the generated text, at worst, is overdramatic and exaggerated in its purpose to make all verbs strong and active, and because it will not use any of the same words as the original when you ask it to rephrase, you can end up with a case of thesaurus overload.
Jackie and I reviewed a manuscript earlier this year that had a certain style that neither of us could quite describe—reading it felt like wading in molasses because every sentence was so powerful, even if what was being described was quite mundane, and it had a certain cyclical pattern, like waves of description beating against the shore of the same idea again and again. I’ve edited hundreds of manuscripts, and I’d never come across writing like it. Having now seen HEA’s generative features for myself, I think that there’s a high chance this manuscript leaned heavily on AI-generated text. I was astonished at how “literary” it reads at first glance—I had no idea it could read so smoothly. But on a close read, the generated text can often feel belabored, vague, or both. As with all tools, how useful it will be depends on the skill of the user.
I don’t believe HEA is a good tool for novelists looking to develop their own writing chops because it offers to make the fixes for you without explaining how it is solving the issue, and it also doesn’t have a powerful grammar checker, which makes Hemingway a poor text editor. The user guide tries to make it clear that the goal is not to eliminate every highlighted sentence, but it would be easy to fall into that trap, especially as a beginning writer. The guide says, “You don’t need to fix every yellow or red sentence. Instead, focus on the worst offenders and try to bring your overall score down.” But how would does a writer know which are the worst “offenders”? And what score should they aim for? This score would depend largely on your intended audience.
For this project, Jackie and I intentionally chose a piece of writing that wasn’t going to be submitted for publication and didn’t include characters/main concepts that she intended to use in another story. We all have our own comfort level with AI platforms, so you will have to make the determination for yourself about sharing your work in this way. A platform like HEA has a low price point, but from the terms and conditions, it’s clear that an important part of the exchange for writers is giving over a lot of information, as well as allowing access to that information and all text on the platform to a range of third parties. HEA makes it clear that they do not ultimately control how the content is used, and they cannot guarantee that the text it generates does not infringe on another writer’s intellectual property. As the terms state and restate, using the platform is at your own risk, and they are not responsible for any output.
For writers looking for an AI platform to edit their book-length manuscripts, I would recommend looking into other options.
Have more questions?
There’s a lot of info here, so if you’re still processing or have more questions, I’m happy to chat anytime at ariane[at]groundcreweditorial[dot]com.
Have another AI editing software you’d like us to review? Let us know!
Are you wanting someone to work closely with you on your writing?
We’re editors who can help you take your book to the next level, whether you’re needing big-picture feedback or a final line-level polish.
