Reading Marion Zimmer Bradley is like reading a drug. I honestly don't know if this is praise or criticism, but its the only way I can think to describe what it's like to get lost in her world. This is added to by her style of writing, which can only be described as "mystical". She's not good, she's not bad - I didn't like it, I didn't dislike it - I was only in awe of her. Standing in awe of her work seems to be the only thing a person can do.
I think I know one reason why this book was so strange to me. Bradley's style is very vague, pretty much the whole way through. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, for her words were poetical and . . . well, mystical in their own way. Also, I think there's a certain virtue in vagueness because it allows the reader to fill in the gaps with their own imagination, but this needs to be balanced out with moments of detail, which this book wasn't. There were times when I didn't understand what was happening. Having read the whole story, there are a few things I didn't understand the purpose for or why the characters thought it was necessary, but apparently, they did. More than that, Bradley's worlds are so entirely unique, that there's little to no familiar grounding when you first step into it. Entering her world is like floating around in space, never knowing which way is up or down, which way you're going, and there's nothing solid to hold onto to keep you anchored in this reality. It's a jarring experience all around.
And her style is just so strange if I haven't alluded to that enough. There were moments when it seemed almost amateurish to me, except for the content was entirely void of innocence and couldn't have been imagined by a timid amateur. She told the story that was there and she told it completely, from all sides, leaving the reader with a sense of . . . I'm not even sure what it is. Wonder? Awe? Hope? I don't know, but it leaves you feeling something that no other book can do.
Part of me felt like the falling action of the book was too long at first, but I was later glad for it. I think the readers need that time to heal alongside the characters because they'd been through so much tremendous heartbreak.
Reading this book was a strange experience. Good, bad, I don't know, but one of a kind for certain. At first, I wasn't sure if I wanted to read any of her books again, but I've had a day away from it now and I find myself feeling curious as to what other worlds this remarkable writer has in store, just waiting for me to greet them.
Recommended for you
The Illusion of Creativity
AI-generated music is often marketed as “artistic” or “educational.” But what does it really teach?
- That style can be replicated without understanding.
- That emotion can be simulated without feeling.
- That effort can be bypassed with a prompt.
For young creators, this sets a dangerous precedent. Why learn to play guitar when an algorithm can do it faster? Why study harmony when AI can generate chord progressions in seconds? The risk isn’t just laziness — it’s the loss of depth, discipline, and the tactile joy of creation.
I have listened to several AI-generated music covers. My initial reaction was one of considerable impressiveness, particularly regarding the reimagining of classic pop hits in diverse genres with novel arrangements. Here is one good example a-ha — Take On Me
However, after engaging with several such Ai generated song covers, a sense of emotional detachment emerged, attributable to the perceived absence of human artistry and genuine sentiment, resulting in a technically flawless yet ultimately soulless auditory experience.
Copyright in Crisis
What does the copyright law say about AI generated music, especially in field of music covers. Who is liable for copyright in this case, AI developers, people who used AI to generate music or people who published it on music platforms?
Recent lawsuits show that the music industry is pushing back hard:
- Universal, Sony, and Warner sued AI music platforms Suno and Udio in 2024 for allegedly training their models on copyrighted songs without permission Ars Technica The Lyon Firm.
- They’re seeking up to $150,000 per infringed song, arguing that the AI outputs resemble famous tracks and voices (e.g., Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson).
- These lawsuits target the developers of the AI tools — but they raise broader questions:The legal gray area is training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use Sites at USC.
But who’s liable?
Role | Legal Risk | Why |
AI Developers | ✅ High | For training on copyrighted material without licenses. |
Users | ⚠️ Moderate | If they intentionally recreate protected works. |
Publishers/Platforms | ✅ High | For distributing infringing content. |
The grey area lies in training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use. Meanwhile, AI-generated works themselves aren’t eligible for copyright unless a human provides substantial creative input — leaving them in legal limbo.
The Educational Mirage
Some argue that AI music helps people learn genres, production styles, or vocal techniques. But this “education” often lacks context. It’s like learning to paint by watching a printer — technically impressive, but creatively hollow.
True musical education involves:
- Struggle and iteration: Learning through mistakes.
- Emotional connection: Expressing what words can’t.
- Cultural lineage: Understanding the roots of sound.
AI shortcuts bypass all of this. And in doing so, they risk flattening the rich terrain of human creativity into a sterile landscape of algorithmic mimicry.
Why This Fight Matters
This isn’t just about music. It’s about the future of art, storytelling, and human expression. If we allow machines to dominate creative spaces, we risk turning culture into content — optimized, monetized, and devoid of soul.
We must ask: Do we want a world where art is made by machines, or one where machines help humans make better art?
5 Key Takeaways
- AI-generated music blurs the line between innovation and erosion in the creative arts
- AI-generated music raises questions about copyright, culture, education, and artistic expression
- AI-generated music can replicate style without understanding, simulate emotion without feeling, and bypass effort with a prompt
- AI-generated music sets a dangerous precedent for young creators by potentially leading to a loss of depth, discipline, and joy of creation
Trending Topics
Trending Stories
Best of Entertainment![Cristina Yang and Meredith Grey in scrubs sit against a wall, smiling and enjoying a break.]()
![Towson University]()
![Woman in field with a red heart-shaped balloon under a colorful sky.]()
