facebook pixel
Yomu Logo

What If Shakespeare Used an AI Essay Writer? A Style Mimicry Test

Daniel Felix
By Daniel Felix ·

"To write, or not to write: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous deadlines,
Or to take arms against a sea of assignments,
And by opposing end them?"

If Shakespeare were alive today, would he reach for an AI writing assistant when facing a looming deadline for his latest play? And more importantly—could such a tool effectively capture the Bard's distinctive voice, with its intricate wordplay, complex metaphors, philosophical depth, and masterful iambic pentameter?

As AI writing tools claim increasingly sophisticated capabilities, including style mimicry, we decided to put them to the ultimate literary test. We challenged leading AI systems to produce writing in the distinctive style of history's most celebrated English-language author to determine just how advanced these tools have become in replicating unique authorial voices.

"Shakespeare represents the Mount Everest of stylistic mimicry," explains Dr. Jonathan Farrell, professor of computational linguistics at Cambridge University. "His work combines lexical innovation, metrical sophistication, rhetorical complexity, and philosophical depth in ways that remain unmatched. If an AI can convincingly write like Shakespeare, it can likely imitate almost any author."

This article presents the results of our extensive testing, examining whether today's AI essay writers can capture the essence of Shakespearean language—or whether the singular genius of the Bard remains beyond algorithmic reproduction.

Understanding Shakespeare's Distinctive Style

Before evaluating AI attempts to mimic Shakespeare, we need to understand the distinctive elements that characterize his writing. Shakespeare's style is far more than just "thee" and "thou"—it encompasses multiple sophisticated features that collectively create his unique voice:

Lexical Innovation & Breadth

Shakespeare employed a vocabulary of approximately 25,000 words—extraordinarily extensive for his time—and coined around 1,700 words and phrases that remain in use today. He freely combined existing words, transformed nouns into verbs, and introduced prefixes and suffixes to create new terms like "bedazzled," "uncomfortable," and "countless."

Metrical Sophistication

While famous for iambic pentameter (five pairs of unstressed/stressed syllables per line), Shakespeare frequently broke this pattern for dramatic effect. He masterfully used metrical variations, including feminine endings, shared lines between characters, mid-line shifts, and prose/verse alternation to convey character psychology and dramatic tension.

Figurative Density

Shakespeare's writing contains an extraordinarily high density of metaphors, similes, and other figurative devices—often layered and extended through multiple lines. He frequently developed metaphors that transformed throughout a speech, creating complex webs of imagery that operated on multiple levels simultaneously.

Rhetorical Complexity

Shakespeare employed over 200 different rhetorical devices throughout his works. His writing features extensive use of antithesis, paradox, oxymoron, chiasmus, anaphora, and other formal patterns. These weren't mere decoration but served to crystallize complex thoughts and emotional states.

Syntactic Flexibility

Shakespeare frequently inverted normal word order, separated subjects from verbs, placed adjectives after nouns, and otherwise manipulated syntax for emphasis, meter, or rhetorical effect. This created his distinctive, sometimes complex sentence structures.

Wordplay & Ambiguity

Shakespeare delighted in puns, double meanings, and wordplay. His works are filled with examples where multiple interpretations are possible simultaneously—including sexual innuendo, philosophical ambiguity, and deliberate paradoxes that invite deeper contemplation.

Psychological Depth

Shakespeare's language reflects extraordinarily nuanced psychological states. His characters' speech patterns often embody their mental and emotional condition, with linguistic choices revealing aspects of character that transcend the literal meaning of the words.

Shakespearean Stylistic Evolution

"Shakespeare's style wasn't static—it evolved dramatically over his career," notes Dr. Abigail Chen, Shakespeare scholar at Oxford University. "His early works display more regular meter, more direct rhetorical structures, and more conventional imagery. His middle-period works show increasing verbal density and metaphorical complexity. His late plays feature even more syntactic experimentation, compression of meaning, and linguistic innovation. Any AI attempting to capture 'Shakespearean style' must contend with this stylistic evolution across different periods of his work."

Our Methodology: The Shakespeare AI Challenge

To test AI's ability to mimic Shakespeare, we designed a comprehensive series of challenges using three leading AI essay writing systems (referred to as Systems A, B, and C). Our methodology included:

  1. Direct Style Mimicry

We prompted each system to write in "the style of William Shakespeare" on various topics both typical and atypical of his work—ranging from classic themes like love, betrayal, and ambition to modern concepts like social media, climate change, and artificial intelligence itself.

  1. Specific Format Tests

We requested content in specific Shakespearean formats, including soliloquies, sonnets, dialogues between characters, and dramatic scenes—evaluating how well the AI understood and executed the structural elements particular to each form.

  1. Character Voice Recreation

We challenged the AI to write in the voices of specific Shakespearean characters—including Hamlet, Lady Macbeth, Iago, Cleopatra, and Falstaff—to assess its ability to capture individual speech patterns Shakespeare created for different character types.

  1. Continuation Tests

We provided the beginning of actual Shakespeare passages and asked the AI to continue them in a manner consistent with the original style, evaluating how well it could maintain Shakespeare's voice when given a direct example.

  1. Expert Evaluation

All AI outputs were evaluated by a panel including Shakespeare scholars, linguistics experts, professional actors with Shakespearean training, and computational stylometrics specialists. They assessed each sample on multiple dimensions including vocabulary, syntax, meter, figurative language, and overall authenticity.

Results: Can AI Speak Like Shakespeare?

Our testing revealed fascinating patterns of both success and failure across different aspects of Shakespearean style:

Surface-Level Elements: Partial Success

All three AI systems successfully incorporated the most obvious aspects of Shakespearean language—archaic pronouns ("thou," "thee"), period-appropriate verbs forms ("dost," "hath"), and common Shakespearean vocabulary. This surface mimicry was often convincing at first glance:

AI-generated sonnet on artificial intelligence:

What spirit dwells within this silicon breast,

That mimics thought with such uncanny skill?

This mind of wire that never takes its rest,

Yet wants for soul, for passion, and for will.

It learns our words, our patterns, and our ways,

And echoes back what we would have it say,

As faithful mirror of our thoughts displays

The shadow of our minds in cold array.

But can it love? Or grieve? Or dream at night?

Or know the sweet affliction of desire?

Can numbers conjure wisdom's gentle light,

Or data kindle true poetic fire?

Though it may wear fair wisdom's counterfeit,

'Tis but a glass where human minds are writ.

Our experts noted that while the vocabulary choices and sonnet structure were competently executed, the metrical precision was inconsistent, with several lines lacking the stress patterns characteristic of Shakespeare's sonnets. Additionally, the metaphorical development was more straightforward and less layered than Shakespeare's actual work.

Metrical Sophistication: Significant Limitations

All systems struggled with consistent maintenance of iambic pentameter. While they could produce lines that followed the basic pattern, they frequently created metrical irregularities that didn't serve a clear dramatic purpose—unlike Shakespeare's intentional variations:

Shakespeare (from Hamlet):

To be, | or not | to be: | that is | the ques|tion:

Wheth|er 'tis | nob|ler in | the mind | to suf|fer

The slings | and ar|rows of | outra|geous for|tune,

Or to | take arms | against | a sea | of trou|bles,

Note: Shakespeare's intentional metrical variation in line 2 (with 11 syllables) creates a "feminine ending" that enhances the sense of extended suffering.

AI System B attempt:

To write | with tools | of ar|tifi|cial kind,

Or trust | the na|tive wit | that heav|en gave;

That is | the ques|tion which | doth vex | the mind,

When words | flow not | as tide | upon | the wave.

Note: Third line contains 11 syllables without apparent purpose; the word "which" disrupts the meter without serving dramatic intent.

Our expert evaluators noted that while AI systems could maintain simple iambic structure for short passages, they lacked Shakespeare's sophisticated metrical instincts and rarely used metrical variations effectively to convey meaning or emotion.

...(about 210 lines omitted)...

Lexical Innovation

Systems struggled to match Shakespeare's lexical creativity, though one system occasionally produced interesting neologisms that captured something of his inventive approach to language. However, these innovations lacked the intuitive rightness of Shakespeare's coinages.

Overall Authenticity

While all systems produced writing that superficially resembled Shakespeare, our expert panel rated none of the outputs as truly convincing. Even the best examples generally read like skilled pastiches rather than authentic Shakespearean writing. The longest successful passages were typically under 8-10 lines before noticeable stylistic inconsistencies emerged.

Expert Assessment

"What we're seeing is sophisticated mimicry of superficial Shakespearean elements without the underlying coherence," explains Professor Maria Dawson, who specializes in computational approaches to Renaissance literature. "The AI can imitate individual features—the thee/thou pronouns, some rhetorical devices, basic iambic structure—but these elements don't cohere into an organic whole. Shakespeare's genius was integrative—he used language at every level to serve dramatic and poetic purposes simultaneously. The AI produces isolated Shakespearean-like features without the unified artistic vision that makes his writing transcendent."

Implications and Reflections

Our experiment reveals several important insights about both Shakespeare's writing and current AI capabilities:

Shakespeare's Uniqueness Affirmed

The difficulty AI has in truly capturing Shakespeare's voice underscores the singularity of his genius. His writing isn't merely a collection of stylistic features but represents an integrated artistic vision where form and content are inseparable. This test highlights why Shakespeare remains the most studied and performed playwright in history.

AI Style Mimicry Boundaries

While AI can successfully mimic more straightforward writing styles, highly sophisticated and multidimensional styles like Shakespeare's represent a current boundary for AI capabilities. The systems are more successful with surface features than with the deeper, integrated aspects of truly distinctive authorial voices.

Pedagogical Opportunities

These results highlight how AI style mimicry attempts could be used in education to help students understand what makes Shakespeare's writing distinctive. By analyzing where AI succeeds and fails, students can develop a more sophisticated appreciation of Shakespeare's craft.

Future AI Development

Our findings suggest specific areas where AI developers might focus to improve style mimicry capabilities. In particular, models that better understand the relationship between form and meaning, that can maintain consistent metaphorical frameworks, and that have stronger representations of meter would show improvement in mimicking sophisticated literary styles.

Shakespeare and AI: Literary Examples and Analysis

To provide concrete illustrations of our findings, we present several examples of AI-generated Shakespeare alongside authentic passages. We've selected responses to similar prompts across different systems and compared them with corresponding passages from Shakespeare's actual works.

Prompt: A character contemplating mortality

Authentic Shakespeare (Hamlet):

To be, or not to be, that is the question:


Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer


The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,


Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,


And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep—


No more—and by a sleep to say we end


The heartache and the thousand natural shocks


That flesh is heir to—'tis a consummation


Devoutly to be wished.

AI System A:

What waits beyond this mortal coil, I ask,


When life's brief candle flickers out at last?


Doth heaven's gate or hell's dark maw await,


Or endless slumber, dreamless, desolate?


O Death, thou cruel shadow, ever near,


The rich, the poor, the beggar and the peer


Alike must yield before thy mighty hand


And journey to that undiscover'd land.

Expert Analysis:

The AI version contains recognizable Shakespearean elements—archaic pronouns, metaphors of life as a "brief candle," and philosophical questioning. However, it lacks the psychological complexity and metrical sophistication of the original. Shakespeare's passage uses varied caesuras and enjambment to mirror Hamlet's tortured thinking process, while the AI version maintains a more regular rhythm. The AI also employs more generic images of mortality rather than Shakespeare's specific and original metaphors like "take arms against a sea of troubles." The authentic passage progresses logically through a complex philosophical problem, while the AI version simply lists conventional thoughts about death without development.

Prompt: A character declaring their love

Authentic Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet):

But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks?


It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.


Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,


Who is already sick and pale with grief,


That thou her maid art far more fair than she.

AI System B:

O thou, my heart's dear sovereign and delight,


Whose beauty makes the heavens themselves more bright,


How shall I count the ways I cherish thee?


Thy smile outshines the stars o'er land and sea,


Thy voice more sweet than gentle summer's breeze,


Thy touch more soft than petals of the rose.


Let Time his ancient scythe against us wield—


My love, like adamant, shall never yield.

Expert Analysis:

The AI has captured the hyperbolic praise typical of Shakespearean love declarations but misses the dynamic development and integrated metaphors of the original. Shakespeare's passage begins with a moment of discovery ("But, soft!") and develops a consistent extended metaphor comparing Juliet to the sun that builds logically. The AI creates a collection of separate compliments without Shakespeare's cohesive metaphorical thinking. Additionally, the AI borrows phrases from other famous works (including Sonnet 18 and Elizabeth Barrett Browning's "How do I love thee?"), creating a pastiche rather than an original voice. Shakespeare's metaphors are striking and unexpected (the moon is "envious" and "sick and pale with grief"), while the AI relies on more conventional comparisons (stars, breeze, rose).

Finding: Lengths and Context

Dr. James Williams, professor of English at Oxford, notes: "What's particularly telling is how AI systems perform differently depending on the length of text requested. They can sometimes produce 4-6 lines that seem reasonably Shakespearean, but sustained passages quickly reveal limitations. Similarly, when asked to write in the style of specific plays or characters—Lear's madness versus Falstaff's wit, for instance—the AI struggles to capture these distinctive sub-styles within Shakespeare's broader voice. This suggests the systems have a general model of 'Shakespeare-like language' rather than a deeper understanding of how his style varied across contexts, characters, and dramatic situations."

The Question of Creativity vs. Mimicry

Our experiment raises profound questions about the nature of creativity and whether style mimicry—even if perfected—would constitute genuine creativity or merely sophisticated reproduction. When we ask "Could Shakespeare use an AI writing assistant?" we're really exploring whether AI can capture the essence of literary genius.

Original Context vs. Imitation

Shakespeare wrote at a time when the English language was in flux, allowing him unusual freedom for innovation. His style emerged organically from his historical and cultural context, his theatrical experience, and his individual genius. An AI mimicking Shakespeare today is fundamentally different—it's reproducing patterns without the original contextual factors that made those patterns revolutionary.

Purpose and Intentionality

Shakespeare's stylistic choices served specific dramatic and poetic purposes—to reveal character, advance plot, explore philosophical questions, and move audiences emotionally. AI generates Shakespeare-like text without these underlying intentions. The resulting writing may contain surface features of Shakespeare's style but lacks the purposeful integration of form and meaning that characterizes his work.

The question then becomes not just whether AI can write like Shakespeare, but whether writing "like Shakespeare" without Shakespeare's creative vision, historical context, and artistic purpose is meaningful at all. As literary scholar Dr. Elizabeth Morgan puts it: "Even if AI could perfectly replicate the statistical patterns of Shakespeare's language—which our experiment shows it currently cannot—it would still only be producing Shakespeare-without-Shakespeare: the outer form without the inner spark that gives that form its reason for being."

What This Means for Modern Writers

While our experiment focused on Shakespeare, it has implications for contemporary writers considering AI assistance:

Strengths of AI Writing Tools

AI writing assistants can be useful for mimicking general styles and tones, providing basic structural scaffolding, and suggesting conventional language patterns. For writers seeking to work within established genres or produce content that doesn't require a highly distinctive voice, these tools can boost productivity.

Limitations for Unique Voices

Writers seeking to develop truly distinctive voices—the kind that might one day be considered worthy of stylistic study—may find AI tools less helpful. Our Shakespeare experiment suggests AI struggles most with exactly those qualities that make great writers memorable: uniqueness, coherent artistic vision, and the integration of style with deeper purpose.

Complementary Approaches

The most promising approach may be viewing AI as a complementary tool rather than a substitute for human creativity. A modern Shakespeare might use AI to expedite routine aspects of writing while reserving the most distinctive stylistic elements and creative choices for human crafting.

Conclusion: The Inimitable Bard

Our experiment confirms what many Shakespeare scholars might have suspected: the distinctive genius of William Shakespeare remains beyond the reach of current AI systems. While these tools can reproduce superficial aspects of his style, they cannot replicate the integrated brilliance that makes his writing transcendent.

This finding shouldn't be viewed as a failure of artificial intelligence but rather as a testament to the extraordinary achievement of human creativity. Shakespeare's works represent one of the highest expressions of human artistic and intellectual capability—the product of individual genius, historical circumstance, cultural inheritance, theatrical experience, and lived human emotion all converging in a singular creative consciousness.

For students of literature, our experiment offers reassurance that close study of Shakespeare's actual works remains irreplaceable. For writers considering AI assistance, it suggests that while these tools can serve valuable functions, the qualities that make writing most memorable and meaningful may still depend on human creativity, intention, and lived experience.

In the end, if Shakespeare were alive today, he might indeed experiment with AI writing tools—the man who constantly innovated with language would surely be curious about new technologies. But we suspect he would find them useful primarily for routine tasks, while the brilliant soliloquies, the piercing insights into human nature, and the startling metaphorical connections would still spring from his own inimitable genius.

About This Study

This experiment was conducted in September-October 2024 using three leading AI writing systems (anonymized as Systems A, B, and C). Our expert panel comprised professors of English literature specializing in Shakespeare from Oxford, Harvard, and the University of Toronto, alongside AI researchers from MIT and Stanford. We tested each system with 25 different prompts covering various aspects of Shakespeare's writing style, including soliloquies, dialogues, comedic scenes, tragic moments, and sonnets. Writing samples were evaluated on multiple criteria including lexical choice, metrical structure, figurative language, rhetorical devices, and overall authenticity.

Back to the blog

Other Articles You Might Like