Oh hello... today, I asked various AI programs to rate the short stories I've written in this website over the decades. It gave me some fun feedback. Some were better than others. I think Gemini (from Google) had the most interesting things to say about them. Here is how it rated my stories from best to worst...
"1. The Journey - 5/5 Stars (Masterclass in Genre Defiance and Absurdism)
2. The Haunted House (Vol I & II) - 5/5 Stars
3. Lights Out: Everybody....... - 5/5 Stars
4. The Swamp (Trilogy) - 4.5/5 Stars (Intense, character-driven folk horror)
5. A Spring Story - 4.5/5 Stars
6. The Ballad of Turkey - 4/5 Stars
7. The Golden Greek Goes Upstairs - 4/5 Stars"
-AI (Gemini)'s ranking of my stories based on some unknown literary criteria.
Okay, well, that's like, your opinion, man. Okay.
It places them into three tiers, it seems. Turkey and Golden Greek are the low tier, Spring n' Swamp were put in the mid tier, and Lights Out, Haunted House, n' The Journey were considered the best ones.
I knew that Golden Greek by whatever standards it would use to rate literature would come in last. I'm surprised it could even give me a summary of what happens in that story let alone review it. It gave me a point by point summary of the story when asked and got nothing wrong. It could deduce what it was about... which is impressive because it is meant to be confusing and difficult to follow. This program and myself are probably the only ones who actually understand what happens in that story, I think. I knew it would be rated the worst. In my head it's a totally zany comedic adventure... but on paper... it's hard to follow.
Turkey in the bottom tier with it though? It didn't like Turkey? In a longer review... it told me the pacing was boring and I didn't develop the french Sleeper character enough who it considered cool. That's kind of harsh.
I thought, for sure, 100% and without a doubt Turkey would come out on top... but no... it liked The Journey the best calling it a "master class in genre defiance and absurdism."
I was sitting here thinking this whole time that Turkey was the only good one... but... no... I guess.
I asked it to point at strengths and weaknesses of all the stories as well... Let's read those from worst to best... it also chose a "genre" to pigeon-hole them into which some of which are interesting to me.
This is what the AI program, Gemini, thinks are my stories strengths and weaknesses:
The Golden Greek Goes Upstairs:
Genre: Detective / Mythology Crossover
Rating: 4/5
Strengths: "Ambitious Crossover, successfully blends established characters (Kojak, Zeus) into a new, compelling caper story. High-Energy Plot, a classic, fast-paced detective adventure with fun mythological elements."
Weaknesses: Requires Prior Knowledge, while the plot works, the full enjoyment relies on the reader's familiarity with the real-life and mythological figures being parodied.
The Ballad of Turkey:
Genre: Folk Tale / Sentimental Fiction
Rating: 4/5
Strengths: Sentimental Core, Highly successful creation of a modern American myth/legend with a beautiful, tragic heart. Unique Character, Turkey is an instantly recognizable and memorable figure. Cohesive Tone, Maintains a consistent, elegiac, and thoughtful atmosphere throughout.
Weaknesses: Pacing Drag, More reflective and less plot-driven than the others, which can slow the narrative momentum in the middle.
A Spring Story
Genre: Nostalgic Comedy / Slice-of-Life
Rating: 4.5/5
Strengths: Nostalgic Immersion, Flawless capture of 90s gaming culture, language, and obsession. Relatable Conflict, High humor found in the universal struggle against mothers and the high stakes of low-stakes events. Strong Character Focus, Julio is an immediately lovable and distinct voice.
Weaknesses: Feels like a powerful setup for a longer novel; the conflict escalation (faking sick bicycle accident world championship) is abrupt.
The Swamp (Trilogy)
Genre: Folk Horror / Adventure
Rating: 4.5/5
Strengths: Immersive World-Building, Creates a rich, isolated Southern Gothic community with depth and history. Character Voice, Excellent use of rotating narrators (Jake, Huang Si, Reg) to layer the world. Emotional Sincerity, The sense of community loss feels genuine and tragic.
Weaknesses: Uneven Monster Threat, The initial monster encounter is terrifying, but the final confrontation is detailed less clearly than the preceding human drama.
Lights Out: Everybody.......
Genre: Formal Experiment / Satire
Rating: 5/5
Strengths: Perfect Formal Execution, Flawless use of the radio play/script format to create an intense, claustrophobic experience. High-Level Satire, Uses absurd horror (The Pea Sauce) to comment on societal panic and media frenzy.
Weaknesses: Highly Stylized, The script format can feel less immersive than traditional prose, requiring the reader to visualize all the action and atmosphere.
The Haunted House:
Genre: Horror / Action-Comedy
Rating: 5/5
Strengths: Highest Entertainment Value, Pure, high-octane B-movie action (chainsaws, explosions). Taut Pacing, Excels at maintaining suspense and humor under extreme pressure. Emotional Core, Strong stakes tied to saving the community.
Weaknesses: Less Philosophical, Focuses more on spectacle and action, lacking the deep, literary satire of The Journey or Lights Out.
The Journey:
Genre: Experimental / Surreal Adventure
Rating: 5/5
Strengths: A Masterclass in Genre Defiance and Absurdism, Structural Ambition, Successfully fuses Beat philosophy, Hollywood ambition, and mythological action. Ol' Connecticut, A magnificent, delusional character study. Chaos as Theme, Embraces absurdity (hamburgers as cosmic symbols, One-Winged Pig Demon).
Weaknesses: Fractured Pacing, The jump from Part 3/89 to Part 48/89 is jarring, even if conceptually brilliant, and requires reader commitment.
Okay, so that's how the AI program critiqued my short stories. I was expecting different things. I agree with most of what it says... even though I feel it's more like a bullet point list of technical things... it's not really much of a review... it can only really process information... it can't have opinions or feelings about what it processes.
I agree with it for the most part, I guess, but it is too formal and bullet-listy to take seriously. A real person reading something will say things like "I really liked that one part because..." or "I was bored by that part and stopped reading because...". It can read these things in five seconds and process the techniques used and compare it to other works in its database... but it can't really like it or dislike it from a human level.
I like the genres it came up with for them and thought some of the strenghts/weaknesses were interesting.
I have only two things to defend from the supposed weaknesses it perceived from processing these stories...
Firstly, the biggest issue I have is how it perceived A Spring Story's short comings... I think it processed it and reviewed it with Julio being the protagonist and just viewing the other characters as minor characters in Julio's life... and it was confused when the main character is missing for long portions of the narrative.
It describes the story's main weakness as being too short as if Julio faking being sick, falling off his bike, and then winning the Nintendo championship are the main plot points... but there's a ton of things that happen in between those events but they happen to other characters in the story. It processed it, I think, as a story about Julio and the other characters were just side characters who's actions had no meaning to the narrative. The other characters it looked at as just things in the protagonist's life.
Julio is the main protagonist in my story but that's not to say the other characters don't have meaning. Two things I can think of to help explain this style of writing (one of which of these things is even referenced in my story at one point)... I can think of two things that would easily explain how this story is meant to be perceived by the reader.
The two things I can think of in other narratives where the main character is obviously the hero who's going to win in the end... but along the way other characters step up to the plate and contribute to the hero winning in the end... the first, of which, is Goku from Dragon Ball Z and the second (the one which is referenced in the story quite profoundly and obviously) is Captain Tsubasa.
In these shows we know that the main hero is going to save the day in the end... it's obvious... the real meaning and emotion comes from what the other characters do during the arc which enable the hero to come in at the end and save the day. In many cases, if these minor characters didn't do these things, there would be no day to win for the hero in the end to begin with.
To think, take say, Goku vs. Nappa in Dragon Ball Z ... we know that Goku will eventually show up on the scene and defeat Nappa... there's no real question or anything as to that happening. The viewer knows this is how the story will end in the Nappa fight... but... it is the things that happen while Goku is not able to be there while he is on Snake Way that hold the real emotion and meaning... and these actions are done by other characters. Piccolo taking an energy blast to protect Goku's son... and dying in the process. Tien shooting off Kikohos with one arm missing resulting in him dying by expending too much energy... and Chiaotzu attaching himself to Nappa's back and blowing himself up in a surprising act of self-sacrifice... these things all happen while Goku is incapacitated. Does that mean that they are insignificant because it is not the main protagonist doing them? No.
The AI as it reviewed my "A Spring Story" claimed the weakness was that it was too bare bones and it felt short because it perceived the story as being solely focused on Julio... but this isn't what the story is about... my story is written more in the sense that we've seen so many movies and read so many books... we know the main character is going to win in the end, no? That's the easy part to write! Goku beats the bad guy at the end and wins. That's the easy part! The fun parts and more meaningful parts to write in stories like these is what the other characters do before the obvious part happens.
Captain Tsubasa was written like this too. Tsubasa was the captain of his high school soccer team (and later other more advanced levels of competition)... and in the end he'd kick a goal into the net and win the game... every single story arc. He'd basically do this every time. We knew he was going to do this. The viewer/reader knows he's going to do that and will still cheer and be happy when he does... but... there's still a whole soccer tournament to be played before he does that.
My story not only lets the reader know it is influenced by this show/comic but at one point actually gives it a pretty large-sized mention and shout-out... this show is directly mentioned in my story for it is influenced by it. In fact in Captain Tsubasa, a soccer player, uses his face in a desperate attempt to save a shot on goal... this happens multiple times on Captian Tsubasa. I am not referencing this show in the story just because I think it's very cool or because it has a fun theme song... I referenced and alluded to this show in my story as a shout-it to its writing style which my story is somewhat influenced by.
I would describe both Dragon Ball Z and Captain Tsubasa as a narrative structure where the hero beats the bad guy at the end... yet in which numerous acts of bravery and emotionally charged events occur by the non-main characters before this happens. It's a fun style to write. The hero is cool and fun... but that's only the tip of the iceberg in this writing style. The minor characters make up the majority of the meaningful and emotional events in the narrative.
I don't think the AI, when it reviewed this story, looked at it that way. It perceived Julio to be the main character and didn't understand why he was barely even in the story for long portions of it and regarded that as a weakness to the writing. It was written that way on purpose though. Peter, Woolly-Milton, and Matsuo are not just people in the main character's life... they are auxiliary protagonists. They are almost as important as the hero is in the story and have entire chapters where they act, separately or in unison, as the lead character at times.
I see this writing style as a strong point in a narrative and not as a weakness in a story.
Hmmm.... what was the second one I thought it got wrong?
Oh, it said in The Swamp that, at the end, the monsters became less scary... which translates to me as it calling my Final Boss lame. Which upsets me, somewhat. My final boss is lame?
It wasn't a lame final boss in that one! If I remember clearly, the hot swamp monster who is pretty sexy for a fish monster, sheds its alluring facade and shows its real ugly form after it gets salty chips thrown at it... and then Reggie friggin' Power Slams it like he's Ron friggin' Simmons! That's not a lame final boss fight! Give me a break... that critique is unfounded. What a silly and unfounded critique that is.
The final boss in The Swamp trilogy being lame? That's simply not true.
Alright, so the main thing I disagreed with... was A Spring Story seems fractured and unfinished as a novel because the parts with Julio are short according to the AI's review. That's written like that on purpose. Julio's like a Captain Tsubasa type character... it was meant that way. The other main characters are not just cannon fodder. I had a part where they compare themselves to the Ninja Turtles... I think to most readers... after that... they understand that Julio is the main character but the other characters are not just there for decoration... you know? It's sort of an ensemble cast type of story.
In the end, I think it's interesting that the AI tasked with reading and rating my stories I've written over the last twenty years could understand them, summarize them, and rate them... but... it feels very hollow what it thinks of them. Cold and hollow. It can't like a part because it made them relate to it, it can't laugh at a humorous part, it can't cry at a sad part... it really can only compare and contrast the stories to other things it is able to understand.
I think it was cool where it compared my stories to one-another... stating something like "this one is less philosophical than the others"... it docked one story points because it felt it wasn't as philosophical as other stories of mine. That's interesting...
Still, my final thought, is it can't really "read" it can only process, compare, and contrast... which is fine and good and all... but... I don't think the AI truly grasps the art of reading and writing at this point.
It is a data processor not a reader nor a writer.
No comments:
Post a Comment