Tag Archives: literary merit

Researchers Trained Computers To Write Poetry

Researchers have developed a bot capable of writing poetry. Having been fed a good deal of verse, the programme is, apparently capable of tricking humans and has come up with many poems, including the example below:

“With joyous gambols gay and still array
No longer when he twas, while in his day
At first to pass in all delightful ways
Around him, charming and of all his days”.

The New York Post describes the above as “not bad”. While I would agree that this sample of verse is interesting, I wouldn’t describe it as “not bad”. To me it reads rather like a computer programme had been fed the complete poetic works of the humorous poet Edward Lear and come up with this short poem. The verse is, for me also reminiscent of Lewis Carroll’s Jabberwocky.

Poetry is, in the final analysis an expression of human emotion, whether sadness, happiness, anger or a combination of various emotions. At present only humans can feel emotion (as opposed to being able to simulate it), so what the researches have created is a clever programme capable of soaking up the poetry produced by others and using its “knowledge”? to produce it’s own attempts at poetry. The programme is producing nothing original, although it has, admittedly knitted together the poetic cannon to produce some interesting results.

To read the article please follow this link, https://nypost.com/2018/08/08/researchers-trained-robots-to-write-poetry/.

Literary Merit

Recently I purchased 2 books of poetry: “I Just Stepped Out” by the late Felix Dennis and “Essential Poems”, edited by Neil Astley. Both works have much to recommend them (Dennis is a wonderful poet and I am currently enjoying leafing through Astley’s anthology). I am, however irritated by the prominent endorsements by famous people carried by both works.
While I am pleased that the great and the good derived pleasure from the books in question this is, ultimately a matter of supreme indifference to me. I will make up my own mind as to the value of a given work and the endorsement (or lack thereof) by a celebrity will not influence my view of the merits(or otherwise) of the book in question. In this media obsessed age the danger is that readers will base their decisions regarding book purchases on the literary tastes of those in the public eye. To my mind the opinion of the lady working behind the counter in my local bookshop caries more weight than that of a celebrity who has been asked for his or her view. Even then I will, in the final analysis make up my own mind as regards whether to buy a particular book.
Both of the above works do (as stated above) contain much that is praiseworthy. However the mere fact that a given work is endorsed by a well known individual should not cause us to conclude that it does, in fact possess literary merit and is, on this basis worthy of our attention.
As a writer I am thrilled whenever someone likes my work, whether that person is a shop assistant in my local supermarket or a photogenic celebrity is of no concern to me. While I in no way blame writers for seeking endorsements, I do worry that it leads to a mindset whereby a segment of the reading public come to believe that just because Mr X says a book is worthy of their attention it is, in fact worthy of their attention. This is, quite patently not the case.
As always I would be interested in your views on this subject.

Kevin

The Overwhelming Majority Of Self-Published Work is “Bad” – I Beg To Differ

I recently came across the following comment regarding the difficulties experienced by authors in getting published, (http://www.derekhaines.ch/justpublishing/i-need-a-publisher-no-you-dont/comment-page-1/#comment-1607). The commenter’s argument is neatly encapsulated by the following quote,

“Here’s the truth: 99.99% self publish because a traditional publisher rejected their manuscripts.

Why? Because they’re BAD!”

 

The above is a  sweeping assertion. How can the commenter possibly know why so many authors find it difficult to get published via established (traditional) publishing companies? Where is the evidence to bolster his case? The plain truth is that he produces no facts in support of this highly contentious statement.

Established big name publishers will, on the whole publish what they believe will sell. What sells does not always correlate with what constitutes good writing. Of  course there are many excellent works published by traditional publishers. However alongside the excellent exists what to my mind at least constitutes pap. The same applies to self-published authors – there is much good work out there which co-exists alongside the pap. I don’t believe that anyone can say, hand on heart that all that eminates from the traditional publishing stable is sweet scented hay while that coming from self-published authors is coated in horse dung. The sweet smelling hay and the manure are present in both stables and its nonsense to contend otherwise.

As  a  self-published author I do, of course have an axt to grind in that I believe my own work is far from being “bad”. I have also read many other self-published authors and poets who’s writing is far from being “bad”. I chose to self-publish due to wanting control over my own work. However I have a  close friend in the off-line (real) world who expended countless hours in firing off letters to literary agents and publishers. He  got nowhere. Hence he decided to self-publish using Createspace. It  may be said that friendship clouds my judgement, however, having read a  considerable portion of his manuscript I can assure my readers that it is far from being “bad”. It  is, in my opinion extremely well written.

I have nothing whatsoever against traditional publishing. What I object to is lazy arguments not supported by evidence to the effect that the vast majority of material emanating from the self-publishing sector is bad, while traditional publishing overwhelmingly produces works of outstanding merit.

 

(Please Note; this post is in response to the comment linked to above. I agree with the post on which the commenter is commenting, it is the comment (not the post) with which I take issue).