I've been playing with AI

[Peter_Out]

Well, LLMs can do a lot more than parrot words based on probability. There are "chat" LLMs and "instruct" LLMs that work differently. (DeepSeek is an instruct model). They actually can "understand" context, do semantic analysis and analyze style.

They don't "understand" anything. They're just, as Emily Bender put it, "stochastic parrots", trained on copyrighted works whose creators went unpaid.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Okay

 

[XerXesXu]

For the interested, here's a recent summary of the state of play:

Evaluating the Meta- and Object-Level Reasoning

 

[VerbalAbuse]

Let me just reveal to you what actually happened, to put this issue to rest. I'm not gonna share the parts of the prompts that actually reveal the scenes because that's against the rules on the forums and by "put this issue to rest" I don't mean getting the thread locked.

I did another excerpt before this that I don't even want to reveal the analysis of here, but the only thing I asked about it was "Can you analyze these three scenes in detail?"

Prompt: With that relationship as context, analyze this scene involving the same character. Why does Eleanor have this perspective? What does the line "Freedom is an illusion" mean and imply in this case?

Response: "This scene provides a deeper look into Eleanor's perspective and the dynamics within the group, particularly focusing on themes of power, control, and the concept of freedom. Here's an analysis of the scene and the implications of the line "Freedom is an illusion":

Eleanor's Perspective:​

1. Control and Empowerment: Eleanor's perspective is heavily centered on control and empowerment within the context of their relationships. She believes in the structure and roles that have been established, viewing them as essential for maintaining the dynamics that bring fulfillment and identity to the group.
2. Cuckoldry as Structure: Eleanor advocates for the arrangement of cuckoldry, seeing it as a necessary component of their relationships. She argues that the form and structure of these dynamics are what truly matter, rather than individual feelings or desires. This perspective highlights her belief in the importance of maintaining the established order.
3. Pragmatic Approach: Eleanor's approach is pragmatic and focused on the long-term functioning of their relationships. She emphasizes the importance of each role and how they contribute to the whole, suggesting that deviating from this structure would lead to dysfunction and a return to less fulfilling dynamics.

"Freedom is an Illusion":​

1. Illusion of Autonomy: The line "Freedom is an illusion" implies that true autonomy and freedom are not achievable within the context of their relationships. Instead, Eleanor suggests that empowerment comes from embracing the roles and structures that have been established, which provide a sense of purpose and identity.
2. Critique of Conventional Freedom: Eleanor's statement challenges conventional notions of freedom, suggesting that what is often perceived as freedom is actually a lack of structure and purpose. She implies that true empowerment comes from understanding and accepting one's place within a defined system.
3. Emphasis on Empowerment: By stating that freedom is an illusion, Eleanor shifts the focus to empowerment through structure and roles. She believes that the arrangement they have, including cuckoldry, offers a form of empowerment that is more meaningful than the pursuit of individual freedom.

Scene Dynamics:​

1. Tension and Conflict: The scene is marked by tension and conflict, particularly between Eleanor and Leya. Eleanor's insistence on maintaining the structure of their relationships creates friction, as Leya questions the necessity of these roles.
2. Influence and Persuasion: Eleanor uses her influence to persuade Leya to adhere to the established dynamics, emphasizing the importance of the roles they play. Her ability to sway others highlights her position of authority within the group.
3. Role of Submissives: The presence of submissive characters like Robin underscores the power dynamics at play. Their interactions with the dominant figures illustrate the hierarchy and the acceptance of roles within the group.

Overall, the scene explores the complexities of power, control, and identity within the group's relationships. Eleanor's perspective on freedom and empowerment challenges traditional views, emphasizing the importance of structure and roles in achieving fulfillment and purpose."


No one who picked up on these themes in the story in question actually said so to me in any of the discussions about it back then. I repeat, no one picked up on it and actually said so. But it would be so easy to do that even a non-human robot can do it. I don't know how to make the point any more obvious that the commenters and a lot of the people who read it (granted, maybe a lot of them didn't even give this chapter a read, as this was an analysis of Chapter 13 of the 16 that I had written) from the AH just did not give the story a very deep read or a fair shake on its merits, or maybe they just went lizard brain mode the second they saw my content choices. In good faith I actually assume that most of the AH people from back then didn't actually read this part. That's kind of besides the point, though.

Granted, I was kind of asking the bot a leading question and trying to get it to guess something about the character's backstory, and it didn't. But I think that just proves my point more that I wasn't directing the bot to say any of this. It didn't get any of the specificities of its analysis from me. It didn't just collate words that were already there before. It gave me an accurate reading of a scene in the form of analysis which was actually pretty light. The feedback I received from human beings did not. That means there's something wrong with the way they were reading it, that they weren't actually authentically engaging with the text. If a robot can do that, then so can you. That's all I was ever trying to say here.


They were, quite obviously after all that I just explained here, misinterpreting my work. The reason why is obvious: they don't read correctly. They don't have an authentic engagement with the text in this case or maybe in most cases. However, I don't really think it's that difficult to read a text like the one in question in a way in which you can pick up upon the themes in it, even if you don't agree with the themes in it, without mischaracterizing the work. In their comments, they were referring to their fabricated idea of what I wrote and not the text I actually constructed. There is unfortunately in this case a gulf of difference between the two, to the point where it was staggering that people would be so blind to what I was saying, as if I'm living in the Twilight Zone, or something.

The above reading of that chapter is not hard to come up with. I just wish I lived in a world where I could share my work in a place like this (I stopped publishing here a long time ago) and receive feedback that was meaningful and resonated with me and showed that kind of appreciation for what I have to offer in the form of artistic/literary contribution, not just erotic contribution, but as a piece of art. It would be a step in the right direction to live in a world, even, where I can share my work and have people respond to it in a way that shows me they understand it on some level, but that isn't what happened. The positive commentary about it was mostly just that it turned people on. I have different motivations for writing than turning people on. That's besides the point. I just want to focus on the actual work right now, because focusing on the work rather than what other people think of it makes that work better for the audience at the end of the day, so I would rather just put this all to bed and get some rest myself and be able to think about my new ideas and characters and stories tomorrow instead.

You are wrong. You have been told that many times before, but you stick to your guns -- you are not interested in what others have to say. So why be bothered when others do the same when reading your pieces?

Here's how it is:

I've written "it's green." Readers say they've read "it's purple." Who's right? Who's wrong? What have I really written?
In their "language," I have written "it's purple."

Am I a bad writer or are they too dumb? Maybe I am the misunderstood genius. Or maybe I am delusional. Or maybe there's a gap between writer and readers.

If my goal was to reach them, I have failed.

From here on I have a number of options. I can continue writing "it's green" -- and if this makes me happy, I will do so. But know others don't read the same. Or I can try to find another way to convey my "greenness" idea to the readers. Or write something else entirely.

What I can't do is to demand others read what I want them to read.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

No one who picked up on these themes in the story in question actually said so to me in any of the discussions about it back then. I repeat, no one picked up on it and actually said so. But it would be so easy to do that even a non-human robot can do it.

Did you prompt your readers to comment on the power structure, the empowerment or the freedom/illusion thing?

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Madeline, as you can see most of us are saying the same thing. There is that old dilemma: Who does the story belong to?"
Is the story what readers saw in it, or what the author intended? Most authors will understand that it's readers who ultimately decide what the story was about.

Literotica being what it is, you have no way to truly know how readers saw your story. You get some comments, sure, but how relevant are ten comments when your story has ten thousand views? Maybe those comments are representative, maybe not. Fuck knows.
Either way, I don't think AI has any real answers. AI is not your audience.

 

[SimonDoom]

Part of the fun of a literary text is that it's like a bird that's flown its cage, and its owner gives up control of it. How other people choose to read your story counts as well as your own interpretation of it. It's the actual words, not the intention behind them, that matters. I'm not knowledgeable enough about how AI works to weigh in on that, but it seems to me that however it gets there what it has to say still may be illuminating and interesting and expose things in the text that our human brains may have missed. And it's inevitable. Even a curmudgeon like me can see that.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

They were, quite obviously after all that I just explained here, misinterpreting my work. The reason why is obvious: they don't read correctly.

This is your folly. You believe that the reader must read your work a certain way. One can't expect anyone to read a certain way. Everyone reads for their own reasons and for their own desires. A writer cannot force a change in that. And a writer shouldn't try to force that as it handcuffs the reader's experience and harbors resentment. All that I writer can do is write. When we write, we are providing a toy for the reader to play with. Sometimes the reader plays nice with it and puts it carefully back into the box. Other times the reader plays rough with, gets it all full of sand, smacks it against the wall and breaks it. All that the writer can do is let that go and accept that his toy will be broken, multiple times.

This attitude of readers needing to read properly also carries the notion that the work is above significant reproach. If the work is indeed above that level of reproach then why does the writer seek feedback? Feedback in that case should not be necessary as the writer already knows that it has hit the mark. Yet in your case, you are hungry for feedback, see?

And furthermore, if a writer's work requires 'reading a certain way' then the mechanics of it probably aren't written all that well. Writing is explaining. If not enough readers 'get it' or too many 'get the wrong idea' then it is likely that the piece was not explained well enough - ie not written well enough.

Let me ask this question: do you put disclaimers at the front of your stories telling the reader the correct way to read them (either directly or subliminally)? If not, then this issue all on you. If you do, then as a reader I'm sure that I'd find it quite pretentious when a writer tries to tell me how to read (and I think most of us would too).

I strongly suggest taking a neutral approach to your feedback. Easier said than done since we are always so close to our work and almost always hold it quite dear, but if you can manage to take a neutral approach - this means not expecting positive nor negative reviews and just taking the feedback as close to face value as possible and applying it fairly to your work - the benefits to your craft are huge.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Here's how it is:

I've written "it's green." Readers say they've read "it's purple." Who's right? Who's wrong? What have I really written?
In their "language," I have written "it's purple."

Am I a bad writer or are they too dumb? Maybe I am the misunderstood genius. Or maybe I am delusional. Or maybe there's a gap between writer and readers.

If my goal was to reach them, I have failed.

From here on I have a number of options. I can continue writing "it's green" -- and if this makes me happy, I will do so. But know others don't read the same. Or I can try to find another way to convey my "greenness" idea to the readers. Or write something else entirely.

What I can't do is to demand others read what I want them to read.

^ ^ Exactly this.

 

[SimonDoom]

I strongly suggest taking a neutral approach to your feedback. Easier said than done since we are always so close to our work and almost always hold it quite dear, but if you can manage to take a neutral approach - this means not expecting positive nor negative reviews and just taking the feedback as close to face value as possible and applying it fairly to your work - the benefits to your craft are huge.

I basically agree with this, but it's difficult to do. I'd say that about one third of a time if I get a highly critical remark my reaction is, "The reader completely missed the point." But that's the hazard of publication. You have no control over who reads your story and every reader is entitled to his/her opinion. There's no such thing as one correct interpretation of a story.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I basically agree with this, but it's difficult to do. I'd say that about one third of a time if I get a highly critical remark my reaction is, "The reader completely missed the point." But that's the hazard of publication. You have no control over who reads your story and every reader is entitled to his/her opinion. There's no such thing as one correct interpretation of a story.

I often do too, but then I come back later and look at it again and it's easier to find that neutrality and hence some value in the feedback.

And in fairness, sometimes they DO miss the point. Leonard Cohen goes right over the heads of Luke Bryan fans. Of course Leonard Cohen doesn't get bent out of shape over it. Who is the better songwriter? Well it's Cohen, d'uh - the gap in their abilities makes the Grand Canyon look like a stream in the back yard. Who sells more albums? Bryan. (shrug)

The point here is target audience.

 

[nice90sguy]

I downloaded DeepSeek

The full version, which need 1TB vram??

 

[alohadave]

The full version, which need 1TB vram??

The app.

 

[AlexBailey]

Let me just reveal to you what actually happened, to put this issue to rest. I'm not gonna share the parts of the prompts that actually reveal the scenes because that's against the rules on the forums and by "put this issue to rest" I don't mean getting the thread locked.

I did another excerpt before this that I don't even want to reveal the analysis of here, but the only thing I asked about it was "Can you analyze these three scenes in detail?"

Prompt: With that relationship as context, analyze this scene involving the same character. Why does Eleanor have this perspective? What does the line "Freedom is an illusion" mean and imply in this case?

Response: "This scene provides a deeper look into Eleanor's perspective and the dynamics within the group, particularly focusing on themes of power, control, and the concept of freedom. Here's an analysis of the scene and the implications of the line "Freedom is an illusion":

Eleanor's Perspective:​

1. Control and Empowerment: Eleanor's perspective is heavily centered on control and empowerment within the context of their relationships. She believes in the structure and roles that have been established, viewing them as essential for maintaining the dynamics that bring fulfillment and identity to the group.
2. Cuckoldry as Structure: Eleanor advocates for the arrangement of cuckoldry, seeing it as a necessary component of their relationships. She argues that the form and structure of these dynamics are what truly matter, rather than individual feelings or desires. This perspective highlights her belief in the importance of maintaining the established order.
3. Pragmatic Approach: Eleanor's approach is pragmatic and focused on the long-term functioning of their relationships. She emphasizes the importance of each role and how they contribute to the whole, suggesting that deviating from this structure would lead to dysfunction and a return to less fulfilling dynamics.

"Freedom is an Illusion":​

1. Illusion of Autonomy: The line "Freedom is an illusion" implies that true autonomy and freedom are not achievable within the context of their relationships. Instead, Eleanor suggests that empowerment comes from embracing the roles and structures that have been established, which provide a sense of purpose and identity.
2. Critique of Conventional Freedom: Eleanor's statement challenges conventional notions of freedom, suggesting that what is often perceived as freedom is actually a lack of structure and purpose. She implies that true empowerment comes from understanding and accepting one's place within a defined system.
3. Emphasis on Empowerment: By stating that freedom is an illusion, Eleanor shifts the focus to empowerment through structure and roles. She believes that the arrangement they have, including cuckoldry, offers a form of empowerment that is more meaningful than the pursuit of individual freedom.

Scene Dynamics:​

1. Tension and Conflict: The scene is marked by tension and conflict, particularly between Eleanor and Leya. Eleanor's insistence on maintaining the structure of their relationships creates friction, as Leya questions the necessity of these roles.
2. Influence and Persuasion: Eleanor uses her influence to persuade Leya to adhere to the established dynamics, emphasizing the importance of the roles they play. Her ability to sway others highlights her position of authority within the group.
3. Role of Submissives: The presence of submissive characters like Robin underscores the power dynamics at play. Their interactions with the dominant figures illustrate the hierarchy and the acceptance of roles within the group.

Overall, the scene explores the complexities of power, control, and identity within the group's relationships. Eleanor's perspective on freedom and empowerment challenges traditional views, emphasizing the importance of structure and roles in achieving fulfillment and purpose."


No one who picked up on these themes in the story in question actually said so to me in any of the discussions about it back then. I repeat, no one picked up on it and actually said so. But it would be so easy to do that even a non-human robot can do it. I don't know how to make the point any more obvious that the commenters and a lot of the people who read it (granted, maybe a lot of them didn't even give this chapter a read, as this was an analysis of Chapter 7 I think of the 16 that I had written) from the AH just did not give the story a very deep read or a fair shake on its merits, or maybe they just went lizard brain mode the second they saw my content choices. In good faith I actually assume that most of the AH people from back then didn't actually read this part. That's kind of besides the point, though.

Granted, I was kind of asking the bot a leading question and trying to get it to guess something about the character's backstory, and it didn't. But I think that just proves my point more that I wasn't directing the bot to say any of this. It didn't get any of the specificities of its analysis from me. It didn't just collate words that were already there before. It gave me an accurate reading of a scene in the form of analysis which was actually pretty light. The feedback I received from human beings did not. That means there's something wrong with the way they were reading it, that they weren't actually authentically engaging with the text. If a robot can do that, then so can you. That's all I was ever trying to say here.


They were, quite obviously after all that I just explained here, misinterpreting my work. The reason why is obvious: they don't read correctly. They don't have an authentic engagement with the text in this case or maybe in most cases. However, I don't really think it's that difficult to read a text like the one in question in a way in which you can pick up upon the themes in it, even if you don't agree with the themes in it, without mischaracterizing the work. In their comments, they were referring to their fabricated idea of what I wrote and not the text I actually constructed. There is unfortunately in this case a gulf of difference between the two, to the point where it was staggering that people would be so blind to what I was saying, as if I'm living in the Twilight Zone, or something.

The above reading of that chapter is not hard to come up with. I just wish I lived in a world where I could share my work in a place like this (I stopped publishing here a long time ago) and receive feedback that was meaningful and resonated with me and showed that kind of appreciation for what I have to offer in the form of artistic/literary contribution, not just erotic contribution, but as a piece of art. It would be a step in the right direction to live in a world, even, where I can share my work and have people respond to it in a way that shows me they understand it on some level, but that isn't what happened. The positive commentary about it was mostly just that it turned people on. I have different motivations for writing than turning people on. That's besides the point. I just want to focus on the actual work right now, because focusing on the work rather than what other people think of it makes that work better for the audience at the end of the day, so I would rather just put this all to bed and get some rest myself and be able to think about my new ideas and characters and stories tomorrow instead.

(I haven’t read your story but I have read your posts.)


The AI has pointed out the crux of your frustration - the reason why readers are ‘misinterpreting’ your story.

The AI’s comments are based on Eleanor’s ‘unconventional’ beliefs, and while the AI can interpret what you’ve written and analyze the writing using Eleanor’s perspective, your readers may not be buying into it.

2. Critique of Conventional Freedom: Eleanor's statement challenges conventional notions of freedom, suggesting that what is often perceived as freedom is actually a lack of structure and purpose. She implies that true empowerment comes from understanding and accepting one's place within a defined system.

3. Emphasis on Empowerment: By stating that freedom is an illusion, Eleanor shifts the focus to empowerment through structure and roles. She believes that the arrangement they have, including cuckoldry, offers a form of empowerment that is more meaningful than the pursuit of individual freedom.

Readers may be taking issue with Eleanor’s unconventional beliefs, and because your subject matter touches on sensitive issues, readers are pushing back against her perspective, making the story an emotional challenge rather than something relatable they can enjoy.


Try giving the AI quotes of some of the comments you’ve received and ask it for a psychological analysis with a focus on why the reader did not understand the story from Eleanor’s perspective.

My guess is that it will say something to the effect of how you need to get readers to relate to Eleanor more before they can accept her unconventional views.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

(I haven’t read your story but I have read your posts.)

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it just is.

OP's stories have been categorized as torture porn by the denizens of this forum. Almost all of them are about a dominant woman called Eleanore, who built a harem of superior black males. All the while, the inferior, submissive white males get punished with sensory deprivation by being buried alive for days (which OP insists is not torture), before they are being tied to a table and anally taken by the superior black males (which OP insists is not rape), and get castrated (which OP insists is not maiming... "it's a surgery!").

And then, about once every three to six months, OP comes to the forum to complain about the evil readers misunderstanding their grand vision...

What OP is doing here is essentially feeding Mein Kampf to ChatGPT, and then taking the lack of psychological evaluation as proof of people misunderstanding Hitler. The problem is, people still have every right to call the man a monster, simply because they are able to read between the lines. Which, honestly, is still a novel concept for LLMs. And I'd like to remind everyone who claims otherwise about that time Google's AI recommended jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge as a means to deal with depression.

 

[NoTalentHack]

"AI" in its current form does not, in any way, understand what you give it to "read." It understands structures, and it understands connections to other structures. It "knows" what criticism should look like, and (massively simplifying here) given that criticism of a similar work exists, it will use that criticism to inform its "criticism."

Beyond that, it will take whatever you give it (at least in its most basic role) and almost always give you a positive spin on what you give it. Ask for a harsh criticism of the same work, and it will likely be much less kind.

As an experiment, I created a new session of ChatGPT 4o and gave it one of the "Roy Orbison Wrapped in Cling Film" stories to chew on, with the prompt, "Analyze this story." Here's what it returned:

This story is surreal, darkly humorous, and slightly unsettling. Let’s analyze its key elements:

1. Narrative Structure​

The story follows a cyclical pattern, beginning and ending the same way. This repetition suggests an obsessive or dream-like quality, reinforcing the narrator’s fixation on Roy Orbison and the peculiar bet. The phrase "It always starts the same way" gives the impression of an inescapable loop, almost like a recurring dream or compulsion.

2. Themes​

• Obsession & Compulsion: The narrator’s interest in cling-film is portrayed as excessive and peculiar. The meticulous way he wraps Roy Orbison suggests a deep-seated fixation, and the story implies that this is not an isolated event but something he keeps replaying.
• Power & Control: The act of wrapping someone in cling-film is symbolic of dominance. Initially, the bet seems harmless, but it escalates into something more disturbing when the narrator refuses to free Roy for several hours.
• Loss & Regret: Despite winning the bet, the narrator ultimately loses—Roy escapes, he receives no tickets, and his beloved pet is taken away. This ironic twist emphasizes the futility of his actions.
• Surrealism & Absurdity: The story plays with absurd juxtapositions—casually meeting a celebrity in Düsseldorf, discussing cling-film at length, and binding someone entirely in plastic wrap as part of a wager. The bizarre events unfold with a deadpan, logical progression, which enhances the unsettling humor.

3. Tone & Style​

• Detached and Formal: The narrator speaks in a strangely polite and composed manner, which contrasts with the absurdity of the situation. This detachment makes the events even more eerie.
• Understated Humor: The humor is dry and emerges from the contrast between the narrator’s formal tone and the bizarre events unfolding.
• Dreamlike Repetition: The cyclical structure and surreal events create an uncanny, dreamlike quality, as if the narrator is trapped in a recurring fantasy.

4. Symbolism​

• Roy Orbison as an Enigmatic Figure: Roy, always dressed in black with dark glasses, carries an air of mystery and detachment. He barely reacts to being wrapped up, furthering the sense that he is more of a symbol than a real person.
• Cling-Film as Obsession and Entrapment: Cling-film is the narrator’s fixation, representing both control and entrapment. The pleasure he takes in wrapping Roy indicates something deeper, possibly a need for order or possession.
• Jetta (the Terrapin) as Innocence or Freedom: The fact that Jetta is taken away as a punishment suggests she represents something pure or grounding. Her loss leaves the narrator “broken and pitiful,” reinforcing the idea that his compulsions ultimately lead to suffering.

5. Psychological Perspective​

The narrator exhibits obsessive tendencies, potentially hinting at a compulsive disorder or delusional thinking. His interactions with Roy Orbison seem more like a constructed fantasy than reality, especially given the story’s dreamlike repetition.

6. Conclusion​

This story blends absurdism, surrealism, and dark humor into a bizarre yet compelling piece. Its cyclical structure and dreamlike logic suggest themes of obsession, loss, and compulsion. The narrator’s fixation on cling-film and Roy Orbison, along with his ultimate downfall, create an eerie, almost tragicomic effect.

Other "fun" things generative AI has done: created books that stated destroying angel mushrooms are safe to eat; encouraged people to kill themselves and gave them instructions on how to do so most effectively and painlessly; encouraged NYC business owners to break the law without telling them what it suggested was illegal; quoted court cases that didn't exist; and dozens more.

ChatGPT and its ilk have their uses, but relying on them to validate either your beliefs or your writing is a fool's errand. Yeah, it's not Eliza, but it's not artificial general intelligence, either, and it's especially not a replacement for human insights. It tells you what it "thinks" you want to hear, and it does it with the confidence of a freshman college student who's just read their first book on literary criticism and thinks they're the next T.S. Eliot; most of the time, though, it would be lucky to be Edward Bulwer-Lytton.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Also, somewhat apropos:

What your readers get out of it isn't necessarily going to be what you put into it, and that doesn't mean they're wrong.

 

[AlexBailey]

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it just is.

OP's stories have been categorized as torture porn by the denizens of this forum. Almost all of them are about a dominant woman called Eleanore, who built a harem of superior black males. All the while, the inferior, submissive white males get punished with sensory deprivation by being buried alive for days (which OP insists is not torture), before they are being tied to a table and anally taken by the superior black males (which OP insists is not rape), and get castrated (which OP insists is not maiming... "it's a surgery!").

Sorry my thoughts are too ridiculous for you. Is there something in my post that you disagree with or are you just quoting me to step up and knock me down?


It’s interesting how you belittle me then go on to illustrate the point I made about how the OP hadn’t curated a narrative that pulled their readers into Eleanor’s perspective.

You could write a touching story about a mother and their child, one that maybe most people could relate to. It could pull at your heart strings when the child grows up and is recruited off to war. If it’s written well it could be an emotionally compelling piece of literature even if that child happened to be a young Adolf Hitler.

 

[onehitwanda]

 

[SimonDoom]

What I want to know . . . is it real butter, or the fake stuff? AI butter?

 

[madelinemasoch]

Madeline, as you can see most of us are saying the same thing. There is that old dilemma: Who does the story belong to?"
Is the story what readers saw in it, or what the author intended? Most authors will understand that it's readers who ultimately decide what the story was about.

Literotica being what it is, you have no way to truly know how readers saw your story. You get some comments, sure, but how relevant are ten comments when your story has ten thousand views? Maybe those comments are representative, maybe not. Fuck knows.
Either way, I don't think AI has any real answers. AI is not your audience.

Okay, but in the case of this story, that would mean it’s about nothing. The feedback given didn’t talk about what it’s about; they just accused the characters (and me) of being evil in some way and sometimes threatened either the characters (or me) with violence.

The readers are worse (in this case) than you’re giving them credit for.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

Sorry my thoughts are too ridiculous for you. Is there something in my post that you disagree with or are you just quoting me to step up and knock me down?


It’s interesting how you belittle me then go on to illustrate the point I made about how the OP hadn’t curated a narrative that pulled their readers into Eleanor’s perspective.

You could write a touching story about a mother and their child, one that maybe most people could relate to. It could pull at your heart strings when the child grows up and is recruited off to war. If it’s written well it could be an emotionally compelling piece of literature even if that child happened to be a young Adolf Hitler.

Not sure why you would take what I wrote as a personal attack.

I wrote "THIS is getting ridiculous", not "YOU are BEING ridiculous". That's because I was talking about the thread, not your post. I quoted your post because I agree with it. Which is why I, as you pointed out, then illustrated the very point you were making.

...now get yourself some chocolate.

 

[madelinemasoch]

You believe that the reader must read your work a certain way.

Never said that.

I said the way these specific readers read it precluded them from understand it.

And a writer shouldn't try to force that as it handcuffs the reader's experience and harbors resentment.

I didn’t say that they should.

This attitude of readers needing to read properly also carries the notion that the work is above significant reproach.

No, this is not an “attitude” that I have, it’s a fact in this specific case that my story was misread.

You’re putting words in my mouth and constructing a straw man out of my original post, ironically, instead of actually engaging with what I said in the post. Just another case of someone online responding to what they think someone is saying and not what it is their words actually mean.

Literally the same exact thing that happened with the stories, just at a higher level of sophistication and decency.

I never said that the reader should be told how to read a story. I said “my stories were misread”. There’s a big difference.

Do you honestly not believe that when you sit with something, you come to a deeper understanding of that thing? I mean a lot of the commentary on here seems to absolutely whitewash the idea of literary merit completely. Not only that, but understanding itself as a concept.

Somebody’s knee jerk reaction first impression is not as deep or true an understanding of any given thing as the understanding that comes when somebody slows down and concentrates on that thing and goes deeper. After reading a lot of the posts on this thread one would never know that simple fact and be completely mislead into never slowing down to focus on anything.

Nobody said that they have to go deeper, or that they should be forced to, but that doesn’t mean they understand if they don’t.

 

[onehitwanda]

What I want to know . . . is it real butter, or the fake stuff? AI butter?

thick, gooey, melt-in-your-mouth flange feta.

 

[AlexBailey]

Not sure why you would take what I wrote as a personal attack.

I wrote "THIS is getting ridiculous", not "YOU are BEING ridiculous". That's because I was talking about the thread, not your post. I quoted your post because I agree with it. Which is why I, as you pointed out, then illustrated the very point you were making.

...now get yourself some chocolate.

It seems your intention was misinterpreted by your target audience.

Your next line after quoting me was “This is getting ridiculous. I’m sorry but it just is.”

Apparently I was wrong for connecting consecutive parts of your post.