Writing Exercise 8

I do believe that in the future, a computer may be able to produce a novel. I do not, however, believe that it will be able to do it better. I do support the assertion that a bunch of monkeys, locked in a room, slinging crap against a wall, will eventually spell something out that stylistically blow Sparks out of the water. Monkeys, yal, monkeys. Better is a hard condition to meet. It is vague and subjective. Do we mean to ask if a computer will be able to produce a better novel, commercially speaking? Do we mean that this proposed computer will be able to have better style? Do we mean to ask if this computer can do it quicker? Better is a hard metric, I believe that a better novel is one produced by a natural mind.



I do not believe that a computer can produce a better novel then any human being, in my opinion of what makes a good novel, that is. Although we may be able to relate a seemingly endless array of cultural facts, nuances, and miscellaneous tidbits of information, computers will never be able to synthesize all of that information in a way which satisfies a wide range of human literary tastes. They won’t be able to use said nuances to layer subtext, skillfully place exposition, or make a joke using cultural notions. They won’t be able to capture the experiential knowledge of Dublin and put it into prose, a la Joyce. They won’t be able to assess what sappy themes and character types might be a commercial success.



Or will they? Just like they way by which internet programs may suggest what we may like, will computers be able to tell what type of writing will be commercially successful and then produce it? It’s interesting to wonder to what extent will computers be able to predict literary devices and then use them for profit. They will equal Nicholas Sparks’ literary intentions and probably his quality. I believe they will be able to know basic things, but the only thing computers will be able to sell is novelty. I wish to Yahweh I could make a pun out of that last sentence. People will generate buzz about a computer written novel: “Hey man, have you seen that computer written novel?



I bet that it will suck so bad that no one will read it. To re-use one comedian’s analogy, the robot book will be like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, everyone will have a copy, or access to it, at some point, but no one will admit to reading it. It will suck. Did I mention that I think Sparks sucks?



Will a computer be able to do it quicker? I believe so. They will churn out crap so quick it will be novel to all who first witness it. Hey-oh! I just punned it to death. Yes, computers can do things faster, but it will be horrible. If efficiency is what you want, then a CPU will win. If the human touch is what you want, then wait on something awesome from someone like Joyce. Wait less time for something that sucks and is made to be sold in a Wal-mart checkout line, a la Sparks.



When the robot war comes, our propaganda will be better written although it will take more time. I bet John Connor will have rhetoric worthy of being scribbled on the nearest wreckage.