Earl Gray

Earl Gray
"You can argue with me but, in the end, you'll have to face that fact that you're arguing with a squirrel." - Earl Gray

Tuesday, December 16, 2025

The Outerview Series: Part XXI - Artificial Intelligence

 

     Artificial Intelligence ("AI" or "A-I") is, essentially, a glorified web search engine--one that is able to scan the internet and prepare a coherent, if long-winded and nerdy, answer to your query.  The concern some have expressed is whether or not it can replace poets or prose writers.

     "And can it?"

     Not poets, at least.  Not yet.

     "Why not?"

      It's not that it couldn't--quite easily, in fact--but the fact is A-I poetry isn't a priority.  Also, there isn't enough overlap between programmers and prosodists.

     "What is the biggest problem?"

     Scansion.  Compression.  A-I isn't bad at sonics but it tends to be expansive, not concise, with information.  Also, cadence seems a problem.

     "So you're saying A-I can't write poetry as good as humans?"

      The opposite.  It composes poetry as badly as humans.  99% of humans, at least.  Meanwhile, the best computers are rated 1,000 points above the best human chessplayers, such that no human will ever beat the best software again.  This is why there are chess-playing prodigies but not poetry ones.  Chess is calculable, like mathematics.  Language is arbitrary.

     "But if A-I can't write poetry yet what is all the excitement about?"

 

Critique

 

      Newcomers to poetry always want to know how good they are.  How they are developing.  Patience isn't a common trait and neither is modesty;  typical novices grossly overestimate their ability.  Unfortunately, there aren't many people familiar enough with poetry to render useful critique.

      Poetry Rater sites can give a curious verser an assessment of sorts.  On the best one we found the numeric rankings are the same for all poems found online:  8 out 10 for Overall, 7 for Creativity, 9 for Technique, and 8 for Impact.  That includes everything from Shakespearean sonnets down to vanity postings by neophytes on The Pink Palace of Poetitude.  The comments are good for literary technique but useless for poetics.  Still, it will be infinitely better than we'll see on a "showcase" or "vanity" site, though that isn't saying much.

      It helps to input a great poem before or after one of our own, comparing the critiques.

 

Presentation

 

      Knowing what poetry is (i.e. memorable speech), the need to have it performed becomes paramount.  What if we are lousy actors, though?  Or shy?  What if, like me, you have a face for radio and a voice for mime?  What if we write a poem that requires a narrator that isn't similar to us?  Another age, gender, or nationality, perhaps?

     "I am an old woman, named after my mother." - John Prine, "Angel from Montgomery

 


       Sophisticated A-I programs allow you to make whole movies with your home computer.  As the software continues to develop at breakneck speed the action begins to seem less and less cartoonish.  For our purposes here, we'll confine out scope to slide shows with A-I speech.

      You will require two programs on your computer:


1. A slideshow creator to stitch together photos (or tiny videos) and sound (i.e. music, poetry).  This are often included in your operating system; otherwise NCH Suite freeware may suffice.

2. A text-to-speech Artificial Intelligence converter to create the sound files.  Unfortunately, the best of these we've found  is commercial but you may find a freebie that does the job.  Keep testing until you find one with a variety of natural sounding voices.  PRO TIP:  Slow down the speech and, if you need the "performer" to break at the end of enjambed lines cut the sound files up into individual lines and stitch them together with your slideshow creator.

    This albeit slapdash video, with 5 voices, illustrates what you should be able to create on your first day:


     "Tecumseh" (aka "Shooting Star" or "Panther that Crouches in Wait")


You, Canadian? The greatest American? You fought to be neither, but nor were you panther that crouches in wait. You were egret, your feet in the mud as you stood above weeds. 

Both your fathers would leave you to war. Brock would say no more valorous warrior exists. Sure
as apple trees bud, the pleas of a peacemaker can't be imparted while even your traplines have got to be guarded. 

Time is gravity, a shooting star descending. Time is charity; too soon you'll see it ending.  The cities were the bellows of the wind that blew at Prophetstown, across the rivers, over you. Gray wolves surround the egret.  Foxes slink away, their turn tail coats the colour of your blood.

You'd say: "Sing your death song and then die like a hero returning home." 

Yours was the song of that egret, your life like a burning poem.

 

     "Why are the words in paragraphs?"

     That is corata:  metered verse without linebreaks.  The idea is to follow Rule #72:


        "Wait, why aren't there any credits in the video?

    The idea is to present a story, allowing a preamble and the text to explain the context.  For example, this one might be part of a presentation to a historical society.  On social media we might post it with annotation that historians might not need:

    Tecumseh (1768-03-09 to 1813-10-05), whose name translates to "Shooting Star" or "Panther who Crouches in Wait", was an Ohio Shawnee who opposed U.S. incursions into his homeland.  His father died in the 1774 Battle of Point Pleasant when Tecumseh was six.  The only other man he called "Father" was British general Henry Procter, who was to abandon Tecumseh to his fate at the Battle of the Thames.

    His younger, shamanic brother Tenskwatawa disobeyed Tecumseh's orders against confronting U.S. troops, causing the loss of their capitol, Prophetstown.  Upon joining up with the British, Tecumseh's first ally was General Sir Isaac Brock, who was killed in the Battle of Queenston Heights, 1812-10-13.

     In a poetry contest the video might demonstrate the sounds of the accompanying textual submission.  In the near future of the Internet such videos will be expected alongside the words.  Look for poetry contests and webzines, including some associated with magazines, to begin accommodating them.  Get ahead of the competition here! 




 

Wednesday, December 3, 2025

The Outerview Series: Part XX - The Egoless Experiment

The Egoless Motto
     The Egoless experiment began in 2004 and was open for the better part of a year.  Its purpose was to create a critical environment that would evaluate poems and critiques and, thus, poets and critics.  What did we discover?

"So how did it work?"

     Membership was free but involved a few questions (e.g. "Is Blake's 'Tyger' iambic or trochaic?") to separate neophytes from the experienced.  Novices would begin life on Egolite and work their way up to Egoless. 

     Everything was posted anonymously.  Not with pseudonyms, mind you, but without any identification whatsoever.  

     The site attracted some of the best critics of the time.  Posters would present their text.  Other members would read it and evaluate it numerically, from 1 to 10.  Many would add critiques (again, with no indentification), which would also be judged numerically, from 1 to 10.  Thus, over time, every member would have a poet ranking (i.e. the average rating of their poems) and a critic ranking (i.e. the average rating of their critiques).  Members would see these updated results when they logged in.

     Members with Poet and Critic ratings below 5 out of 10 would find themselves on Egolite.
   
"What if we wanted to follow a poet, critic, or conversation?"

     Members could click on any poem (or critique) and see all of the other poems (or critiques) posted by that contributor without knowing their name, nom de plume, or username.  (There were no usernames.)   What we would call an Original Poster today would be identified as #1 in that thread.  The first responder would be #2, the second would be #3, et cetera.  Each would have their poet ranking (for the Original Poster) or critic rating (for respondents) listed under "Rank".  Thus, clicking on a poem title might reveal something like this:

CO# Rank Poem Title         Evals  Avrg   Crits  Avrg

 #1 7.31 Death of Sam McGee    13  7.26       2  5.83
 #2 6.24
 #3 5.42


The Real Life Death of Sam McGee


He'd died so many deaths by then
    as all could plainly see
in grade school rhymers written when
    he'd dreamt of Tennessee.

Sam fixed the widow's car that night
    (of course, a Model-T)
then trudged into the blizzard's might
    and dreamt of Tennessee.

Across the narrow bridge he walked
    the tenspot would soon be
misspent in hotels as he talked
    and dreamt of Tennessee.

Sam did not hear the coming car
    (that very Model-T)
and never made it to the bar
    to dream of Tennessee. 


     Under this we'd see a spot for evaluating the poem and a larger text box for posting a critique.  Two decades later such a site might accommodate slide shows and video performances.

"How did you find out who the poets and critics are?"

     You didn't.  However, by knowing your own ratings you could see where one stood in relation to the other members.  Only if and when a version of a poem was published (in which case the author would have the Egoless posting deleted) would you discover who wrote it.

     For what it's worth, the site reported on the highest regarded poets from a survey of the other serious critical forums (i.e. Poetry Free-For-All, Eratosphere, Gazebo, and Poets dot org, the latter two of which are now defunct).  Of course, Maz topped the list...and this was before she wrote "Studying Savonarola"!  With the benefit of hindsight, these names should be higher on the list:

A.E. Stallings
Robert J. Maughan
Claudia Grinnell
Michael Cantor
Richard Epstein
Jennifer Reeser 
Frank Matagrano
Andrew Kei Miller
Marek Lugowski
Colin Will
Charles Cornner
Janet Dowd
Kim Hodges

"What about trolls?"

     Not a problem.  Trolls would fail the entrance test miserably, be bozoed, and never climb out of Egolite.

"Bozoed"?

     What we would call a "soft banning" nowadays.  That member would be the only one to see their postings.

"So what happened?  What did people learn from the Egoless experiment?"

     Above all, we learned that knowledgeable critiquers are worth their weight in platinum:

Peter J. Ross
Hannah Craig
Bob Schechter
John Boddie
Harry Rutherford
Rob Evans
Gary Gamble

     We saw how much can be learned from getting and giving serious critique.  We also learned that Earl Gray's 44th Law cannot be ignored:


      Indeed, many of Earl Gray's Laws of Poetry came from the Egoless experience.

      The Egoless approach was not meant to be restricted to poetry.  It can work in any critical environment:  prose, legal, scientific, artistic, business planning--anything that benefits from frank feedback.