I should not be surprised to learn there are now editors at publishing houses who initially put all submitted manuscripts through an algorithm.
The algorithm calculates adverb usage rate as a percentage, ‘glue word’ metrics, sentence-length metrics, that sort of thing. Out pops a saleability score. And if it falls below some big-data-defined benchmark, the story is rejected sight unseen.
I’d consider it an honour to be rejected by such a publisher.
I’m a slippery-slopist. Once editing and analysis is done by algorithm, the next step is just to write novels themselves via algorithm. And the following logical step is for Silicon Valley to sell you an algorithm that reads the novel for you. You buy a book, run the app, and just get a one-page infographic-style summary of the novel—and in our busy & connected & multinational moneygrubbing world, that’s as good as having read it. Book reviews will consist entirely of an app-friendliness score – a number that indicates how readable, how readily analysable, a reading algorithm will find the book. Too many fresh metaphors and the AI gets confused, the infographic looks screwy, the consumer is not satisfied.
There are both an arrogance and a blatant lack of self-confidence evident in the marketplacing of literature. Centuries of proud tradition deflated to content. Reading demoted to consuming. No one with any intellectual pride should submit to this.
“Submit to what? That isn’t happening yet.” True. So I’ve nothing to fear.