My personal opinion is that these tools are mostly useful to suck the "soul" out of a book. They give you templates and stuff and useful statistics to help you go to the lowest common denominator.
The problem is more visible in the movie industry, where they have had script templates for a hundred years now (actual time interval pulled out of a*), but it's starting to show up in books too.
For those happy to "consume" Netflix series and Marvel movies that are indistinguishable from each other except maybe filmed with different actors, it should be fine.
If you want originality in your entertainment it's sad news.
I wonder about a parallel for paintings. What if there was an analysis stating exactly the brushes the painter used, the number of strokes, the exact pigments, etc? Would that, in your opinion, "suck the 'soul' out of a painting"?
I could see this as a brilliant learning tool. A tool to provide deep insight into something that would be very challenging to quantify personally. I think all this would make future authors better, not worse.
The cave paintings in France have been studied this way, starting with Leroi-Gourhan's work and then accelerating with the use of computers. It's defi itely shed some important light on the artists who made them tens of thousands of years ago, and I don't think it made the paintings any less wonderful.
Does an artist not see thousands of artworks as they develop their style? Do artists not experiment with hundreds of styles as they hone in on something they want to be theirs? Is the internet, a tool that lets them see even more artworks, preventing creators from developing their personal style?
As I understand it, we've seen an explosion of different dancing styles as various apps let users share their craft with others - a quicker evolution of a greater variety of dancing. And I'm confident dancers use technology like playing videos at slower speeds to analyze others' movements.
I've heard the phrase "you have to know the rules to break them" (or something similar). The next generation of creators may look at that and choose to change their story telling on purpose, or exaggerate the curves, or something else ... that's what creativity is about - trying variations.
Just because Hollywood is pumping out movies you find unpleasant doesn't mean art is dead.
You and I probably agree more than this conversation suggests. You're right that people can and likely will stick to patterns that are successful, and that will mean there may be more copy-cat cookie-cutter stuff out there. But I strongly suspect that it will allow other creators to rocket past old mistakes or common tropes towards something novel.
My personal opinion is that these tools are mostly useful to suck the "soul" out of a book. They give you templates and stuff and useful statistics to help you go to the lowest common denominator.
The problem is more visible in the movie industry, where they have had script templates for a hundred years now (actual time interval pulled out of a*), but it's starting to show up in books too.
For those happy to "consume" Netflix series and Marvel movies that are indistinguishable from each other except maybe filmed with different actors, it should be fine.
If you want originality in your entertainment it's sad news.