Reader Question: A.I. Literary Criticism
If A.I. can effectively analyze a poem I wrote, does the poem suck?
The brilliant Boston-based songwriter Alexander asked:
Before your substack post about AI's analysis and rewrite of “The River,” I also asked GPT to analyze a poem of mine. While it was amusing and reassuring that these language models couldn’t imitate the real deal, unfortunately, ChatGPT analyzed my poem almost exactly how I intended the poem to come across. The question I have is, is the poem BAD if AI can immediately "get it"? Or is it GOOD that it is accessible enough for a robot? What are the implications here? It would be different if I asked it to analyze some poem which has been written about endlessly. But I just wrote this shit a few hours ago. What gives?
Alexander attached the poem in question as well as ChatGPT’s analysis, both of which are below, followed by my response.
Hatefucking the Oak Stump
Gnarled topography coronates your stunted nature carcass
and your shadow is only six feet at most when the sun is lowest
and there is gape where the heartwood was wrapped in rings
of softer sapwood turned hardened with vascular decay
turned a shade giver scabby shedding one last layer
of disintegrated leaves to pad the ground before
feeding mushrooms bugs worms birds
broken down to dioxide and water again.
You oak mirror turned one dimensional.
Your greedy roots are turning mealy
tangled in sewer pipe
carrying shit piss and pills
roots unable to sip
from the vomit seeping
through the yard
your current rotten center
a whole hole
a portal to a dead core.
You stood tall
proud
with roots shuddering under the shifts
of kitchen table flips
dog in cardiac arrest
little brother torture
blanket fort demolition
backyard kisses
or dad needing a moment
needing to stand under you
above you with busch light
clouding your branches with parliament smoke.
You were alive just standing
there girding our lives in your ribs
before being carted off
part by part by
trucks labeled “Paradise
Landscape and Tree Service”
and
“EAGER BEAVER TREE SERVICE”
motor revs mixed with sentiment.
Goodbye witness.
ChatGPT’s Analysis
The poem "hatefucking the oak stump" explores themes of decay, loss, and transformation through vivid imagery and raw emotion.
The title "hatefucking the oak stump" immediately sets a tone of aggression, bitterness, and a sense of violation directed towards the subject matter—the oak stump.
The first stanza describes the physical characteristics of the stump in a manner that conveys both the resilience and eventual decay of the tree. "Gnarled topography" suggests a rugged, twisted terrain, symbolizing the harsh realities the tree has endured. The image of the stump casting a shadow only six feet long "when the sun is lowest" evokes a sense of diminishment or fading power.
The description of the tree's rings and the transformation of its heartwood to hardened sapwood with vascular decay highlights the natural processes of aging and eventual death. The "scabby shedding" of leaves and decomposition into nutrients for other life forms underscores the cyclical nature of life and death in nature.
In stanza two, the speaker's tone becomes more accusatory towards the stump. The roots of the tree, once a source of strength and stability, are now described as "greedy" and "turning mealy," tangled in sewage pipes carrying waste—a stark contrast to their former role in nourishing the tree.
The "current rotten center" and "portal to a dead core" suggest a metaphorical collapse or loss of integrity within the tree, symbolizing perhaps a betrayal or disillusionment felt by the speaker towards something that was once revered or relied upon.
In stanza three, memories and emotions are intertwined with the physical presence of the oak tree. The tree stood as a witness to various events in the speaker's life—both mundane and profound. It becomes a silent observer to moments of joy ("backyard kisses") and pain ("dog in cardiac arrest"), reflecting the complex and layered experiences tied to its existence.
The description of the tree enduring family dynamics ("kitchen table flips," "little brother torture") and intimate moments ("blanket fort demolition," "dad needing a moment") suggests its deep-rooted presence in the speaker's life and the passage of time.
The poem concludes with a poignant farewell to the oak stump, acknowledging its role as a witness and marker of time. The image of the tree being dismantled by tree service trucks ("trucks labeled 'Paradise Landscape and Tree Service'" and "'EAGER BEAVER TREE SERVICE'") juxtaposes mechanical efficiency with the sentimental attachment and emotional weight of saying goodbye.
Overall, "Hatefucking the oak stump" is a deeply evocative poem that navigates themes of mortality, memory, and the passage of time through the metaphor of a decaying oak tree. The language is visceral and vivid, painting a picture of both physical decay and emotional complexity. It explores the dual nature of relationships—with nature, with family, and with the self—highlighting how things change over time and the inevitable process of loss and transformation.
My Response
This was a fun poem and question to think about. I don't think it's bad if ChatGPT can analyze your poem effectively, but I also don’t think the analysis is much more than “effective.” It’s not great or interesting.
Beyond simply analyzing themes and citing evidence, good criticism incorporates personal narratives, biographical context of the author, historical context, or cultural context to expand the potential meaning of the poem.
The better the critic, the more surprising and resonant those additions are. As far as I know, robots have no ability to do that, and this example certainly doesn’t show that.
Even if ChatGPT’s analysis of your poem is “good,” it doesn't rival the experience of reading the poem. That experience would necessarily differ for each reader and would probably transcend whatever ChatGPT said about the poem.
Personally, while I don’t disagree with anything ChatGPT wrote about “Hatefucking the oak stump,” it didn't really capture the feeling I had at the end of reading the poem. For example:
"The poem concludes with a poignant farewell to the oak stump, acknowledging its role as a witness and marker of time. The image of the tree being dismantled by tree service trucks ("trucks labeled 'Paradise Landscape and Tree Service'"
and:
"'EAGER BEAVER TREE SERVICE'") juxtaposes mechanical efficiency with the sentimental attachment and emotional weight of saying goodbye."
Both of these are true enough, but ChatGPT doesn’t acknowledge that this feeling of sadness is complicated by the fact that the tree doesn't actually witness anything. We, or the poet, projects its role as witness onto it.
I feel like we know this instinctively as humans. We know the moon doesn't literally witness everything that happens on Earth either, but we project the role onto it because it pleases us or otherwise feeds our imagination.
The robot, however, seems to think the tree really was a witness, as if the poem were literally true.
But the feeling of reading the poem as a person who knows that people make up metaphors all the time — to strive for meaning, to capture meaning, to fuck with meaning, or sometimes to avoid meaning — as well as knows that people also deploy metaphorical language unconsciously even when attempting to state objective truth — seems lost on ChatGPT.
Said another way, part of me acknowledges that the poem is true in one sense, and fundamentally made-up in another. It’s not that I will never know how much of the poem is literally true and how much is not literally true, it’s that the poem is both literally true and not at the same time. To me that makes it twice as sad, or gives its sadness more texture than a simplistic eye-witness account of loss and change that comes with being a tree in a person’s back yard under capitalism.
I don't think ChatGPT can really experience the poem the way a human does, so its criticism feels mechanical in the same way a smart grad student who nevertheless isn't a great writer or deep feeler or thinker might be able to accurately break down the rhetoric in a poem by a superior poet.
This low-effort criticism seems like the sort most prevalent on the internet, so it's not a shock that the robot can learn to mimic it.
A gifted critic is so much more oddly and unexpectedly insightful about poems than this, and that is why good criticism has always been and will probably always be hard to find, whether the author is human or machine.