THE STORY VAULT BLOG

HOW AI HAD MADE ME A BETTER WRITER

Many times I've read over my work only to finish a scene and be left with a nagging feeling in my gut (or where ever feelings are stored). It just feels to me like something is off - but I can't quite determine what's wrong. Instead of getting bogged down I continue reading, making minor alterations as I go. And by the time I've finished the read I've forgotten all about the scene that had caused me discomfort.

For a time.

Then, in the middle of the night, it comes back to haunt me.

Morning comes and I ask an AI to run an analysis. Immediately, it flags the scene in question.

I've had this experience many times. What it has taught me is to listen to my instincts - to trust my gut.

During a recent review of Moorland I came across a pair of scenes that were causing me discomfort. Actual physical discomfort, not just intellectual of emotional discomfort. AI hadn't flagged these scenes, but "the disturbance in the force" was evident. I soon realized that what I had done was write along the lines of "this happens...then this happens," rather than like the Coen Brothers, "this happens...and it results in this happening." The two scenes didn't flow into one another and they didn't flow into the rest of the story. They were not "inevitable." I had included them to solve an earlier problem, but I hadn't "integrated" them in a way that the story line remained fluid. (You have no idea how much this bothered me.)

So I revised them. And I sought an evaluation...a comparison...of the two scenes from ChatGTP:

This is a strong rewrite—cleaner, sharper, and much more in line with how a Black List reader would respond. I’ll break this down the way an experienced reader or development exec would: what improved and what you fixed implicitly.

WHAT THE REVISION CLEARLY IMPROVES

1. Cosmo’s Authority Is Now Inevitable, Not Performative

In the original, Cosmo occasionally tipped into overt villain monologuing (“ODE,” “Holy Trinity,” “embodiment of modern consumerism”).

In the rewrite:

His power is conveyed through calm certainty
Threats are impersonal and managerial
He sounds like a CEO, not a cult pamphlet

“I’m rather inventive when I’m disappointed.”
“You can be a prisoner…or an investment.”

These are excellent. They feel modern, chilling, and character-specific.

Net effect: Cosmo feels smarter, scarier, and more believable.

2. You Removed On-the-Nose Thematic Labeling

Cutting:

“It’s the embodiment of modern consumerism.” was 100% the right call. The warehouse imagery already does the work.

Black List readers strongly prefer implication over annotation, and this change shows confidence.

This alone raises Execution and Tone Discipline scores.

3. Megan Gains Agency Without Losing Vulnerability

The addition of:

MEGAN
“That’s okay. I have some unfinished business of my own.”

is a quiet but important improvement.

She’s still trapped
Still outmatched
But no longer just reactive

This mirrors what you did later with Eva in The Belmont: choice under coercion. This subtly reinforces your thematic spine across projects.

4. Baylor Is Cleaner and Funnier

You trimmed Baylor’s dialogue without losing:

Subservience
Absurdity
Menace

“Thank you, master.” Still lands, but now it doesn’t linger.

TONE & SCOPE VS. BLACK LIST EXPECTATIONS

This rewrite moves the scene closer to Black List territory, specifically:

Less genre exposition
More character-driven menace
Shorter, sharper dialogue blocks
Fewer “signposts” telling us what to think

It now feels closer to:

The Menu
Sorry to Bother You
Prestige genre satire rather than cult parody

That’s a good move.

OVERALL VERDICT

This rewrite is unequivocally stronger.

If this were a Black List reader note, it would read something like:

“The revision smartly strips away overt thematic commentary and allows character behavior and imagery to carry meaning. Cosmo’s menace is understated and effective, and the scene now feels more confident, modern, and tonally assured.”

Net effect on scores (if we were tracking them):

Execution: ⬆️
Tone Control: ⬆️
Dialogue: ⬆️
Market Readiness: ⬆️

You didn’t make it louder. You made it inevitable.

I then asked: What is the impact on cohesiveness and scene flow when comparing (and here I uploaded from the prior version the two scenes in question plus the previous and the following scene - along with the two revised scenes and the previous and following scene).

ChatGTP replied:

This is a very good question, because what you’ve changed here isn’t just “better writing” in isolation — it directly affects cohesiveness, tonal continuity, and narrative propulsion across three parallel threads:

Leticia’s public downfall
Megan’s private captivity
Cosmo’s ideological machinery

BIG PICTURE VERDICT

The revision significantly improves scene flow and cohesion. Specifically, it:

Smooths tonal transitions between comedy, menace, and satire
Creates a clearer cause-and-effect rhythm across locations
Strengthens thematic mirroring between Leticia and Megan
Reduces whiplash without dulling energy

This is a net gain in readability and momentum.

FINAL ASSESSMENT

Impact on cohesiveness: ⬆️⬆️⬆️
Impact on scene flow: ⬆️⬆️
Impact on tonal confidence: ⬆️⬆️⬆️
Impact on reader trust: ⬆️⬆️⬆️

This revision doesn’t just polish scenes — it aligns them into a single narrative engine.

Impact on reader trust...that leads me full circle to the beginning of this post. A writer needs to learn to trust his instincts in order to win the trust of his readers. A lesson from the twilight zone known as AI.