S.R.Crockett and Chinese Whispers

Or: It’s happened: ‘Chat GPT’ finally did my homework to an acceptable standard.

The thing that’s been bugging me not just for the last year but for the last 30 has now, I’m pleased to say, been finally explained by Chat GPT in around 500 words. I think they are worth your time to read them. They serve very much as a mission statement for the Galloway Raiders  and a rationale for my endeavours with regard to Crockett’s legacy. As they say today… ‘let’s dive in’.    
​

“Chinese Whispers”* in Literary History: S.R. Crockett, Scottish Literature, and the Perils of AI
In the world of storytelling, the game of Chinese whispers serves as a perfect metaphor for how narratives can morph over time. A whispered phrase, passed from person to person, inevitably emerges garbled and transformed. This phenomenon is not limited to playground games—it echoes through history, culture, and even literary scholarship.

The Case of S.R. Crockett: Mislabelling Through Time.
One striking example is the treatment of Scottish author Samuel Rutherford Crockett. A popular novelist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Crockett produced works deeply rooted in the rugged landscapes and historical struggles of Scotland. Yet, literary history has often reduced him to a single, dismissive label: "Kailyard."
The Kailyard School,' a label applied to authors such as J.M. Barrie and Ian Maclaren, is associated with sentimental and parochial depictions of Scottish rural life. While Crockett’s works explore rural settings, his narratives are far more complex, often brimming with adventure, historical drama, and a critical eye on social issues. So how did this reductionist label stick?
The answer lies in a chain of scholarly interpretation akin to Chinese whispers. We should be aware that those applying the label (mostly middle class English critics) had their own agenda by creating the label and perpetuating its use. Initially these critics invented the categorisation and linked Crockett’s work to their invention – the Kailyard movement. Subsequent critics, citing earlier sources without deeper investigation, perpetuated the label. Over decades, repetition solidified the misclassification, distorting Crockett’s legacy in the literary canon.

AI and the Amplification of Misconceptions.
Today, the game of Chinese whispers plays out on a much larger scale in the digital age. Artificial Intelligence (AI), trained on vast swathes of historical and literary data, inherits both insights and inaccuracies. If the mislabelling of Crockett exists in enough sources, AI models could reinforce the error, spreading it across new platforms.
This feedback loop is troubling. Algorithms designed to summarise, recommend, or even author literary analysis could unwittingly perpetuate long-debunked myths. The speed and scale of digital dissemination mean that small historical misconceptions can quickly snowball into widely accepted "truths."

Mitigating the Whisper Effect.
How can we prevent literary history from being distorted by the AI-powered echo chamber? Several strategies could help:

1. Critical Data Curation: Literary archives and academic databases should be maintained with rigorous oversight, emphasising corrected interpretations and contextual nuances.
2. AI Transparency: Developers of AI systems must disclose how training data is sourced and corrected over time, allowing users to critically evaluate the information they receive.
3. Digital Literacy: Scholars, educators, and the public should be encouraged to approach AI-generated content with scepticism and to verify claims through primary sources.
4. Human-AI Collaboration: Literary scholars should work alongside AI developers to correct historical inaccuracies, creating models that reflect evolving scholarly consensus.

In literary history, as in the playground game, meaning is at risk of distortion when passed along without scrutiny. S.R. Crockett’s legacy is a cautionary tale—a reminder that preserving cultural truth requires constant vigilance, especially in an age where AI can amplify every whisper, whether true or false.


* I am fully aware that ‘Chinese Whispers’ may be considered culturally inappropriate these days, but ‘Telephone Game’ doesn’t really convey the metaphor I want. So here’s Copilot AI giving me (and you) a lesson in cultural appropriateness:
The term "Chinese Whispers" is considered culturally inappropriate because it perpetuates stereotypes and can be seen as disrespectful to Chinese culture. Here are a few reasons why (according to Copilot AI)
1. **Stereotyping**: The phrase implies that Chinese communication is inherently confusing or unreliable, which is a stereotype that can be offensive.
2. **Historical Context**: The term originated in a time when Western societies often viewed Eastern cultures as mysterious or inscrutable, reinforcing negative perceptions.
3. **Cultural Sensitivity**: Using the term can be seen as insensitive to the cultural and linguistic diversity of Chinese people.
A more neutral and widely accepted term for the game is "Telephone Game," which avoids these negative connotations. It's always good to be mindful of the language we use and its potential impact on others.

I concur fully but in my defence I’ll simply state that I in no way see Chinese communication as inherently confusing or unreliable, and I appreciate the possible negative perceptions of its historical context – my usage is intentional and does not represent any negative personal views regarding China/Chinese and their communications systems. But for me ‘Chinese’ whispers suggests people doing actual whispering rather than mechanical ‘telephones’. I own my metaphor (to use another conceptual metaphor!) and intend no cultural slurs in its usage. I don't use the phrase in the way one DT used it in connection with 'virus' back in 2020. 

As a positive nod to the ancient Chinese philosophical tradition I'll  enlighten? you with a quote  from my favourite (non Crockett) book, the Zhuangzi [and note this is obviously a translation!] 

'Words are not just wind, Words have something to say'. 

In today's blogpost, Chat GPT said what I've been trying to say for a long time, a lot quicker and with minimal intervention from me.  Which gives me some hope that this tool (remember, it IS a tool) is finally going to be of some use to me. Part of what it took was me offering a decent and thorough ‘prompt’, something we will all need to learn in future. But let's remember that working hand in hand with AI is always going to be key to any meaningful outcomes. 

My first interactions with AI with regard to SRC were less than positive – and even today asking any of the myriad of chatbots to give me a biography of SRC is an anxiety inducing event. This is because most of the 'reputable' source material on Crockett is plagued by inaccuracy. It's what I've dedicated the last decade of my life to mitigating, and so you can imagine how irritating it is every time some chatbot tells me ridiculously inaccurate things.  I don't encourage you to try for yourself typing in: Give me a biography of S.R.Crockett (at least not if you expect anything accurate) even worse if you ask for a summary of any of his works!  If you do, you'll see what I'm up against. 

If nothing else, I hope the above post answers the question (you might have): why am I so obsessed with Crockett and his legacy... and why perhaps you should also be. It's much more important than simply  reading some fiction. Today (perhaps for a brief moment() even AI can see that!