@Switch BlaydeLaz could easily do this using OpenAI's API. Give it a rating system, and ask it to evaluate the writing. As an example, I pasted chapter 1 from a story that is currently on the homepage into ChatGPT and asked it to rate the story on readability, pacing, grammar, style and plot. This is the output.
------------
All right β let's break this one down on the requested scales: readability, pacing, grammar/style, and plot quality, using the 1β10 system where 1 is unreadable / amateur, 10 is great literature.
βΈ»
1. Readability β 7/10
β’ Strengths: The prose is clear, direct, and mostly easy to follow. The writer keeps consistent point of view shifts and dialogue tags that make scenes understandable. The technical writing is fluent enough that a reader can move through hundreds of paragraphs without stumbling.
β’ Weaknesses: The text is extremely long for its content density. Sentence rhythm and paragraphing don't modulate well; too much exposition and repetition dilute the flow. The prose often tells rather than shows, relying heavily on clichΓ© erotic shorthand ("slutty heels," "huge cock," "tight pussy," "babe," etc.).
β’ Verdict: Competent mechanical readability, but stylistically flat and exhausting due to length and redundancy.
βΈ»
2. Pacing β 4/10
β’ Strengths: The broad structure (domestic scene β sales pitch β conference β drug incident β sex β morning after) has an internal logic.
β’ Weaknesses: The story takes far too long to reach its dramatic core. Nearly half the word count is setup and exposition that could have been done in one-tenth the space. Scenes repeat information (e.g., Dani's attractiveness, Brad's vanity, the "old doctors" reminiscences). The erotic climax is overextended to the point of losing tension.
β’ Verdict: A sluggish first half and an overlong final act. The pacing undermines what might otherwise be pulpy fun.
βΈ»
3. Grammar and Style β 6/10
β’ Strengths: Grammar is mostly correct; there are few outright errors. The syntax is clean enough for publication-grade editing.
β’ Weaknesses: Stylistically, it's very pedestrian. The prose depends on repetitive phrasing ("fucking," "slut," "big cock") and overused modifiers. Tone often wobbles between crude porn narration and an attempt at mainstream fiction. The style could benefit from variety β shorter sentences for punch, longer for sensuality, and sharper word choice to replace the endless repetition of physical descriptors.
β’ Verdict: Technically sound, stylistically unsophisticated.
βΈ»
4. Plot Quality β 5/10
β’ Strengths: There is a discernible plot with stakes: a saleswoman wants to impress a powerful doctor, misuses a new drug, and chaos ensues. The idea of a pharmaceutical morality tale mixed with erotic transformation is intriguing.
β’ Weaknesses: The story never develops its characters beyond caricature. Dani's motivations (career ambition vs. sexual frustration) are painted in broad porn archetypes; Brad is a stock "himbo fiancΓ©"; Jack's transformation feels unearned. The climax depends on a drug-induced sexual assault that's treated as titillation, not as horror or consequence. That choice might work in a gonzo or dark satire if written with psychological insight, but here it feels unexamined. The morning-after ending hints at guilt and consequences but cuts off just when it could have delivered meaning.
β’ Verdict: The skeleton of a plot exists, but the execution lacks depth, coherence, and moral or emotional texture.
βΈ»
Overall Assessment
Category Score (1β10) Comment
Readability 7 Clear enough but overwrought
Pacing 4 Bloated setup, drawn-out climax
Grammar/Style 6 Mechanically fine, stylistically coarse
Plot Quality 5 Serviceable pulp; no emotional resonance
Composite score: ~5.5 / 10
βΈ»
Editorial Summary
This reads like a competently typed draft of a porn screenplay rather than a finished short story. It's not unreadable β the grammar holds β but it's overlong, repetitive, and tonally inconsistent. The erotic content is explicit yet oddly joyless, because the psychology of desire and consequence is never explored. With serious trimming (by at least two-thirds), character depth, and thematic framing around ambition, ethics, and desire, it could evolve from porn to "filthy literature."
As it stands: technically competent pulp, not literary erotica.