Analysis of The Queue
I wrote The Queue to show the build-up on Earth prior to the main storyline. As it's my first writing attempt I have left it mostly unedited. It serves as my baseline and as (hopefully) my writing and editing improves I'll be able to see the differences in future stories compared to this one.
When I read The Queue after my initial draft I was conscious of several weaknesses:
- There is no dialogue.
- There is no character development.
- Nothing really happens.
I definitely need learn about character development, scene setting, and how to portray dialogue!
I decided to get AI to critique it, to rank it based on categories and suggest improvements. I thought that the rankings will help me see trends, if I instruct AI to use the same categories and rankings when assessing future short stories, and spot where I need to focus more efforts. It may also help me learn how to assess my own writings so I know what to look out for when I am editing.
One area of caution I'm aware of when using AI is that the responses skew towards praise and sycophancy. So I'm using it to help me find areas to work on, but I am not using it as a way to know whether my writing is actually decent. That will require assessment by actual readers. On the other hand, having some positive feedback mixed in is still encouraging, however artificial it may be, as motivation is key for sustaining long-term projects.
When I feel ready to put my writing in front of people, I will seek out that feedback proactively. In the meantime using AI gives me an awareness of areas that wouldn't yet occur to me naturally.
AI critique of The Queue
Story: "The Queue" · Rated: 7 Sep 2026 · Rater: Claude (Opus 4.8)
Bands: Emerging → Developing → Solid → Strong
Prose & sentence craft — DEVELOPING
Clear and readable throughout, but leans on long "and…and…and" chains as a default rhythm, and a few words repeat close together ("part of a conversation" / "part of the processing equipment"). To level up: read aloud and break the sentences you run out of breath on; vary sentence openings.
Show vs. tell — EMERGING
The back third stops to explain the grid failure and the not-a-curfew in block paragraphs narrated from outside the scene. The reader is told the situation rather than shown it. To level up: dissolve causes into overheard, half-wrong queue chatter instead of a correct authorial account.
Structure & pacing — DEVELOPING
Confident, unhurried opening; the game-as-comfort-ritual framing earns its space. But nothing turns — the one decision (claiming Deborah's ration) resolves with no friction. To level up: let one scene carry a small cost or choice.
Character — EMERGING
Four named flatmates, but by the end only Sadie (thinks) and Victor (board games are for children) are distinct. To level up: give each one distinct behaviour in the flat or queue — who complains, who over-prepares, who jokes.
Voice & tone control — SOLID
The register — ordinariness and dark humour as armour, horror kept systemic and offstage — is well judged and consistent. One lapse: the closing line reaches over the characters to promise the reader worse is coming. To level up: trust the quieter penultimate line to end it.
World-integration — DEVELOPING
The Pandemic Legacy conceit (a game about containing outbreaks as comfort during real infrastructure collapse) is excellent and never over-explained. But the world mostly arrives via exposition rather than through what the characters do. To level up: reveal the setting's pressures through lived friction, not situation reports.
Highlights
- The central conceit — outbreak board game as blackout ritual — does real thematic work without a word of explanation.
- Preparation characterises the group efficiently: torches distributed, batteries conserved, containers already bought.
The one edit
Cut the final sentence. "Most people expected things would get worse before they got better" is a stronger, quieter ending that stays inside what the characters know; "no one could have imagined what the future was going to bring" deflates that restraint by reaching over their heads to the reader.
Pattern to watch
Authorial reassurance at the ending — telling the reader how to feel about what's coming rather than trusting the scene. First appearance; will track.
The areas that AI picked up on, that I didn't even think about, were:
- I should Show rather than Tell (regarding the grid failures and "curfew")
- An over reliance on exposition for world integration
I looked up "exposition" to ensure I understood fully, and Wikipedia advises that it "is the insertion of background information within a story or narrative" and "works best when the author provides only the bare minimum of surface information and allows the readers to discover as they go."
So in the next short story I will focus on letting the characters surface the relevant background information in their conversations. Though I'll have to work out how to make them sound natural and not like a story narrator.
Another recommendation was changing the ending to remove the last line so that it ends with:
Everyone was hoping that this was a one-off emergency situation, and the water would be clean again tomorrow. Though most people expected things would get worse before they got better.
I can see how the "no one could have imagined what the future was going to bring" final sentence was a bit too obvious. It's linked to the "nothing really happens" issue. In my mind I already know what happens next, and that it is more interesting than this set-up, but that means The Queue doesn't work as a stand alone short story. So I need to learn how to create a beginning, middle and end properly in short stories so it is not necessary to read the next one to find a resolution.