transtalks

Is it a controversial opinion to say that Kindle Unlimited sucks? How about the assertion that RoyalRoad.com, the famed breeding ground of litRPG and progression fantasy, has turned into a digital slop bucket? It drowns readers in a tide of algorithmically-generated mediocrity.

If it is controversial, then controversy is desperately needed. This isn’t a casual gripe from a disgruntled reader nostalgic for a golden age that never was. This is a critical examination of a publishing ecosystem in crisis. The mechanisms designed to empower writers and delight readers are instead incentivizing a race to the bottom in quality. They also impact integrity and artistic effort negatively. We are witnessing the quiet decay of narrative craft. This decay is profitable and facilitated by platforms. These platforms reward volume over virtue and prefer keywords over soul.

You open RoyalRoad, that legendary site synonymous with the explosive rise of web serials. You are no longer greeted by the hopeful, if sometimes amateurish, passion projects of a decade ago. You are immediately inundated with cover images bearing the uncanny, frictionless sheen of AI generation. The telltale signs are everywhere. There are hands with seven fingers. Landscapes feel cosmically wrong. Armor has textures that melt into nothing. There is a pervasive sense of visual deja vu. This is not a minor aesthetic quibble. It is a profound statement of intent. These covers announce something crucial. Before a single word is read, it is evident. The creator’s first instinct was not to collaborate with an artist. The creator did not want to learn a skill. They did not even budget for an affordable pre-made cover. Instead, they outsourced the crucial first impression to a machine trained on the uncompensated labor of millions of human artists.

This choice is a symptom for a larger disease. It indicates a foundational unwillingness to make the effort. If one cannot be bothered to ethically source a cover—the very face of the book—it raises questions. How can the author have respect for the architecture of plot? What about the nuance of character? How does the author honor the rhythm of prose? The use of these tools is not innovation; it is the literary equivalent of painting over rust. It signals the prioritization of speed and marketability over craft. This is the first step in a process that ends with readers feeling cheated. They feel cheated not of their money, but of their time and emotional investment.

My recent experience with a specific title crystallizes this abstract disappointment into tangible frustration. The book in question: Napoleon’s Brother: Reborn to Change an Empire, by peachRoad. I first encountered it, as many do, on RoyalRoad. It has since been scrubbed from the platform. This is a common fate for stories that graduate to the Kindle Unlimited gulag. These stories are severed from the community feedback that once sustained them. Downloading it via KU, the initial impression was deceptively competent. The formatting was clean, the font standard, the chapter headings orderly. It presented the veneer of a professional product. This, I would learn, was the thinnest of veneers.

The descent begins subtly. Even ignoring persistent, grating punctuation issues, there are problems. One example is the placement of a period. It appears outside the closing quotation mark, as seen on page 20: ‘ “You… stay… here”. ’. This practice violates not just stylistic convention but basic grammatical clarity. We find issues that speak to a deeper carelessness. Such errors are, in isolation, perfectly ignorable, as any reader of web serials develops a callus to minor typos. But they are the cracks in the foundation.

The true structural failure announces itself on page 23, in the chapter “Aiding Napoleon.” The prose itself begins to fracture:

“Ten minutes later, a sharp
click sounded,”

At random, jarring intervals, sentences are bisected by arbitrary paragraph breaks. Why? There is no rhetorical reason, no dramatic pause intended. It is the textual equivalent of a record scratch. This isn’t a stylistic choice. It is the artifact of sloppy drafting. Text is shuttled between writing apps, formatting software, and publishing portals. There is no final human eye to check for coherence. The story itself begins to oscillate wildly in quality. It varies from chapter to chapter as if written by different people. Alternatively, it seems like the same person wrote it in vastly different states of focus. Subplots are introduced and abandoned. Character motivations shift with the wind. The ending reveals the most cynical logic of all. It does not come at a point of thematic or plot resolution. Instead, the narrative stops at an arbitrary word count. This is clearly designed to split the story into a second, monetizable volume.

This is not a story conceived as a novel. It is content chunked for consumption. This is the core issue with both Kindle Unlimited and RoyalRoad. They have perfected an economy that rewards this exact behavior.

The Kindle Unlimited Economy: A Paradise for Pumpers

To understand why a book like Napoleon’s Brother exists in its current state, one must first comprehend the financial engine of Kindle Unlimited. KU operates on a pooled royalty system. Each month, Amazon allocates a multi-million dollar fund. This fund is divided by the total number of pages read across the entire KU ecosystem worldwide. The result is a fluctuating “per-page rate,” typically hovering between $0.004 and $0.005. An author receives payment for each page that a KU subscriber reads. This is measured by Amazon’s proprietary “KENPC” (Kindle Edition Normalized Page Count).

This model has profound, and largely negative, consequences for narrative art:

1. The Incentive for Length Over Tightness: A tightly-plotted, 300-page novel faces a severe economic disadvantage. It competes against a meandering, 1,000-page tome. The system does not reward the satisfying arc, the elegant conclusion, the perfectly paced thriller. It rewards the ability to keep a reader mechanically turning pages, often through repetition, filler, and protracted, meaningless progression systems. Cliffhangers are no longer dramatic devices; they are financial traps. The “arbitrary split” I witnessed is the direct result of this. Why conclude Book 1 on a satisfying note? You can cut it off at 300 pages. This allows you to promise resolution in Book 2 and double your potential page reads.
2. The Proliferation of Series (and the Death of the Standalone): KU favors endless series. A reader who invests in a world and characters is likely to stay engaged. They keep reading across multiple volumes, generating a continuous stream of page reads. This has led to a landscape where every story must be a potential “universe.” It becomes bloated with spin-offs and prequels. Often, this is at the expense of the original narrative’s integrity. The standalone novel, a masterpiece of contained artistic expression, is an endangered species in this environment.
3. The Formulaic Factory: Algorithms recommend what keeps readers in the KU ecosystem. This creates a powerful feedback loop. A successful trope—be it “System Apocalypse,” “Academy Progression,” or “Cultivation Romance”—is identified, stripped to its bones, and replicated ad nauseam. Writers are incentivized to follow market trends obsessively. They use keyword-stuffed titles and AI covers to tap into proven audiences. This approach is preferred over developing a unique voice or story. RoyalRoad’s trending lists often serve as the R&D lab for these KU formulas, creating a pipeline of homogenized content.
4. The Devaluation of the “Read”: When income is derived from a fraction of a cent per page, volume is everything. This pressures authors to publish at a breakneck pace. The traditional publishing cycle of draft, revise, edit, polish, and proofread is a luxury few KU-focused authors can afford. The result is the publication of first drafts, rife with the kind of errors and inconsistencies seen in Napoleon’s Brother. The audience becomes the unpaid proofreader, and quality is sacrificed on the altar of upload velocity.

RoyalRoad: From Incubator to Assembly Line

RoyalRoad’s original promise was revolutionary. It offered a direct line between writers and readers, free from gatekeepers. Stories could grow organically through serial publication and real-time feedback. For a time, it fulfilled this promise spectacularly, birthing genuine classics and beloved authors. But its very success has corrupted its ecosystem.

The site’s ranking algorithms—driven by follows, favorites, and chapter reviews—create a frenzied, week-to-week pressure cooker. To stay visible on the “Rising Stars” list, an author must update frequently. Often, this means multiple times per week. The author must end each chapter with a “hook” strong enough to guarantee user engagement (ratings, comments). This serialized treadmill is antithetical to careful plotting and revision. It encourages:

• Pacing Inflation: Every chapter must feel like it “moves the needle.” This leads to constant, often unearned, power-ups for protagonists. It also causes a fatigue-inducing lack of quiet, character-building moments.
• Feedback-Driven Drift: Vocal commenters can inadvertently steer a story. This can lead to plot detours, romantic subplots, or power additions. These changes often serve a noisy minority rather than the author’s original vision.
• The “Rush to KU”: For many, RoyalRoad is no longer a destination but a proving ground. The goal is to build a following large enough to guarantee a profitable launch on Kindle Unlimited. Once that threshold is met, the story is often “stubbed.” Its earlier chapters are removed from RoyalRoad to drive KU sign-ups. This act severs it from the community that built it. The story is then finished not for that community. Instead, it is completed for the KU page-read machine. This often explains the marked decline in quality post-transition.

Furthermore, the culture of RoyalRoad has normalized a baseline of acceptable error. Readers are conditioned by the breakneck pace of updates. They forgive grammatical hiccups, plot holes, and thin characterizations as the price of admission. This lowered standard has spread into the wider self-publishing sphere. It creates a readership that is less demanding. As a result, the market is less discerning.

The AI Elephant in the Room: Beyond the Cover

The AI-generated cover is merely the most visible symptom. The fear, rapidly becoming a reality, is the integration of large language models into the writing process itself. If an author views writing as a content-generation task rather than an artistic endeavor, tools like ChatGPT become irresistible. They can produce “competent” prose, brainstorm endless trope-based plot outlines, and ensure a steady stream of chapters without writer’s block.

But what is lost is everything that makes writing human. This includes the idiosyncratic voice and the subconscious connection that births a perfect metaphor. It also encompasses the emotional truth mined from personal experience. Additionally, it involves the moral complexity that arises from an author grappling with difficult ideas. AI can mimic structure, but it cannot inject soul. It can assemble sentences, but it cannot cultivate style. A story written by or heavily reliant on LLMs is a literary zombie. It has the shape of a novel but none of the life.

The use of AI in writing, like its use in cover art, is a profound act of artistic dishonesty. It is the automation of expression. When readers pick up a book, they are entering into a contract with a human consciousness. They are agreeing to see the world through another’s eyes. To secretly outsource that perspective to a stochastic parrot trained on stolen data is a fundamental betrayal of that contract.

The Case Study Deep Dive: “Napoleon’s Brother” and the Pattern of Decline

Let’s return to our exemplar, Napoleon’s Brother: Reborn to Change an Empire. A closer analysis reveals it as a perfect archetype of the system’s failures.

1. The High-Concept, Low-Effort Pitch: Isekai/reincarnation into a historical figure’s sibling is a known, searchable sub-genre. It promises immediate historical stakes and wish-fulfillment power fantasy. The concept does the heavy lifting, requiring minimal original world-building from the author.

2. The Disappearing Act from RoyalRoad: Its deletion from RoyalRoad is standard procedure for “KU migration.” This practice harms the web serial community. It treats early readers as beta testers rather than patrons. Additionally, it eliminates a free-access version. This version could have served as a loss leader for an ethically sold, polished final product.

3. The Veneer of Professionalism: The clean initial formatting is a low-bar technical skill, easily achieved with modern software. It creates the false confidence that lures the reader in, making the subsequent decline more jarring and disrespectful.

4. The Structural Collapse: The random paragraph breaks and wildly fluctuating chapter quality point to a fractured composition process. It suggests a first draft compiled from disparate writing sessions or multiple authors/assistants, with no comprehensive revision pass. The writing is not being sculpted; it is being accumulated.

5. The Mercenary Ending: The non-resolution is the most damning evidence. It is a calculation, not a conclusion. The author’s primary focus is revealed. It is not on delivering a satisfying narrative experience. Instead, it is on engineering a conversion to the next “product” in the series. The story is a hostage, and its completion is the ransom.

This pattern is not unique; it is endemic. It results directly from an environment with a particular message. That message is: “Your value is not in the story you tell. It is in the number of pages you can make someone flip through.”

The Human Cost: Readers, Writers, and the Erosion of Trust

The damage inflicted by this system is multifaceted.

For Readers: It breeds cynicism and “reader’s fatigue.” Wading through mountains of slop to find a gem makes the act of reading feel like work. The trust between reader and author erodes. Pre-orders become gambles. Positive reviews are viewed with suspicion. The joy of discovery is replaced by the chore of filtering.

For Serious Writers: They are forced to compete in a marketplace flooded with cheap, voluminous content. They must either compromise their pace and standards to play the algorithmic game. Otherwise, they watch their meticulously crafted work languish in obscurity. It gets drowned out by the noise. The very definition of “success” is distorted from “creating great work” to “mastering release schedules and keyword algorithms.”

For the Art Form: Literature is diminished. It risks being redefined as a content stream, a time-filling commodity. The space for challenging, unconventional, slow-burning, or structurally innovative fiction is shrinking. Algorithms promote only what immediately hooks and relentlessly holds.

Is There a Way Out? Reclaiming the Narrative

This is not a call for a return to exclusive traditional publishing gatekeepers. The democratization of publishing is a net good. This is a call for a recalibration of values, both from platforms and from within the reading and writing communities.

For Platforms (Amazon, RoyalRoad):

• Introduce Quality Tiers: Could KU create a “Select” tier for works? These works would pass a higher bar of editorial and production quality. They would also have a higher per-page rate.
• Algorithmic Transparency & Adjustments: Could algorithms be adjusted to reward completion rates? Could they also focus on reader satisfaction scores instead of just opens and page counts?
• Ethical Sourcing Badges: Could platforms enable authors to voluntarily badge works with “Human-Created Cover Art”? Could they also use “AI-Free Text”? This could create a market for ethically produced work.
• RoyalRoad’s Role: Could RoyalRoad incentivize completed, polished stories on its platform, rather than functioning purely as a KU feeder system? Could it create better pathways for sustainable income through serialization on-site?

For Writers:

• Resist the Factory Mentality: Define success on your own terms. Is it a sustainable income from work you’re proud of? Or is it a frantic race to the top of a trending list?
• Invest in Craft: Hire an editor. Commission a cover artist. View these not as expenses, but as investments in your art and in respecting your audience.
• Build Community, Not Just Audience: Engage with readers as collaborators in a shared love of story. Do not view them as mere sources of page-read revenue.
• Be Transparent: If you use AI tools in any part of your process, disclose it. Let the market decide if it accepts that.

For Readers:

• Cultivate Discernment: Be ruthless with your reviews and ratings. Do not five-star a book that was merely “good enough for KU.” Reserve high praise for work that truly excels.
• Seek Out Curation: Follow bloggers, reviewers, and curators who share your standards. Move beyond algorithm-driven discovery.
• Support Alternative Models: Patreon and direct sales from author websites house authors operating outside the KU pressure cooker. Small presses also often support these authors. Vote with your wallet.
• Demand Better: In reviews and feedback, critique not just plot but prose, not just ideas but execution. Raise the expected standard.

Conclusion: The Controversy of Caring

So, is it controversial to say Kindle Unlimited sucks? To call out RoyalRoad’s decline? Perhaps. We live in an age of abundant, cheap content. Criticism of the mechanisms delivering that content can be framed as elitism. It is also seen as ingratitude for the plenty.

But this is not about elitism. It is about integrity. It is about the belief that stories matter. They are not merely consumable units of “content.” Stories are the vessels through which we share human experience. We use them to explore complex ideas. We experience the profound joy of getting lost in a world built by another mind.

The current trajectory of Kindle Unlimited and much of RoyalRoad is toward the standardization and depletion of that experience. It creates a world where the appearance of a story (the blurb, the tropes, the cover) is optimized for click-through. Meanwhile, the substance of the story (the prose, the character, the heart) is treated as an afterthought. It’s considered an expendable variable in the profit equation.

To criticize this system is to affirm that writing is an art, not just an industry. It is to say that the reader’s time and intelligence are valuable. It is to refuse to accept the shiny, algorithmically-delivered slop as our new normal. The controversy, then, lies not in the criticism. It lies in the quiet, desperate hope that we can still expect—and create—something more. The real controversy is caring at all, in an age engineered for passive, endless consumption. Let us be controversial.