Regarding the affirmative action, two questions (about 80% serious): should it still follow the usual subjects in ACX to get enough interest (rule of thumb, of course)? Will intersectionality be rewarded? (e.g., would a review of a medieval epic poem be even more likely to make the list?)
My plan is to select the top-voted minority reviews as finalists, so there won't be any extra human judgment on my part besides deciding which ones count as minorities or not.
Somebody NOT ME write a review of "Paradise Lost", I think it's a good poem but not as great as made out, but I have Prejudices (e.g. great language, crap theology). Bonus points if you go on to include "Paradise Regained", the Difficult Second Album.
Are there any books that we should avoid reviewing because they have been frequently reviewed in the past? Also, I was thinking about reviewing a trilogy - can you do a three in one review like that? (If not no problem, just checking!)
There's a website with a list of everything that's been reviewed so far (including a tag for ones that have been reviewed more than once): https://codexcc.neocities.org/
Honestly, it should not come as a surprise that "Atlas Shrugged" would top the list on a libertarian's blog (even if Scott has previously gone on record as not vibing with it, it's still *the* right-libertarian book).
During my studies at university, I had to prepare a book review, which became a key assignment for the successful completion of the course. With my workload increasing and my schedule getting cluttered, I turned to the academic writing service here https://essaypro.com/academic-writing-service . Their professional writers helped me create a review that not only met the requirements of the assignment, but was also filled with in-depth analyzes and convincing arguments. Thanks to their support, I was able to successfully complete the assignment and get a high grade for my paper.
I assume he doesn't mean any old imaginary book but one that "already exists," in the same vein as a Lovecraft story about slowly going mad reading the Necronomicon etc. (House of Leaves is a modern take on the same idea).
I do in fact mean any old imaginary book. I recently hit upon the idea of doing recaps for my unwritten stories, on the grounds that commentary on a synopsis is TONS easier than turning it into anything that'll stand on its own.
You could do all the unwritten cases of Sherlock Holmes. Watson names a lot of cases in the stories that were never written up (in canon) and these are fruitful grounds to this day for pastiche writers.
What do *you* think happened in the British barrow? Or the Amateur Mendicants?
Wait, was that the specific conceit in House of Leaves? It's been a decade or more since I read it, but I thought it was basically a descent into mental illness brought on by the house - but it sounds like you're saying it was the *chronicling* of the events in the house that drove him to madness?
I read it as a college freshman in 2000, so my memory is fuzzy, but I think it has two layers of unreliable narrator in it: the drug addict narrator, cleaning out his dead neighbor's house, finds an academic manuscript describing the (nonexistent)House of Leaves documentary film.
Ha! Ok, thanks for the clarification. Definitely shades of "Infinite Jest" there, with drug addiction, unreliable narrators, infohazard movies, and slowly complexifying / weirdening narratives.
I remember seeing the parallels when I read it, but sounds even stronger with you clarifying, and probably merits a reread.
I had considered reviewing one of the works of non-fiction that’s referenced in multiple excerpts in Thomas Anderson’s Look To The West series, but none seemed substantial enough for a full book review.
it’d be interesting to see if a fictional non-fiction book from before fictional 1900 counts for the affirmative action requirements though
Sure, feel free to write a review of an imaginary book. I think grabbing people's interest with this will be much harder than with a real book, but you can try if you want.
Stanisław Lem wrote a ton of reviews and introductions for nonexistent books. One of these books reviews itself, and another eventually got defictionalized and written for real. It's all delightfully mindbending.
I hope there are more poems/fiction/ancient works, the few I read last year stood out and I was glad they were written.
It would be great if there were a way to have comments for non-finalists. Last year some people posted theirs on the message boards afterwards, and that was fun. It's nice to even get a couple of comments from strangers.
I am not going to be writing a review on "The Battle for Spain" by Antony Beevor and "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell. A few years ago I asked for a recommendation here for books about the Spanish Civil War. I intended to write something, either a comment or review or blogpost or something that drew lessons from this conflict to the conflict on similar sectarian lines in my own country (USA) in our own time.
I no longer think there are any lessons to draw. At least more so than any other modern conflict. "Homage to Catalonia" turns out not to be that grounded in the factually supportable history of the time, place, and event. It is an excellent work of journalism but a poor work of history. There were at least 5 sides to the conflict; Orwell was familiar with just one of these and the least powerful one at that. That being said, even if the book were actively deceitful it would still come with my full endorsement and recommendation because of how vivid and wonderful it is as a work of memoir. Orwell doesn't really have the access necessary to write The Truth, but his truth still vividly and beautifully speaks to the human condition and is worth reading for that alone.
Beevor's third draft of history makes clear the difference between 1920s Spain and 2020s USA: Spain on the eve of its civil war was among the least developed and industrialized countries in Europe. Its monarchy lacked legitimacy and its state apparatus lacked capacity. When the Spanish Civil War was fought, it quickly attracted much more capable proxy belligerents in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
Anyway. It's an interesting piece of history, an underlooked part of a very busy century, but not a part with more than superficial parallels to my own.
"There were at least 5 sides to the conflict; Orwell was familiar with just one of these and the least powerful one at that."
I thought he did a good job covering the liberal, communist and anarchist factions on the Republican side + which of them had backing from Britain, France and the USSR. The Nationalist side does come across as an undifferentiated blob though I'll admit.
There's an extra chapter where he gives an overview of the political context of the war that I don't think gets included in all editions of the book, and I think Orwell himself wanted omitted because it distracted from his personal account.
Hm, can I submit the form now with a link to the Google Doc, and then edit the Google Doc later (but prior to the deadline) if I decide I want to do more editing? :) I assume yes, but...
I'm surprised to see "before 1900" listed as nontraditional, since Progress and Poverty won in 2021, and Njal's Saga would have won last year if not for self-disqualification. It seems that, though a minority of the entries, those ones are performing pretty well.
Also, what's the process for selecting the finalists? I don't think there was a public vote last year, unless it was mentioned in an open thread post. I assumed it was just Scott being the sole judge, but there was reference at some point to other people judging/voting, so if it was public how many people were voting? I feel like "finalists chosen by Scott", "finalists chosen by a handful of highly engaged ACX readers" and "finalists chosen by large voting pool, like the winners are" would all yield massively different results, and thus different strategies for success. But I could be completely wrong about that.
If books before 1900 rarely make it to the finals, but often win when they do, maybe it would be good give them a boost into the finals?
I imagine that in terms of the number of readers, the big difference is what makes it to the finals and not so much winning. Thus the rules about what make it to the finals are important to shaping the experience of subscribers.
Last year's winner was 23,000 words. The 2nd and 3rd place were 7000 and 9,800 words, respectively. There seems to be a strong trend of "write a really freaking long essay about a book in the social sciences with an ambitious theme."
That's... not a *bad* thing necessarily, but I think people should know what they're getting in for. At some point, this isn't a "book review," it's just doing original research. There does not seem to be any reward for brevity or reviewing fiction, or the traditional review model of "let's sum up the book but a lot fewer words so you can quickly decide whether you want to read it for yourself."
If we are entering the phase where this is popular enough to have subcategories, may I suggest that a new category for "brief" reviews, in which there will be a word limit? Like, 2k word limit, 5k word limit, 7k work limit, and limitless (just suggestions).
I really enjoy the VERY long essays, but rarely vote on them, because I just don't have the time to even parse them before the deadlines.
That's a good point and I had not thought of it that way and you may well be right. On the other hand, there are lots of situations where the behavior of a group has as an effect that few of the individuals in it would have wanted. People driving the price of items up at an auction aren't voting with their feet to pay more for them. What if we had an actual vote, and voted with our votes?
I wonder if it might be sensible to split it into a short and long review (word count and no word count). I fear there is a tendency for essays to try toward awe rather than clarity.
Oh, great! I was interested in this, but also I was thinking "Yeah but the majority of the book reviews are on non-fiction and technical subjects, and I haven't a book like that in mind".
But with the new Affirmative Action, I have a fiction book I might do! It's not before 1900 but it's not very long after it, either.
If it's anything like the AI content I've seen already, it will be three paragraphs repeated over and over again:
"This is a book. A book is [definition of 'book' follows]. This book is by a writer named Annie Personne. The type of book that this book is is a novel. A novel with the title "Upside Down In The Mango Orchard At Midnight On The Equator In June 1932".
This book is a book about being upside-down in a mango orchard on the Equator at midnight in June 1932. The writer of this book is Annie Personne, who describes an imaginary event of being upside-down in a tree in a mango orchard. This is a novel, which means [definition of novel]."
Repeat ad nauseam until the 10,000 word limit is hit.
About three days ago, on a site I was looking up for resources about sensory issues.
Granted, that may have been an early version never updated and if an AI was writing similar now it would be a lot better, but a lot of websites are dependent on chunks of filler content to keep you reading (see all the cooking/recipe sites which give you the history of agriculture for ten thousand years before you get to the recipe) because eyeballs = advertising revenue.
AI is good at churning out filler content for an entire page to keep you scrolling through. That's why I don't expect it to change in the direction of "ten paragraphs of concise information" any time soon, so long as money is the motivating factor for the website owner.
Njal's Saga, also known as the Saga of Burnt Njal, is one of the most renowned Icelandic sagas, written in the 13th century. It chronicles the lives of various characters in medieval Iceland, focusing primarily on the lives of Njal Thorgeirsson, a wise and peaceful lawyer, and his close friend Gunnar Hámundarson, a skilled warrior. The saga is notable for its intricate plot, vivid characters, and exploration of themes such as honor, revenge, and the nature of fate.
The saga begins with the childhood of Njal's sons, particularly Skarp-Heðinn and Grim, who are close friends with the sons of Gunnar. As they grow older, they become embroiled in various conflicts, often due to their own actions or the actions of their enemies. One of the central conflicts of the saga is the feud between the families of Njal and Gunnar, which escalates into a series of violent confrontations.
One of the most memorable episodes in the saga is the burning of Njal's house, which occurs as a result of the escalating feud. Despite Njal's attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, he is ultimately unable to prevent the tragic outcome. The burning of Njal's house is a pivotal moment in the saga, symbolizing the destructive power of revenge and the inevitability of fate.
Throughout the saga, the characters grapple with questions of honor and justice. The concept of honor is of paramount importance in Icelandic society, and characters are often motivated by a desire to uphold their honor or avenge perceived slights. However, the saga also highlights the destructive consequences of pursuing honor at all costs, as characters are driven to acts of violence and revenge that ultimately lead to their downfall.
Another theme that runs throughout the saga is the idea of fate. The characters often believe that their destinies are preordained, and that events will unfold as they are fated to. This belief in fate can be seen as a way for the characters to make sense of the chaotic and unpredictable world in which they live, but it also leads to a sense of fatalism, as characters resign themselves to whatever fate has in store for them.
Despite its often tragic events, Njal's Saga also contains moments of humor and humanity. The characters are portrayed with depth and complexity, and their actions are often motivated by understandable human emotions such as love, jealousy, and pride. The saga also contains moments of wit and satire, particularly in its portrayal of the legal system and the complexities of Icelandic society.
In conclusion, Njal's Saga is a masterful work of medieval literature that offers a fascinating glimpse into the world of medieval Iceland. Its richly drawn characters, complex plot, and exploration of timeless themes continue to captivate readers centuries after it was written. Whether read as a historical document, a work of literature, or simply as a gripping tale of adventure and intrigue, Njal's Saga remains a timeless classic of Icelandic literature.
Not necessarily a bad thing; all the stuff you point out is just a framework on which to hang the themes of revenge/fate/peace/honour/whatever, and Chat GPT's review eschews the technical details of the legal system in favour of the bigger picture.
You could probably set something very similar to Njal's Saga in Feudal Japan or Camelot or Planet Klingon and still hit most of the same story beats.
Some readers will be more interested in the "legal structure of mediaeval Iceland" stuff, and others in the "universal human condition" stuff; each review caters to a different type of reader.
(I don't think Chat GPT was intentionally catering to a different type of reader, of course; rather, "universal human condition stuff" book reviews are just overwhelmingly more prevalent in its training corpus.)
I wonder whether Chat GPT could, if prompted well, write a lighthearted analysis of the legal system of medieval Iceland as depicted in Njal's Saga?
Don't agree with your dismissal of AI writing, but I loved your (perfectly true) line about the ten thousand year history of agriculture you get from online recipes - literally made me laugh aloud!
Yes, but I'm going to demand you write a different review this time, to prevent everyone who lost last year from entering the same thing again at zero cost.
Please make a rule that says reviewers will lose points for trying to imitate your (Scott's) writing style, also for using exclamation points (such as: "But also, this is kind of really important!").
This is a long shot and pushing the limits of what counts as a "book review," but could I review a sequence of fictional blog posts that has been running for several years, but which has never been compiled into a book and likely never will be?
Hell yeah - always really enjoy reading the book reviews.
Seconded!
Regarding the affirmative action, two questions (about 80% serious): should it still follow the usual subjects in ACX to get enough interest (rule of thumb, of course)? Will intersectionality be rewarded? (e.g., would a review of a medieval epic poem be even more likely to make the list?)
If you write that, I'll vote for it (bearing in mind that it has to be worth voting for in the first place, of course).
My plan is to select the top-voted minority reviews as finalists, so there won't be any extra human judgment on my part besides deciding which ones count as minorities or not.
Somebody NOT ME write a review of "Paradise Lost", I think it's a good poem but not as great as made out, but I have Prejudices (e.g. great language, crap theology). Bonus points if you go on to include "Paradise Regained", the Difficult Second Album.
You should write it Deiseach
Are there any books that we should avoid reviewing because they have been frequently reviewed in the past? Also, I was thinking about reviewing a trilogy - can you do a three in one review like that? (If not no problem, just checking!)
There's a website with a list of everything that's been reviewed so far (including a tag for ones that have been reviewed more than once): https://codexcc.neocities.org/
Anyone cared enough to make this into an epub yet? I'd love to just read them all together.
Yes please!
Thanks - this is a great resource!
Dang, "Atlas Shrugged" and "The WEIRDest People in the World" each have 4 reviews! (And "The Dawn of Everything" and "The Righteous Mind" have 3.)
Honestly, it should not come as a surprise that "Atlas Shrugged" would top the list on a libertarian's blog (even if Scott has previously gone on record as not vibing with it, it's still *the* right-libertarian book).
During my studies at university, I had to prepare a book review, which became a key assignment for the successful completion of the course. With my workload increasing and my schedule getting cluttered, I turned to the academic writing service here https://essaypro.com/academic-writing-service . Their professional writers helped me create a review that not only met the requirements of the assignment, but was also filled with in-depth analyzes and convincing arguments. Thanks to their support, I was able to successfully complete the assignment and get a high grade for my paper.
And I'm sure a trilogy will be fine.
I am happy to see the affirmative action policy since everything I read is likely to fall in this category.
So, not that I'm going to write one either way, but... does the book have to actually exist? Or are we allowed to write reviews of imaginary books?
If the imaginary book would have been modern day non-fiction, does it still get the non-traditional bonus?
Well if you hurry there might be time to write your own book and then review it now that it exists.
I assume he doesn't mean any old imaginary book but one that "already exists," in the same vein as a Lovecraft story about slowly going mad reading the Necronomicon etc. (House of Leaves is a modern take on the same idea).
I do in fact mean any old imaginary book. I recently hit upon the idea of doing recaps for my unwritten stories, on the grounds that commentary on a synopsis is TONS easier than turning it into anything that'll stand on its own.
You could do all the unwritten cases of Sherlock Holmes. Watson names a lot of cases in the stories that were never written up (in canon) and these are fruitful grounds to this day for pastiche writers.
What do *you* think happened in the British barrow? Or the Amateur Mendicants?
If I was going to do an unwritten detective mystery, it would absolutely be The Adventure Of The Swollen Sock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXHcSBhfkx8
Wait, was that the specific conceit in House of Leaves? It's been a decade or more since I read it, but I thought it was basically a descent into mental illness brought on by the house - but it sounds like you're saying it was the *chronicling* of the events in the house that drove him to madness?
I read it as a college freshman in 2000, so my memory is fuzzy, but I think it has two layers of unreliable narrator in it: the drug addict narrator, cleaning out his dead neighbor's house, finds an academic manuscript describing the (nonexistent)House of Leaves documentary film.
Ha! Ok, thanks for the clarification. Definitely shades of "Infinite Jest" there, with drug addiction, unreliable narrators, infohazard movies, and slowly complexifying / weirdening narratives.
I remember seeing the parallels when I read it, but sounds even stronger with you clarifying, and probably merits a reread.
Eh, this seems to go against the spirit for me. Might just as well call it an essay contest then.
If it was good enough for Borges, it should be good enough for us!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Imaginary_Beings
I had considered reviewing one of the works of non-fiction that’s referenced in multiple excerpts in Thomas Anderson’s Look To The West series, but none seemed substantial enough for a full book review.
it’d be interesting to see if a fictional non-fiction book from before fictional 1900 counts for the affirmative action requirements though
Sure, feel free to write a review of an imaginary book. I think grabbing people's interest with this will be much harder than with a real book, but you can try if you want.
Stanisław Lem wrote a ton of reviews and introductions for nonexistent books. One of these books reviews itself, and another eventually got defictionalized and written for real. It's all delightfully mindbending.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanisław_Lem%27s_fictitious_criticism_of_nonexistent_books
I hope there are more poems/fiction/ancient works, the few I read last year stood out and I was glad they were written.
It would be great if there were a way to have comments for non-finalists. Last year some people posted theirs on the message boards afterwards, and that was fun. It's nice to even get a couple of comments from strangers.
I am not going to be writing a review on "The Battle for Spain" by Antony Beevor and "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell. A few years ago I asked for a recommendation here for books about the Spanish Civil War. I intended to write something, either a comment or review or blogpost or something that drew lessons from this conflict to the conflict on similar sectarian lines in my own country (USA) in our own time.
I no longer think there are any lessons to draw. At least more so than any other modern conflict. "Homage to Catalonia" turns out not to be that grounded in the factually supportable history of the time, place, and event. It is an excellent work of journalism but a poor work of history. There were at least 5 sides to the conflict; Orwell was familiar with just one of these and the least powerful one at that. That being said, even if the book were actively deceitful it would still come with my full endorsement and recommendation because of how vivid and wonderful it is as a work of memoir. Orwell doesn't really have the access necessary to write The Truth, but his truth still vividly and beautifully speaks to the human condition and is worth reading for that alone.
Beevor's third draft of history makes clear the difference between 1920s Spain and 2020s USA: Spain on the eve of its civil war was among the least developed and industrialized countries in Europe. Its monarchy lacked legitimacy and its state apparatus lacked capacity. When the Spanish Civil War was fought, it quickly attracted much more capable proxy belligerents in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
Anyway. It's an interesting piece of history, an underlooked part of a very busy century, but not a part with more than superficial parallels to my own.
"There were at least 5 sides to the conflict; Orwell was familiar with just one of these and the least powerful one at that."
I thought he did a good job covering the liberal, communist and anarchist factions on the Republican side + which of them had backing from Britain, France and the USSR. The Nationalist side does come across as an undifferentiated blob though I'll admit.
There's an extra chapter where he gives an overview of the political context of the war that I don't think gets included in all editions of the book, and I think Orwell himself wanted omitted because it distracted from his personal account.
Hm, can I submit the form now with a link to the Google Doc, and then edit the Google Doc later (but prior to the deadline) if I decide I want to do more editing? :) I assume yes, but...
Why not wait? The deadline isn't near yet.
Because waiting and then doing something later, rather than doing it now, means having one more "todo" open that has to be kept track of.
Yes.
Thank you!
I'm surprised to see "before 1900" listed as nontraditional, since Progress and Poverty won in 2021, and Njal's Saga would have won last year if not for self-disqualification. It seems that, though a minority of the entries, those ones are performing pretty well.
Also, what's the process for selecting the finalists? I don't think there was a public vote last year, unless it was mentioned in an open thread post. I assumed it was just Scott being the sole judge, but there was reference at some point to other people judging/voting, so if it was public how many people were voting? I feel like "finalists chosen by Scott", "finalists chosen by a handful of highly engaged ACX readers" and "finalists chosen by large voting pool, like the winners are" would all yield massively different results, and thus different strategies for success. But I could be completely wrong about that.
There was a vote, but it was buried in the thread that released the reviews. I remember not realizing the vote had been out for a while afterwards.
If books before 1900 rarely make it to the finals, but often win when they do, maybe it would be good give them a boost into the finals?
I imagine that in terms of the number of readers, the big difference is what makes it to the finals and not so much winning. Thus the rules about what make it to the finals are important to shaping the experience of subscribers.
Last year's winner was 23,000 words. The 2nd and 3rd place were 7000 and 9,800 words, respectively. There seems to be a strong trend of "write a really freaking long essay about a book in the social sciences with an ambitious theme."
That's... not a *bad* thing necessarily, but I think people should know what they're getting in for. At some point, this isn't a "book review," it's just doing original research. There does not seem to be any reward for brevity or reviewing fiction, or the traditional review model of "let's sum up the book but a lot fewer words so you can quickly decide whether you want to read it for yourself."
I agree with the people who suggested after the last round that we have a word limit.
If we are entering the phase where this is popular enough to have subcategories, may I suggest that a new category for "brief" reviews, in which there will be a word limit? Like, 2k word limit, 5k word limit, 7k work limit, and limitless (just suggestions).
I really enjoy the VERY long essays, but rarely vote on them, because I just don't have the time to even parse them before the deadlines.
Maybe one of the affirmative action categories could be “reviews less than 5000 words”.
That review was to word limits what FDR was to POTUS term limits.
Or like a sumo wrestling tournament, where one contestant weighs 23000 lbs. All he has to do is sit on his opponent to crush him into toe jam.
Thanks for that mental image 😊
I think if people vote for the longest review, then they're voting with their feet not to have a word limit.
That's a good point and I had not thought of it that way and you may well be right. On the other hand, there are lots of situations where the behavior of a group has as an effect that few of the individuals in it would have wanted. People driving the price of items up at an auction aren't voting with their feet to pay more for them. What if we had an actual vote, and voted with our votes?
I think you should list the word count at the start of each review, so people can make an informed decision about whether to start reading it.
Given the affirmative action intent, why not permit two submissions per person - one non-fiction, one in the 'other' category?
Scott probably isn't looking any more, but I would favor this.
Can one re-use already existing reviews, or is that disqualifying because googlable?
I told someone they could use a *heavily edited* version of an existing review, but in general I want to discourage this.
Maybe review that review?
I wonder if it might be sensible to split it into a short and long review (word count and no word count). I fear there is a tendency for essays to try toward awe rather than clarity.
Oh, great! I was interested in this, but also I was thinking "Yeah but the majority of the book reviews are on non-fiction and technical subjects, and I haven't a book like that in mind".
But with the new Affirmative Action, I have a fiction book I might do! It's not before 1900 but it's not very long after it, either.
I think this would be a great book for you to review
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/11/history-takes-flight
it does sound like a decent take on the subject. I meant to do a book review but then Life intervened so I'm too late. Maybe next year!
What are the rules regarding book reviews using generative AI, assuming similar quality?
If it's anything like the AI content I've seen already, it will be three paragraphs repeated over and over again:
"This is a book. A book is [definition of 'book' follows]. This book is by a writer named Annie Personne. The type of book that this book is is a novel. A novel with the title "Upside Down In The Mango Orchard At Midnight On The Equator In June 1932".
This book is a book about being upside-down in a mango orchard on the Equator at midnight in June 1932. The writer of this book is Annie Personne, who describes an imaginary event of being upside-down in a tree in a mango orchard. This is a novel, which means [definition of novel]."
Repeat ad nauseam until the 10,000 word limit is hit.
You saw content like that how long ago? AI is improving at terrifying speed.
About three days ago, on a site I was looking up for resources about sensory issues.
Granted, that may have been an early version never updated and if an AI was writing similar now it would be a lot better, but a lot of websites are dependent on chunks of filler content to keep you reading (see all the cooking/recipe sites which give you the history of agriculture for ten thousand years before you get to the recipe) because eyeballs = advertising revenue.
AI is good at churning out filler content for an entire page to keep you scrolling through. That's why I don't expect it to change in the direction of "ten paragraphs of concise information" any time soon, so long as money is the motivating factor for the website owner.
User
please give a 3000 word review of Njal's saga
ChatGPT
Njal's Saga, also known as the Saga of Burnt Njal, is one of the most renowned Icelandic sagas, written in the 13th century. It chronicles the lives of various characters in medieval Iceland, focusing primarily on the lives of Njal Thorgeirsson, a wise and peaceful lawyer, and his close friend Gunnar Hámundarson, a skilled warrior. The saga is notable for its intricate plot, vivid characters, and exploration of themes such as honor, revenge, and the nature of fate.
The saga begins with the childhood of Njal's sons, particularly Skarp-Heðinn and Grim, who are close friends with the sons of Gunnar. As they grow older, they become embroiled in various conflicts, often due to their own actions or the actions of their enemies. One of the central conflicts of the saga is the feud between the families of Njal and Gunnar, which escalates into a series of violent confrontations.
One of the most memorable episodes in the saga is the burning of Njal's house, which occurs as a result of the escalating feud. Despite Njal's attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, he is ultimately unable to prevent the tragic outcome. The burning of Njal's house is a pivotal moment in the saga, symbolizing the destructive power of revenge and the inevitability of fate.
Throughout the saga, the characters grapple with questions of honor and justice. The concept of honor is of paramount importance in Icelandic society, and characters are often motivated by a desire to uphold their honor or avenge perceived slights. However, the saga also highlights the destructive consequences of pursuing honor at all costs, as characters are driven to acts of violence and revenge that ultimately lead to their downfall.
Another theme that runs throughout the saga is the idea of fate. The characters often believe that their destinies are preordained, and that events will unfold as they are fated to. This belief in fate can be seen as a way for the characters to make sense of the chaotic and unpredictable world in which they live, but it also leads to a sense of fatalism, as characters resign themselves to whatever fate has in store for them.
Despite its often tragic events, Njal's Saga also contains moments of humor and humanity. The characters are portrayed with depth and complexity, and their actions are often motivated by understandable human emotions such as love, jealousy, and pride. The saga also contains moments of wit and satire, particularly in its portrayal of the legal system and the complexities of Icelandic society.
In conclusion, Njal's Saga is a masterful work of medieval literature that offers a fascinating glimpse into the world of medieval Iceland. Its richly drawn characters, complex plot, and exploration of timeless themes continue to captivate readers centuries after it was written. Whether read as a historical document, a work of literature, or simply as a gripping tale of adventure and intrigue, Njal's Saga remains a timeless classic of Icelandic literature.
It did miss the 3000-word target.
Neat! It managed to review Njal's Saga without mentioning law or courts or the Althing or weregild! Hmm...
Not necessarily a bad thing; all the stuff you point out is just a framework on which to hang the themes of revenge/fate/peace/honour/whatever, and Chat GPT's review eschews the technical details of the legal system in favour of the bigger picture.
You could probably set something very similar to Njal's Saga in Feudal Japan or Camelot or Planet Klingon and still hit most of the same story beats.
Some readers will be more interested in the "legal structure of mediaeval Iceland" stuff, and others in the "universal human condition" stuff; each review caters to a different type of reader.
(I don't think Chat GPT was intentionally catering to a different type of reader, of course; rather, "universal human condition stuff" book reviews are just overwhelmingly more prevalent in its training corpus.)
I wonder whether Chat GPT could, if prompted well, write a lighthearted analysis of the legal system of medieval Iceland as depicted in Njal's Saga?
Don't agree with your dismissal of AI writing, but I loved your (perfectly true) line about the ten thousand year history of agriculture you get from online recipes - literally made me laugh aloud!
It's improving at a decreasing rate of speed.
I hope you're right, so tell me, what makes you think the speed is decreasing?
In theory this might be fun, in practice I don't want voters to have to wade through 1,000 mediocre generative AI essays, so I'm against.
Are multiple entries allowed?
At the top: “ Please limit yourself to one entry per person or team.”
Whoops, missed that. Thank you!
Hi Scott,
Looking forward to another book review contest!
Is it ok to review the same book twice? (I submitted a review two years ago.)
Yes, but I'm going to demand you write a different review this time, to prevent everyone who lost last year from entering the same thing again at zero cost.
Please make a rule that says reviewers will lose points for trying to imitate your (Scott's) writing style, also for using exclamation points (such as: "But also, this is kind of really important!").
Also for using consecutive repeated vowels (such as 'also for', or 'repeated').
Any "the the" is an automatic disqualification. :D
How about “reviews must include the string “the the” (assessed by regex) in order to be eligible, but if Scott notices it then they are disqualified”.
What about GAINING points for not using certain letters, such as V, or K, or S, or any of A, E, and I?
Tired: not using certain letters.
Wired: writing the whole review in the form of a Greek epic poem. 😁
I don't know how to fairly judge if something imitates my writing style.
You can fairly judge if something imitates your writing style by asking an LLM.
Someone should do this, but it should not be part of the contest. There are no points to lose to this imitation. The voters like it or not.
Well damn it, next thing you'll want me to stop using semi-colons ☹
Completely off topic: Scott and anyone else in California, are you voting yes or no on Prop 1, and why?
Very good coverage, from an expert in the field: https://psychcrisis.substack.com/p/the-problem-with-prop-1
Thank you!
This is a long shot and pushing the limits of what counts as a "book review," but could I review a sequence of fictional blog posts that has been running for several years, but which has never been compiled into a book and likely never will be?
Is this limited to a single book review per author?
Will you consider AI writers?
Is there a way to confirm a submission was recorded? Don't think there was a confirmation email?
Love these!
When is the exact deadline? (EST)
I'm going to assume 11:59pm California time, unless Scott says otherwise.
is there any kind of confirmation email or something upon submitting the form? I'm unclear on whether my form submission has actually worked
What time does the contest close? I'm cramming!
Not yet, I think, because I just submitted an entry.