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?)
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!)
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?)
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!)
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?
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.
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.
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."
Given the affirmative action intent, why not permit two submissions per person - one non-fiction, one in the 'other' category?
Can one re-use already existing reviews, or is that disqualifying because googlable?
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.
What are the rules regarding book reviews using generative AI, assuming similar quality?
Are multiple entries allowed?
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.)
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!").
Completely off topic: Scott and anyone else in California, are you voting yes or no on Prop 1, and why?
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)
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!