I'm preregistering that I'm once again going to use the historically losing "write about something weird and try to split the vote" tactic, because it's rad. Last time roughly 80 people were mad at this; just wait until "Where the Red Fern Grows" Beats MacAskill's upcoming "Save the suit: Properly Valuing the Quanta of Dry Fabric against Undrowned Children."
I'm thinking about reviewing Blueprint by Robert Plomin and/or The Genetic Lottery by Kathryn Paige Harden. I tried to check that they had not been already reviewed the previous years, but I'm not quite sure. Maybe you could put out a list of past book reviews, both for inspiration and to avoid double reviewing? Thx
Last year ran way to long and overstayed its welcome. Can we at least do fewer of these? (I'm going off memory, it *may* have been an adversarial collaboration that dragged on and grated on me, but I think it was also the drawn out book reviews).
Last time there were *a lot* of finalists, to the point I had completely forgotten about the first entries by the time the last entries were posted. Have you considered having fewer finalists this time?
I strongly recommend imposing an upper limit on the number of words. A 20,000 word novella is not the same artistic creation as a 2000 word review. Comparing them is unfair to both authors as well as to the readers, who might feel obliged to waste an unreasonable amount of time on a single entry before voting.
Better get my skates on if I want to submit a review. I have a book in mind, just have to read it first (unless I go the Sydney Smith route: "I never read a book before reviewing it; it prejudices a man so.")
Since the reviews will appear online: perhaps it can be explicitly allowed to have text with text color the same as background color in some places? I'm thinking of how to avoid spoilers.
So, if we want to include an image in the review, we need to make sure that it's in the Doc, in the correct spot, correct size, caption underneath etc?
Could someone please review something from Marx. I tried reading Capital and didn't get far; I think because his ideas are now so ubiquitous that nothing felt novel. But what I am missing is a holistic understanding of what say a 'Marxist interpretation' is.
When I click on link (mobile) ...
“The form ACX Book Review Form 2023 is no longer accepting responses.
Try contacting the owner of the form if you think this is a mistake.”
I'm preregistering that I'm once again going to use the historically losing "write about something weird and try to split the vote" tactic, because it's rad. Last time roughly 80 people were mad at this; just wait until "Where the Red Fern Grows" Beats MacAskill's upcoming "Save the suit: Properly Valuing the Quanta of Dry Fabric against Undrowned Children."
If you get some help from an AI to write the review, should you mention it?
Can you submit a review you submitted somewhere else as well?
Hello Scott,
I'm thinking about reviewing Blueprint by Robert Plomin and/or The Genetic Lottery by Kathryn Paige Harden. I tried to check that they had not been already reviewed the previous years, but I'm not quite sure. Maybe you could put out a list of past book reviews, both for inspiration and to avoid double reviewing? Thx
Last year ran way to long and overstayed its welcome. Can we at least do fewer of these? (I'm going off memory, it *may* have been an adversarial collaboration that dragged on and grated on me, but I think it was also the drawn out book reviews).
Thank you for doing this again! Does the book have to be a book, or can it be a long essay available in several collections and translations?
Last time there were *a lot* of finalists, to the point I had completely forgotten about the first entries by the time the last entries were posted. Have you considered having fewer finalists this time?
Ha! I started one last year, but never got around to finishing it. Perhaps I can find the time to finish it this year and submit it!
Hi Scott, is it okay if I publish the review on my own blog as a separate post (not mentioning ACT) or will that disqualify me?
I strongly recommend imposing an upper limit on the number of words. A 20,000 word novella is not the same artistic creation as a 2000 word review. Comparing them is unfair to both authors as well as to the readers, who might feel obliged to waste an unreasonable amount of time on a single entry before voting.
Better get my skates on if I want to submit a review. I have a book in mind, just have to read it first (unless I go the Sydney Smith route: "I never read a book before reviewing it; it prejudices a man so.")
Given many complaints of too long, too many book reviews, maybe there should be a book review review contest, too?
Since the reviews will appear online: perhaps it can be explicitly allowed to have text with text color the same as background color in some places? I'm thinking of how to avoid spoilers.
If my review bombs and doesn't become a finalist, am I allowed to post it on a blog?
Nice, the ACT book review series is one of my favorite things on the internet. Looking forward to this.
So, if we want to include an image in the review, we need to make sure that it's in the Doc, in the correct spot, correct size, caption underneath etc?
I'm excited for this. If I find the time, which isn't likely over these next few months, I'll submit something.
Edit: Quick question, Scott. Can we review audiobooks? That obviously adds another dimension, the narration and/or performance. Up to you.
Review request:
Could someone please review something from Marx. I tried reading Capital and didn't get far; I think because his ideas are now so ubiquitous that nothing felt novel. But what I am missing is a holistic understanding of what say a 'Marxist interpretation' is.
Can you link two books in the review?
The same day NIH grants are due. That was true last year too.
For the book review contest, am I entitled to submit a review that I published in an academic journal but think would be of interest here?