Hmm, the review makes me rather curious. While in the movies "Groundhog Day" and "12:01 P.M." the protagonists awake at the same place and time each day.
How do these book explain that the protagonist(s) can relocate to different places? Even if it would give a rationale for that glitch in the loop, it would be strange if you'd check into a hotel and appear to be there the next morning without the check-in?
briga 17 hours ago [-]
In the book the rules are a bit fuzzy. It's told in first person so it isn't really explained so much as related to the reader from a character who is also confused about how the time loop works. Although who knows, maybe there's some grand explanation in the books that haven't been translated yet.
It's a good read, I can't really predict where the author will go with this after Book IV.
bradrn 20 hours ago [-]
Or, for that matter, what if you happened to be in a spot which had been occupied by a person at the time at which it resets?
pkaler 22 hours ago [-]
I'm also currently reading "On the Calculation of Volume". It is fantastic.
Meta-comment about the post. I used to read and write book reviews like this all of the time. Not anymore. ChatGPT and Claude can do a just a good of a job. Now I'm looking for what you think, a unique insight, what did you feel from a book review from a humanoid. LLMs do a fine job summarizing.
rnadomvirlabe 19 hours ago [-]
How do you separate the details included in a synopsis from what someone thought about the book?
The details included in a synopsis reflect what the reviewer found important enough to share. I still value the synopsis of a known reviewer exactly for this reason. If I’ve read books on their suggestion in the past and enjoyed them, I’m inclined to take their advice again. Perhaps they could use LLMs to speed up some of the writing, given their perspective, but I wouldn’t agree with the statement “LLMs do a fine job summarizing” in the context of reviews. The author and their collective reviews matter, something absent with LLMs.
chrisweekly 15 hours ago [-]
Hmm.
I agree with your main point (in your 2nd sentence) but want to address your opening question.
It's possible, even common, to encounter a relatively neutral synopsis (covering e.g. genre, themes, plot summary, and objective attributes of the writing style) which doesn't really pass judgement on the book. IMHO those are all things that don't require a human. A good book review is not a synopsis, it's a harmonizing echo of the ideas and feelings imparted by the author; shared, absorbed, combined and reflected, and resonating out to the broader field of readership. That's part of the magic of books -- the way one person's mind can connect so profoundly to many others' (though only ever via one individual reader's experience at a time) across time and space, even beyond death.
wodenokoto 17 hours ago [-]
Book reviews are not for summaries, they are for opinion and we’ve lost that.
A good review is done by a reviewer that you’ve come to know.
If she says it’s good I know it’s gonna be good.
chrisweekly 15 hours ago [-]
Agreed.
Related thoughts:
There are many authors whose future books I plan to read without bothering to check reviews.
When I enjoy something that has a sequel, I nearly always continue the series.
Beyond that, it's some mix of:
- A personal recommendation from a friend or colleague
- Awards / nominations (both as a quality signal, and for cultural literacy)
- Collaborative filtering (for both positive and, rarely, negative signal)
- Human-written reviews (heavily skewed towards one or a few reviews that are thoughtful and clearly indicate the book had meaningful impact on that particular reader, vs generic ratings or popularity per se)
/tangent
roxolotl 8 hours ago [-]
That’s always been the point of reviews. It’s why people follow certain reviewers. They know the reviewer feels similarly to how they do so the feelings of the reviewer is similar to what they might feel. There’s always going to be some discussion of the content but for a good review that shouldn’t be the focus.
chrisweekly 15 hours ago [-]
Well said! And thanks for the rec!
PaperTree 22 hours ago [-]
I read Volume I and II when they were released and need to read III and IV as soon as possible.
I love the series. You can get lost in it, it feels like writing for your own thoughts.
gostsamo 23 hours ago [-]
Currently reading a web novel called The Years of Apocalypse. Very similar vibe and though it does not have the same literary aspirations as this one, also goes deep in the existential horror of the time loop and the alienation of your old self pinpoint in a constantly moving away past. Time loops are a fractal like that - a very simple idea and one chooses how deep to examine the repeating pattern. Also, seems to follow similar tropes in order to maintain some momentum.
Rendered at 18:13:37 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
How do these book explain that the protagonist(s) can relocate to different places? Even if it would give a rationale for that glitch in the loop, it would be strange if you'd check into a hotel and appear to be there the next morning without the check-in?
It's a good read, I can't really predict where the author will go with this after Book IV.
Meta-comment about the post. I used to read and write book reviews like this all of the time. Not anymore. ChatGPT and Claude can do a just a good of a job. Now I'm looking for what you think, a unique insight, what did you feel from a book review from a humanoid. LLMs do a fine job summarizing.
The details included in a synopsis reflect what the reviewer found important enough to share. I still value the synopsis of a known reviewer exactly for this reason. If I’ve read books on their suggestion in the past and enjoyed them, I’m inclined to take their advice again. Perhaps they could use LLMs to speed up some of the writing, given their perspective, but I wouldn’t agree with the statement “LLMs do a fine job summarizing” in the context of reviews. The author and their collective reviews matter, something absent with LLMs.
It's possible, even common, to encounter a relatively neutral synopsis (covering e.g. genre, themes, plot summary, and objective attributes of the writing style) which doesn't really pass judgement on the book. IMHO those are all things that don't require a human. A good book review is not a synopsis, it's a harmonizing echo of the ideas and feelings imparted by the author; shared, absorbed, combined and reflected, and resonating out to the broader field of readership. That's part of the magic of books -- the way one person's mind can connect so profoundly to many others' (though only ever via one individual reader's experience at a time) across time and space, even beyond death.
A good review is done by a reviewer that you’ve come to know.
If she says it’s good I know it’s gonna be good.
Related thoughts:
There are many authors whose future books I plan to read without bothering to check reviews.
When I enjoy something that has a sequel, I nearly always continue the series.
Beyond that, it's some mix of:
- A personal recommendation from a friend or colleague
- Awards / nominations (both as a quality signal, and for cultural literacy)
- Collaborative filtering (for both positive and, rarely, negative signal)
- Human-written reviews (heavily skewed towards one or a few reviews that are thoughtful and clearly indicate the book had meaningful impact on that particular reader, vs generic ratings or popularity per se)
/tangent