What do you think?
Rate this book


526 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 17, 2025
"I'm innocent," Anna whispered, her voice barely audible and hoarse from screaming.
"Please," Anna whispered hoarsely, her voice barely audible over the roar of the crowd.
"No," she whispered, her voice barely audible over the roar of the crowd.
"William," she croaked, her voice barely rising above the roar of the flames.
"Is she gone?" she whispered to no one in particular, her voice barely audible above the whispers of the onlookers.
"Who are you?" Clovis finally managed to ask, his voice barely more than a whisper.
"By the Gods," she whispered, her voice barely a breath.
Anna stood tall and defiant, facing her fate with unwavering determination.
"And we will be," Murdah said firmly, his voice filled with unwavering determination.
Merona's fists clenched at her sides, her horror shifting into unwavering determination.
"Then we press on," she declared, her cerulean eyes alight with unwavering determination.
Merona nodded, her jaw set with unwavering determination.
Merona's eyes blazed with unwavering determination.
"I stand ready to face what lies ahead," she declared, her voice ringing with unwavering determination.
When he opened his eyes, his voice rose, steady and commanding, carrying across the ranks of his army. "Men of the Franks! Today we fight not just for land or for glory, but for destiny itself!"Yeah, I think they got it.
. . .
He raised his voice once more, addressing his entire force. "Men and women of the Franks! Today, we fight not just for land or glory, but for our very future."
. . .
He spoke again, his voice growing stronger with every word. "We fight not just for land, but for our very souls! For the honor of our ancestors the future of our children!"
Hooray, I won this in a Goodreads Giveaway! . . . is what I would say if it weren't entirely AI-generated slop.The same day, the author left two comments on my review. I am copying them here in case they get deleted.
(Actually, I am glad that I won, because this keeps a copy out of someone else's Kindle library.)
I know, surprising, right? For a book with an almost perfect 5-star average after 99 ratings, almost all accompanied by a review, not a single one of them critical in any way? Why, it must be an absolute masterpiece, on par with The Great Gatsby, Anna Karenina, and Jane Eyre!
I'll update later with the full account of undeniable AI slop, but if you're curious about whether you would come to the same conclusion, why not read the first chapter free on Amazon? As you go in, consider the usual method of burning a witch:
1. Pile wood around a stake.
2. Tie the witch to the stake.
3. Set the wood on fire.
This book's approach is ... different from that.
As the Author of this book I can assure you it's not AI bullshit. I researched for a year and spent a great deal of time working on the worldbuilding, characters and the timeframe. Including clothing, vegetation, actual battles and people and historical elements during the 5th and 6th century in Gaul.Okay. No one said anything about research, and that has nothing to do with using generative AI to write the text of the book.
So sad that people are on the A-I witch-hunt.Ohhhh, I see what you did there. Clever. Because the book is about a witch.
There are literary reviews of this book and awards from people that actually do this for a living.There are? Do you mean from Reader's Favorite and Literary Titan? Those are vanity review and award services. Everyone who pays gets an award. They're meaningless.
Maybe your review is A-I bullshit.Maybe? Sure. HGow about you demonstrate how my review uses phrasing and construction identical to countless other products of generative A.I. and I'll do the same with your book. Then readers can decide for themselves. By the way, nowhere in what you have written does it say that you didn't use generative A.I. to write your book.
This was actually written without AI, 8 years ago while doing research for my ancestry.Well, that proves it's not A.I. It's just very unfortunate that you didn't publish it before ChatGPT launched and A.I.-generated books flooded the market, providing countless examples of A.I.'s shitty writing style that, by sheer coincidence, perfectly matches what you had written long before. It's also unfortunate that you don't seem to have received any actual editing during that time.
The pyre (the pile of wood as you call it) is my choice to write in that style.Legitimate THANK YOU. I wasn't sure if just the pile of wood was called a pyre, or only once it was a blazing inferno. I learn something new every day.
If you don't like it please don't take the time to read it then post your diatribe about what you think is real or not.Hold on, you want me to ... only read books that I think I will LIKE? And then only review those? Lady, this is America!

In the age of artificial intelligence, a new kind of witch hunt is brewing, and its target is none other than the creative soul of authors. We're witnessing a disturbing trend where writers are being accused of utilizing AI to generate their work, sometimes based on the flimsiest of evidence. A particularly egregious example highlights the absurdity of this accusation: an author, in her book Labyrinth of Shadows: The Witch's Rebirth Part I was accused of using AI simply because a reviewer, after reading just the first chapter, flagged the description of a pyre and cobblestone streets as suspiciously "AI-generated."Yeah, so ... I didn't say anything about the descriptions of those things. Maybe this is not, in fact, about me? But let's continue under the assumption that it is. Big question: why are you referring to yourself in the third person? The article's byline is "Michaela Riley". Didn't you write this?
Really? Is the mere presence of historical accuracy and evocative language now grounds for questioning a writer's authenticity? If so, forgive authors for taking pride in their craft and meticulously choosing words that transport readers to another time and place.Umm ... yeah ... again that's not it at all. No one said your writing was too fancy, therefore it must be A.I. It's really about repetition of stereotypical A.I. phrasing and vocabulary to an absurd degree.
Let's be clear: the use of AI in writing doesn't automatically equate to the death of authorship. Artificial intelligence is woven into the fabric of our modern world, permeating research papers, novels, press releases, even simple text messages. To suggest that any use of AI automatically negates an author's hard work and creative vision is a dangerous oversimplification.So ... you're saying you DID use A.I. to write this?
The reality is that AI can be a powerful tool for authors, particularly in the editing and polishing phases. AI-powered tools can ... AI helps create layouts and book covers ... Using AI to edit a document that is your intellectual property doesn't mean AI wrote it. It means you are leveraging technology to enhance your work.Yet again, I'm not seeing the part where it says you DIDN'T use A.I. to generate the entire text.
The danger lies in the assumption that any assistance from AI renders the entire work devoid of originality. It's a slippery slope that threatens to stifle creativity and discourage authors from exploring new technologies that could ultimately enhance their storytelling.Still not hearing any denials about the whole thing being A.I.-made. I'm hearing a lot of talk about many, many ways that A.I. was indeed used instead.
In the case of Labyrinth of Shadows: The Witch's Rebirth Part I by Michaela Riley, the author is drawing from historical events surrounding the real-life figure of Anna Koldings [...]Again, why the third-person POV if you wrote this? I cut out the basic history of witch burning that is information ChatGPT could pull up for you, no research required.
The current climate of suspicion and knee-jerk accusations echoes the very witch hunts that Riley's book explores.Yeah, we got where this was all going.
We must be vigilant against the rise of this new "AI witch hunt," driven by self-righteous individuals who believe they are superior arbiters of authenticity. Let us not burn creativity at the stake, but instead embrace the potential of AI as a tool to enhance storytelling while celebrating the unique voice and vision of the author.There you have in folks, in the author's own words. Well, not actually; this was also A.I.-generated. But the author using A.I.-generated words to admit that the entire book is A.I. generated. Thank you, Dear Author! Of course it's the same old bullshit argument from everyone who thinks generative A.I. can produce something worth any reader's time. "It's still my ideas! I chose the prompts!" Bless your heart.