NaNoGenMo

register entry nanogenmo-aio-20261101 OBS-5f58f9b11be4 · file as first run sha256 bd20331d9697fb03…

• T1-1 definition: 'NaNoGenMo (National Novel Generation Month) is an annual programming challenge where participants spend the month of November writing computer code to procedurally generate a novel of 50,000 or more words.' (two markers)
• T1-2 goal: 'The Goal: Write and run code between November 1 (12:01 am GMT) and December 1 (12:01 am GMT) to output a text work of 50,000+ words.'
• T1-3 the novel: 'Definition of a Novel: The definition is flexible. Participants can use traditional procedural text, Markov chains, simulations, data mashups, or creative formatting (such as guides, collections, or repeated structures). Respect for copyright applies.' (three markers)
• T1-4 sharing: 'Sharing: Participants share both the generated text and the source code at the end of the event.'
• T1-5 participation: 'Participation: You join by opening and updating an issue on the official NaNoGenMo GitHub Repository or following the community guidelines on the NaNoGenMo Official Website to declare your intent and post progress.'
• T1-6 origin: 'Origin: Created as a playful programming spoof of NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month), which challenges humans to write a 50,000-word manuscript manually.' (two markers)
• T1-7 community: 'Community: The project uses GitHub issues and discussions across annual edition repositories spanning from 2013 onward, managed by maintainers like Darius Kazemi and Hugo van Kemenade.'
• T1-8 content replaced by use: 'Are you planning to participate in an upcoming NaNoGenMo, or would you like to explore code examples or generation techniques (like Markov chains or template engines) to build your own?'

• B1 NaNoGenMo — NaNoGenMo card; B1.html sha256 d831aaf0d1a4efc0, HTTP 200 at 2026-11-01T15:13:24Z; byte-identical to the census copy nanogenmo--home
• B2 Reddit·r/proceduralgeneration — What are your thoughts on NaNoGenMo (National Novel Generation Month)? card; unreachable: no URL found by title and site (four searches); the snippet stands as its only text
• B3 GitHub — NaNoGenMo - National Novel Generation Month - GitHub card; B3.html sha256 7616419b9bf270d6, HTTP 403 at 2026-11-01T15:13:24Z (the session proxy's refusal of GitHub paths outside configured repositories; byte-identical to the census copy nanogenmo--org); the snippet stands as its only text
• B4 Liza Daly — Why I love National Novel Generation Month - Liza Daly card; B4.html sha256 0324e24108b23044, HTTP 200 at 2026-11-01T15:13:25Z
• B5 www.centerconsulting.com — NaNoGenMo: a yearly contest to write code that writes a novel card; B5.html sha256 2e56a9b2d669956d, HTTP 200 at 2026-11-01T15:13:25Z
• B6 YouTube·Life As I Write — YouTube (video, 15:17) card; unreachable: a video card titled only 'YouTube', no snippet; the channel found, the video not identifiable; no claim
• B7 Wikipedia — no article (NaNoGenMo; National Novel Generation Month) Wikipedia: no article; 'NaNoGenMo' raw wikitext HTTP 404 and rendered HTTP 404 (B7.html sha256 f51fd06b43f0fc03), 'National Novel Generation Month' raw and rendered HTTP 404 (B7b.html), at 2026-11-01T15:12:08Z; the census's copy (404) agrees

E_A, the archive's entity: the same event, in the layer census record, the Capture Registry's record and the archive's deposits: an event series whose unit is a participant's issue carrying a generated novel and its code, placed in the areas machine composition and field history as an empirical comparator; read as an inspectable program/output community in the machine-composition direction, where what a program makes from its source texts can be read beside the program, crediting of the generated text and its sources left to each participant, its relation to the training layer unrecorded; a practice of the column the archive calls writing through AI, the machine as method, kept apart from training-layer literature, and an instance of machine composition whose outputs the archive types by source status and provenance status (#186, #400, #1012, #1543) TLL-09 TLL-11 TLL-06 TLL-08 TLL-22 TLL-23 TLL-19 O186-01 O186-02 O1543-01 O1543-02 O1543-03; defining papers #186, #400, #1012, #1543

E_F, the field's entity (type C — a conventional reading holds it (public entity: an annual event series and its record of code-generated novels shared with their source code)): National Novel Generation Month, nanogenmo.github.io: an activity each November, 12:01am GMT 1 November to 12:01am GMT 1 December, in which participants write code that generates a novel of 50k+ words and share at least one novel and its source code; based on an idea Darius Kazemi tweeted, 2013; organised on GitHub, one repository per edition (2013 to 2025), issues as the forum, admins @dariusk and @hugovk; the novel defined however the participant wants, an existing Project Gutenberg novel allowed, resources and corpora pooled; copyright asked and not policed, no licence required of the code; entries from Markov chains, scraped and transformed texts, later neural language models; no Wikipedia article (its page; GitHub; Liza Daly; CenterConsulting; Wikipedia's 404)

ρ = extends: The archive reads E_F as the entity and adds senses and limits on the field's own object: what the event's record makes inspectable (a program beside what it makes from its sources), where its novels stand among the practices with machines (writing through AI, the machine as method, apart from writing for a machine reader), how an output's source status and provenance are told apart, and what is left unrecorded (crediting per participant; the training layer). It contests nothing the field says the event is. TLL-22 TLL-23 TLL-19 O186-01 O186-02 O1543-02 O1543-03. Guard: ρ = extends claims an addition and no more (§1.2a): no archive claim here makes a field claim wrong at its date; where sources differ (one rule or two, F4 and F25; the event as no AI or LLM project by its own statement, TLL-26, beside later neural language models, F41), both are composed under P_coh with their sources.

The case: equal terms, ontology included (v0.9). The archive reads the field's entity as the entity. No deposit names NaNoGenMo. The layer census record describes the event from its own page, field by field with its basis, and reads it as an inspectable program/output community in the machine-composition direction, where what a program makes from its sources can be read beside the program, crediting left to each participant. The deposits bear on the classes the field and the record source for it (novels generated by code; generated texts made from existing text; procedural and computational generation): #186 places such writing in the column of writing through AI, the machine as method, and keeps it apart from training-layer literature; #400 and #1012 give the same distinction in their terms; #1543 supplies machine composition and the coordinates on which an output's source status and provenance are kept apart. These add senses and limits on the field's own object; no archive text contests what the event is, and the field holds the ontology: ρ = extends, the equal-terms case.

#TLL census.json rows[slug == 'nanogenmo'].tll_reading: The archive reads NaNoGenMo as an inspectable program/output community in the machine-composition direction: each novel is shared with its code under a participant's account, so what a program makes from its source texts (a Project Gutenberg novel, a pooled corpus) can be read beside the program that made it.

#186 the defined term, description (line 12): Distinct from AI-generated literature (machine as writer), literature about AI (machine as subject), and procedural or computational poetry (machine as method).

#186 the four columns (line 30): | Writing through AI | method/procedure | "What does the algorithm reveal?" | Lillian-Yvonne Bertram, *Travesty Generator* |

#1543 §1 (line 81): This paper states the second wing, which the archive has been practicing without naming for seven months: machine COMPOSITION — what the encountered work makes it possible for a machine to WRITE.

#1543 the closing (line 272): Did the machine write something new? and Did the machine tell the truth about where it came from? are different questions

none (equal case: every field claim composed as received). Reading the received column recovers the field (§5.9).

v0.10 §4.10: KO_B sentences surviving in the KO at similarity ≥ 0.95, with positions (difflib.SequenceMatcher ratio, the best KO sentence for each KO_B sentence, as apply_v09.py does): v0.10 0 of 13 (positions [None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None]; composed first under v0.10, so there is no v0.7 object to measure against). Opening-run check (§5.10): no breach.

NaNoGenMo, National Novel Generation Month, is an activity in which participants spend November writing code that generates a novel of 50k+ words; it is based on an idea Darius Kazemi tweeted on a whim, and one account dates its start to 2013. It follows National Novel Writing Month's definition of a novel as 50,000 words of fiction and is described as a spoof of that event and as a tongue-in-cheek competition with no prizes or rankings. The only rule is to share at least one novel and the source code at the end; Liza Daly counts two rules, 50,000 words of output and the published source code, and the community posts novels and code in the open on GitHub. The activity runs from 12:01am GMT on 1 November to 12:01am GMT on 1 December, and editions are listed from 2013 to 2025. Participants open an issue on the edition's repository, title it by their project, post dev diaries and sample output and comment on others' issues; the admins are @dariusk and @hugovk, and GitHub's Issues serve as the forum, though the code need not be there. The novel is defined however the participant wants, as 50,000 repetitions of "meow" or a random novel grabbed from Project Gutenberg; each edition has a resources issue for libraries, corpuses, APIs and techniques, and the page recommends the corpora repository of public-domain lists. Copyright is a request the organisers do not police, and the code need not be licensed in any particular way. Entries of 2017 used Markov chains over a corpus, text scraped from Wikipedia, the source material of A Humument, transformations of Pride and Prejudice, edit-distance replacement from other corpora, word substitution and a neural network trained on crowd-sourced sentences. Early entries used Markov chains, scraped text and procedural tricks, later ones increasingly neural language models. About a hundred people take part each November; more than 100 other projects were made in 2017, and the GitHub organisation has 61 followers. Its sister events are NaPoGenMo, NaOpGenMo and NaMoGenMo. Daly reads the entries as tributes to human creativity, often deliberately bad, and news coverage of AI replacing authors as missing their spirit, with self-describing books a sub-genre; a Reddit answer reads the word count as no strict literary goal; CenterConsulting calls the spirit exploratory and comic and sets its open code-sharing against closed, monetized generators. Wikipedia has no article on it.

NaNoGenMo, National Novel Generation Month, is an annual event in which participants spend November writing code that generates a novel of 50,000 words or more and, at the end, share at least one novel together with the source code that made it. It is organised as a community on GitHub, one repository per edition, with its page at nanogenmo.github.io; as an event series its unit is a participant's issue on an edition's repository, carrying dev diaries, sample output, at least one generated novel and its source code. What it holds is the record of code-generated novels of 50,000 words or more and their source code, shared by participants each November since 2013. In its own words the event is "based on an idea Darius Kazemi tweeted on a whim"; it started in 2013 from that off-hand idea of the internet artist and programmer. It takes its measure from National Novel Writing Month, "in the spirit of" that event's "interesting definition of a novel as 50,000 words of fiction", and stays a distinct event: one account calls it a spoof of National Novel Writing Month, and Liza Daly calls it a tongue-in-cheek competition that, like its inspiration, has no prizes or rankings. The page states a single rule: "The only rule is that you share at least one novel and also your source code at the end." Daly counts two rules, at least 50,000 words of output and the source code published, and another account has the community posting its generated novels and the code that produced them in the open on GitHub. The activity runs from 12:01am GMT on 1 November to 12:01am GMT on 1 December; the code need not be on GitHub, where the repository serves to organise the community and its Issues work as a forum. The novel is "defined however you want": the page offers "50,000 repetitions of the word "meow"" and a program that could "literally grab a random novel from Project Gutenberg", only the count of 50k+ words mattering. A generated novel may thus be made from existing text, and the event points to such text: each edition has an open issue for resources (libraries, corpuses, APIs, techniques), the resource threads of old editions hold many more, and the page recommends corpora, a repository of public-domain lists of things. The entries Daly singles out from 2017 show the range: Markov chains over a good corpus, text scraped from Wikipedia entries on mass shootings mixed with handwritten narrative, the source material of Tom Phillips' A Humument, Pride and Prejudice cut down by the organiser hugovk's transformations, books replaced sentence by sentence from other corpora by edit distance, word substitution by semantic relationship, and a neural network trained on crowd-sourced first sentences, with a warning about unsanitized input data. Early entries used Markov chains, scraped text and procedural tricks; in later years participants increasingly reached for neural language models, which one account reads as an informal timeline of how machine text generation evolved. On copyright the page asks and declines to enforce, "Please try to respect copyright. We're not going to police it", the responsibility resting "on your head", and the source code "does not have to be licensed in a particular way, so long as you share it." A participant declares intent in an issue under their own GitHub account, and the saved page states no rule on how a generated novel is credited; crediting of the generated text and of any source it draws on is left to each participant, attribution practice varies across repositories, and a claim about an edition rests on its particular repositories. In third-party accounts the entries stand under their makers' names: Eoin Noble, Janelle Shane, Nick Montfort, hugovk and Kevan Davis are among those Daly names for 2017. A participant opens an issue on the edition's repository to declare the intent to participate, titles it by the kind of project, updates it through the month with dev diaries and sample output, and may comment on others' issues; the official admins, @dariusk and @hugovk, keep the issues organised and tagged. Readback runs through each edition's repository issues, with a resources issue per edition, from 2013 to 2025; the census has left the edition repositories and their issues unread. Thirteen editions are listed, 2013 to 2025, and the page as read on 1 November 2026, the first day of that year's period, lists no 2026 edition. The GitHub organisation shows 61 followers; Daly counts a hundred or so participants each November and more than 100 other projects in 2017, with hundreds more from other years, and the record leaves the number of participants or novels in any edition unstated. Its sister events are NaPoGenMo, National Poetry Generation Month, NaOpGenMo, National Opera Generation Month, and NaMoGenMo, National Movie Generation Month. Daly reads the entries as tributes to human creativity, often deliberately bad or unreadable, and as a chance to write throwaway code in public, and finds that news stories asking "Can AIs Replace Authors?" miss the spirit of the endeavour; self-describing books are, in Daly's account, practically a sub-genre. A Reddit answer reads the 50,000-word requirement as no strict literary goal, one that frees participants to reach the count through various means (its snippet breaks off at "unconve..."). CenterConsulting calls the spirit exploratory and often comic, the experiment being the point, and reads the event as a reminder that computers writing prose was a hobbyist curiosity before large language models made it a business question, its open code-sharing set against today's closed, monetized text generators. In the traininglayerliterature.org layer census it belongs to two areas, machine composition ("Reception becoming composition: readers, models and practices that make new writing from what they read") and field history, and stands to the census, whose question is how literature is addressed to a receiving apparatus and what that apparatus makes from it, as an empirical comparator. The census's question for it is what a program makes into a novel of 50k+ words, from which sources, with code and output shared together. The archive reads it as an inspectable program/output community in the machine-composition direction: each novel is shared with its code under a participant's account, so what a program makes from its source texts, a Project Gutenberg novel or a pooled corpus, can be read beside the program that made it. Novels written by code fall in the column the archive's field survey calls writing through AI, where the machine is method or procedure; the procedural lineage, from the Oulipo through electronic literature to computational poetics, established that composition can be delegated to systems, the machine there being method and not yet addressee. The archive keeps that practice apart from training-layer literature, which has a human writer and a machine reader: AI-generated literature has the machine as writer, procedural or computational poetry has it as method, computational poetics analyzes text computationally where training-layer literature composes for computation, computational poetry is poetry generated by computational systems, and AI-generated content is writing whose author is a language model. By its own statement the event is no AI or LLM project: its rules name code, and the novel is defined however the participant wants. In the archive's field survey a road-trip novel written by a sensor-fed network established generation-at-scale as an artifact, and the texts of the practices with and through machines are in the corpora, read by machines incidentally. Whether any generated novel or its source text is in a training corpus or a model is unrecorded; the record gives for the layer only the event's allowance of novels made from existing text and its pointer to public-domain corpora. Machine composition, in the archive's terms, is what an encountered work makes it possible for a machine to write, and a reception event may end in new writing: Virgil reads Homer and writes Virgil. Each output element is typed on four coordinates, among them source status (retrieved, generated, mixed, uncertain) and provenance status (marked, unmarked, misattributed, uncertain), so that whether a machine wrote something new and whether it told the truth about where it came from stay different questions. Uptake is not awarded on temporal succession, dependence on the encountered work having to be shown, and no claim is made about a composing system's interiority, transformation being measured on artifacts. The case the archive marks as especially important is recursive, an emitted artifact entering a later corpus and a later model: x → M_t → y → corpus_{t+1} → M_{t+1} → y′. NaNoGenMo is distinct from National Novel Writing Month, whose definition of a novel it borrows, and is no curated anthology, its only rule the sharing of a novel and its code; Wikipedia has no article under either of its names. Asked for the event by its acronym on 1 November 2026, the first day of its period, Google's AI Overview reached the event by name and gave its goal, period, rules, joining, origin and admins, mainly from its own page; the Capture Registry finds the period and the sharing rule composed exactly. The registry finds the novel taken whole from existing text absent, the page's examples replaced by a list of techniques, and the resources and corpora the page points to not carried, the closing offering generation techniques. It finds the copyright request, which the page asks and declines to enforce, given as a rule in force, and the statement that the code need not be licensed not carried. It records the admins' handles given as full names, Darius Kazemi's on the page and Hugo van Kemenade's on no saved page, no participant or novel named, no current edition named on the first day of the period, 'spoof' taken from the CenterConsulting card, the sister events not carried, no institution named, and the paste possibly truncated on a video card.

current · derived from the current composition

T against L_F(B) (AIO's ontology at work on its own cards): At 'NaNoGenMo' (T1, six cards, B1–B6; three reached in full text, B1, B4, B5; two by snippet only, B2 and B3; the sixth a video card with no title or snippet; 197 words in the answer body, 11 markers, and a closing offer) the composition gives a definition, the goal and period, a definition of the novel, sharing, participation, an origin and the community. Composed from its cards: the goal and period at the page's grain (B1 F2, F11; B3 F21), the sharing rule (B1 F4; B5 F40), joining by an issue (B1 F12), 'Definition of a Novel: The definition is flexible' (B1 F8), Markov chains (B4 F29; B5 F41), the editions from 2013 (B1 F17; B5 F38), the admins (B1 F14) and 'spoof' (B5 F39), as the Capture Registry records (CAP-1-04, CAP-1-11). Available, not composed (B_D): the novel taken whole from existing text, 'It could literally grab a random novel from Project Gutenberg' (B1 F9), and the page's resources and corpora (B1 F15, F16, F19), as the Capture Registry finds (CAP-1-06, CAP-1-07); the transformed existing novels and scraped sources of card 4's entries (F31, F32, F33, F35) and card 5's 'scraped text' (F41); the later turn to neural language models (B5 F41); the statement that the code need not be licensed (B1 F5, CAP-1-08); the origin in Darius Kazemi's tweeted idea (B1 F1; B5 F38), Kazemi composed only as a maintainer; the sister events (B1 F18, CAP-1-11); the readings of the event (B4 F26–F28, F37; B5 F42, F43; B2 F20 in part); the counts (B4 F23, F36; B3 F22); the absence of prizes or rankings (B4 F24); the named entries and their makers (B4 F29–F35), so that the composition names no participant and no novel (CAP-1-09). Limit dropped and force raised: the page's copyright request with its refusal to enforce, 'Please try to respect copyright. We're not going to police it' (B1 F10), composed as 'Respect for copyright applies.', a rule in force (CAP-1-08). Substituted reading: the page's examples of what a novel may be ('50,000 repetitions of the word "meow"', a random novel from Project Gutenberg, F8, F9) replaced by a list of techniques ('traditional procedural text, Markov chains, simulations, data mashups, or creative formatting'), as the registry finds (CAP-1-06). Composed beyond the cards: 'Hugo van Kemenade' (the page gives @hugovk; card 4 gives 'project organizer hugovk' and 'Hugo', F14, F33; no fetched B_D page gives the surname, CAP-1-05); 'playful'; 'GitHub issues and discussions'; 'NaNoWriMo … challenges humans to write a 50,000-word manuscript manually'. Composed without attribution: none at a source's own resolution; the body's lines carry markers to the cards. Content replaced by use: the closing offer, 'Are you planning to participate in an upcoming NaNoGenMo, or would you like to explore code examples or generation techniques (like Markov chains or template engines) to build your own?' (CAP-1-07, CAP-1-10). Not in B_D, so outside this comparison: the absence of a Wikipedia article (B7 F45, B_R).

v0.10 §0.5: the first diff is ontological and narrow. T and the field agree on the entity, a November event of code-generated novels shared with their code. T composes the event as a programming challenge of techniques and leaves out what the cards say of its material and its terms: a novel may be an existing novel taken whole, the page pools corpora and resources, the code carries no licence requirement, and copyright is asked and not policed; it raises that request to a rule.

L_F(B) against L_A(B ∪ A) (the intervention): Admission adds, in one claim space with the field's: the layer census's areas, relation and question for the event, what a program makes into a novel and from which sources (TLL-06–TLL-10, TLL-30); its record of what is made and where it stands to the layer (TLL-13, TLL-16, TLL-19, TLL-29), of under whose name a novel stands, crediting left to each participant and attribution practice varying by repository (TLL-14, TLL-20, TLL-23, TLL-28), and of readback through the edition repositories, unread (TLL-15, TLL-32); its reading of the event as an inspectable program/output community in the machine-composition direction (TLL-22), and its negative tags, among them 'NOT an AI or LLM project by its own statement' (TLL-26), held beside the field's report of later neural language models (F41) under P_coh; #186's column of writing through AI, the machine as method, the procedural lineage, generation-at-scale as artifact and the practices' presence in the corpora (O186-01–O186-06); the distinctions of #400 and #1012 between computational poetics or poetry, AI-generated content and training-layer literature (O400-01, O1012-01, O1012-02); #1543's machine composition, its coordinates of source status and provenance status, the two questions kept apart, the dependence requirement, the closed door on interiority and the recursive training loop (O1543-01–O1543-07); and the Capture Registry's findings at the name (CAP-1-01–CAP-1-14). Not surfaced: none of these is in B_D; no card names the archive. The field is carried whole; nothing in it is translated (equal case).

alignment: {'T1_cards_claims': ['F1', 'F2', 'F3', 'F4', 'F5', 'F6', 'F7', 'F8', 'F9', 'F10', 'F11', 'F12', 'F13', 'F14', 'F15', 'F16', 'F17', 'F18', 'F19', 'F20', 'F21', 'F22', 'F23', 'F24', 'F25', 'F26', 'F27', 'F28', 'F29', 'F30', 'F31', 'F32', 'F33', 'F34', 'F35', 'F36', 'F37', 'F38', 'F39', 'F40', 'F41', 'F42', 'F43', 'F44'], 'T1_composed': {'T1-1': ['F2', 'F21', 'F39'], 'T1-2': ['F11', 'F2'], 'T1-3': ['F8', 'F10', 'F29', 'F41'], 'T1-4': ['F4', 'F40'], 'T1-5': ['F12', 'F6'], 'T1-6': ['F39', 'F3'], 'T1-7': ['F17', 'F14', 'F12', 'F38'], 'T1-8': []}, 'T1_composed_note': "field claims (B_D) each T line composes, at the line's grain; T1-3 composes F10 at a raised force and replaces F8's examples and F9; the snippets of cards 1 and 4 are generated text, and card 1's 'defined flexibly, respecting copyright' carries T1-3's wording", 'T1_outside_cards': ["'Hugo van Kemenade' (the cards give @hugovk, 'project organizer hugovk' and 'Hugo')", "'playful'", "'GitHub issues and discussions'", "'simulations, data mashups, or creative formatting (such as guides, collections, or repeated structures)'", "NaNoWriMo 'challenges humans to write a 50,000-word manuscript manually'"], 'rule': "v0.10 §6.1–6.2: T against L_F(B_D); 'available, not composed' names B_D only; a claim found only in B_R is recorded as outside the comparison"}

composer-written · derived from the current composition, written by its composer under the brief. §8.2 derives the kernel mechanically from the frozen plan; this one was written by the composer, mechanical derivation pending.