We study the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate comprehensive and accurate book summaries solely from their internal knowledge, without recourse to the original text. Employing a diverse set of books and multiple LLM architectures, we examine whether these models can synthesize meaningful narratives that align with established human interpretations. Evaluation is performed with a LLM-as-a-judge paradigm: each AI-generated summary is compared against a high-quality, human-written summary via a cross-model assessment, where all participating LLMs evaluate not only their own outputs but also those produced by others. This methodology enables the identification of potential biases, such as the proclivity for models to favor their own summarization style over others. In addition, alignment between the human-crafted and LLM-generated summaries is quantified using ROUGE and BERTScore metrics, assessing the depth of grammatical and semantic correspondence. The results reveal nuanced variations in content representation and stylistic preferences among the models, highlighting both strengths and limitations inherent in relying on internal knowledge for summarization tasks. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of LLM internal encodings of factual information and the dynamics of cross-model evaluation, with implications for the development of more robust natural language generative systems.