We present Tables, the first large-scale human evaluation of faithfulness and content selection in book-length summarization. By recruiting annotators who had read recently-published books for enjoyment, we collect 3,158 claim-level faithfulness annotations from LLM-generated summaries of 26 narratives. This allows us to rank LLM summarizers based on faithfulness, revealing that Claude-3-Opus is the most faithful book-length summarizer, followed by GPT-4-Turoo. Next, we experiment with using LLMs for automatic claim verification. Our results expose the limitations of both retrieval and long-context understanding: LLM auto-raters cannot reliably detect _unfaithful_ claims, even when prompted with the full book text. Our analysis shows that unfaithful claims primarily pertain to states and events, often necessitating reasoning over extended contexts, which makes them complicated to detect for both humans and machines. Finally, we move beyond faithfulness to explore and characterize common content selection errors such as omissions of key events, attributes, and characters, as well as the over-emphasis of content from the end of the book.