There is a lot of fascinating information in this book about what makes us so, well, fascinated. Davies surveys a great deal of the cognitive science literature to take a look at why the human mind responds the way it does to different elements of story. Ostensibly, this is aimed at helping saavy writers, creators (and yes, marketers) apply this knowledge to make their work more compelling.

But Malcolm Gladwell, Dr. Davies ain’t.

Unfortunately, the author displays a very surface understanding (and in some cases misunderstanding) of those pop culture examples from outside his personal tastes. Despite a wealth of pertinent information, he seems content to sprinkle a few facts across the page and move on quickly, more like a freshman essay than an expert's treatise. Long on summary and short on insight or analysis, this book may provide a useful jumping off point for futher reading, but will not in and of itself provide much enlightenment

So unfortunately I waited too long and forgot to take good notes on this book. But I'm going to do my best. The big idea of Riveted is to ask why some things are captivating and others are not. Why some get sucked into a song that leaves others cold.

The basic foundational principals Jim Davies uses to construct his argument are the assumption that humans are interested in other humans, we give special interest to facts we hope or fear, humans are pattern seeking, which in turn means we are compelled by incongruity, the structure of our senses is fundamental to our reaction to the world, and there are core psychological structures built into the structure of our brain that shape what we are inclined to believe or disbelieve.

The question of compellingness is itself rather compelling. Marketers spend a lot of time wondering about how to manipulate it. Each person spends a decent amount of time considering what they find compelling when making a large purchase, and ultimately we spend time trying to pick from the myriad of possibilities in our daily life what we think will ultimately be most compelling in the long term.

At least based on what stood out to me I'd say the strongest case for what will be compelling is made for items that encourage us to find a pattern and that which disrupts an expected pattern. Repetition in games feeds the desire to observe regularity. But a misplaced object can cause a unquenchable disease even if a person doesn't quite understand what is causing it.

The other dimensions all are given a good case too but these seem to touch on some of the most fundamental reasons why something would be compelling. There are some questionable claims that a reader would have to dive into to figure out if are true. But that is pretty much a given for pop science books. The thesis is also a bit all over the place as far as ultimate unifying principal but overall Jim Davies does a good job presenting his concept and it was an enjoyable read. If you are interested in this sort of area I'd say give it a read. ( )

This book is a study of what makes things interesting in art, sport and other subjects. Davies splits the book up into topics like patterns, biology and incongruity and then links them all up at some point to show relationships between topics and make sense of it all. ( )

Riveted isn't bad work, per se, but it's disappointing. If Davies' thesis is the irrationality of religious faith, then there's too much other material in the book, and that material is distracting (not to mention the book cover and blurbs are misleading). That thesis would be more than enough to carry the book, and there's enough material here on that topic to fill an entire book. But Davies either didn't think that was sufficient or felt the need to be deliberately misleading. If his thesis is meant to be broader--to actually support this "compellingness foundations theory" that he puts forth--then he was himself seduced by the anti-religion argument and simply lets it run away with him. (I suspect the latter is the case.) The book is also extremely broken up and lacking in transitions. I've read a lot of academic scholarly work as well as a lot of academics writing for a general audience, and Davies needed an editor (or at least an English grad student) to make his work more palatable for the general public as his writing style is choppy in places and his tone inconsistent. Short story: if you want to read an erudite argument against theism, read Christopher Hitchens; if you want to read fascinating cultural analysis that synthesizes research from a number of different fields, read Malcolm Gladwell (or James Glick). Davies is too much of both and not enough of either. ( )

I liked this book, probably because I really wanted to like this book, but it has a few problems. It reads like somebody's dissertation research that has been watered down for a general audience. I would have rather read the dissertation, because the author continually makes claims that need citations and don't have them. The author also relies on a few neuroscience concepts that were once widely believed and have since been disproven - the idea that the right side of the brain controls the left side of our bodies and vice versa, for example. (It's actually much, much more complicated than that.) So the book felt outdated in that regard - for a scientific book about the brain, I expect a more updated use of the science.
That said, I liked the author's tone - he made me laugh out loud a few times. If you disagree with his biases, I could understand how you might be put off, but overall I thought it was an okay book. If you're really interested in the science, there are much better books to read, and more accurate ones to boot. ( )