Wary of the author’s early repeated trope of “reality is an illusion generated by each individual brain as a collective hallucination” but there’s enough good info & ideas herein that I’m glad I didn’t give up earlier. ( )

This is a great insight into the neuroscience of why we relate stories and how narrative creates the world around us. I found the science compelling. The only reason I did not rate this book higher is hat parts of the story around the science seemed incomplete. The concept is fully formed it just need slightly more fleshing out at times. Otherwise this is a great read and key information to understanding our world. ( )

I finished this excellent book this evening. It is a wonderful description of how we react to stories. It is full of information from psychological studies and examples from books and movies.

It explains how interdependent plots and characters are, and how stories have different levels, the plot being the surface and the protagonist's emotional and psychological response to the events of the story being the underlying level.

Apart from discussing our psychological response to stories the book also describes the psychological reactions and experiences of all of us in real life, and how our brain develops a neural model of the world in our early years that will solidify in early adulthood and dictate our world view and reactions into the future. Storr uses this to help explain how we can give fictional characters a degree of credibility and enable readers to connect with them.

I read John Yorke's excellent book, "Into the Woods", last year. It was about the structure of story. When I picked up "The Science of Storytelling" I was a bit dubious as to how good it might be and how it would measure up to Yorke's earlier publication. The content quickly proved the value of the book, its insights, and its useful advice. Storr referred to other writers on writing but held Yorke in very high regard. The other writer he referred to favourably was "Christopher Booker"; his book "The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories" was recommended with Yorke's "Into the Woods" as companion books to his own. I can state categorically that "Into the Woods" and "The Science of Storytelling" are well suited as a pair. I have Booker's book but have not read it yet. It will not be long before I do so.

I would recommend "The Science of Storytelling" to anyone interested in storytelling, either from the viewpoint of writing fiction, understanding fiction, or telling a story in a business context. It is also a help in understanding conflict and people's reactions to opinions that do not necessarily agree with their own. ( )

I heard about this book when New Scientist recommended it. The fact a prestigious science magazine thought a book on storytelling was worthy of mention got my immediate attention.
The heart of this book is what makes people, both individuals and groups, tick. Why people are the way they are, and how this translates into engaging characters and the sort of situation that can create a great story.
This isn't the sort of book you can burn through. It's one to take time with, and absorb. It's also a book I think I'll get benefit from in re-reading.
Apart from it's usefulness in creating great stories, it's also interesting for the general psychology of people, and the explanations as to why stories are so important to our species.
If you want some sort of formula for story writing, this isn't for you. If you want to add complexity to your characters and enhance your plot, this is a great resource. ( )

The Science of Storytelling is a psychology book. It looks at the age-old art of storytelling through what we know today about what catches the attention, what holds it, what intrigues the mind, repulses it or gets it calculating. All this in aid of writing novels and screenplays, which Will Storr teaches.

When I was a (marketing) manager, I had the reputation of always telling stories. Any time I wanted some sort of action taken, I would tell a story where similar circumstances led to the needed result. It’s just natural to tell stories people can relate to (I noticeably more than most, apparently). So with novels and films. It’s all about manipulating hallucinations for fun and profit. Knowing how the mind works makes modern fiction ever more gripping (when done right). Motivations, self-delusion and subconscious acts all figure prominently in Storr’s analyses.

He is very observant, deconstructing not just stories and scenes, but sentences and words. He gets the reader to understand the completely different impact of a simple declaration like: Jane gave her dad a kitten vs Jane gave a kitten to her dad. There’s not just a world of difference, but a world of different potential between the two sentences.

Similarly, everything must have a purpose. He says scenes without cause and effect are boring.

The basic driver of everything is the character. Who is s/he really? It might take the entire novel for the character to find out, and the reader might know well before s/he does. Bizarre turns should give the reader clues.

The basic structure is the five act drama. Things happen in a certain order and certain scenarios must be fulfilled to get to the next step. It has been the basis of storytelling for 2000 years, he says. It works, and is path of least resistance in writing fiction.

As for plots, he cites Christopher Booker numerous times that there are only seven. Everything we see and read is a variant of one of them.

The whole crux is what Storr calls a sacred flaw (He devotes the Appendix to it). The character controls his own little world, as we all must or go crazy. In that world the character is safe, secure, and most of all, right. It is the theory of control. Something happens to shake that control and that theory, and so begins a fight, an adventure, a chase, an investigation, a crusade, a campaign…. This is of course just life. The world and the universe are constantly changing. Anyone who holds to an unshakeable position will prove to be sadly mistaken. No matter who you are or what you perceive, it works until it doesn’t, and you have to adjust the theory to fit the new reality.

One thing that really slowed me down was Storr’s use of pronouns. He mixes singular and plural like they were masculine and feminine. Michael Corleone is they/them, for example. At one point, he uses the word themself, a combination of singular and plural in a single word, which grabbed my attention and made me forget what I was reading. I actually stopped and posted it on a forum to see if anyone else had ever encountered it. Why bother to squeeze a tortured neuter pronoun in for someone the reader clearly knows is female? Sometimes it’s hard to know who he is referring to. His and their are not interchangeable.

Overall, it’s an instructive ride, as Storr cites passages from numerous books and films to prove his points. It’s all true and relatable. He cites Roy Baumeister: “Life is change that yearns for stability.” And good luck with that.

David Wineberg ( )