Skip to main content

Wonderworks - Angus Fletcher *****

If you are interested in both writing and science this is an unmissable book. Reading can not just impart information, but can influence the way that we feel. Angus Fletcher describes 25 literary techniques (many also applicable to film and TV), ranging from those known to the Ancient Greeks to modern innovations, that can have a particular influence on our feelings and state of mind. Interestingly Fletcher describes this as technology - devices to make something happen. But rather than being a purely philosophical exploration, what lifts the book significantly is that for each of these techniques, Fletcher describes how studies of the impact on the brain show the physical effects occurring in different parts of the brain as a result.

The chapters (one for each technique) end with a faintly self-help feeling bit - for instance, how you can use the 'clear your head' technique by reading certain texts, but that really isn't the point. This isn't a self-help book, it's a chance to explore the nature of storytelling and how narrative techniques influence the brain. As a writer, I found the storytelling technology part most interesting, but there's no doubt that having the science part gives the whole idea more weight.

Some of the techniques are fairly obvious, and some may be very familiar to those who have studied literature at university level - but there will be some surprises for almost everyone. There's a real feeling of recognition of something that suddenly makes sense (itself arguably one of the techniques). In fact Fletcher, presumably consciously, does make use of many of the techniques in the book itself.

I did have a few small issues. Some of the techniques felt a bit samey - I would have preferred a shorter list with more distinction (it would also have made the book a bit less chunky, as it seemed to go on too long). Fletcher also has a tendency to state as if fact things that are possible but uncertain (or even downright inaccurate). For example, he says that there is no evidence for human pheromones where in fact there is evidence consistent with pheromones, but (if they do exist) the pheromones have not been definitely identified. He also has Galileo looking through telescope at the sun (there is some dispute as to whether he did and his telescope was too weak to blind him or he projected the image) and seems to suggest Galileo was the first to discover sunspots, which he definitely wasn't.

Again, possibly using one of the techniques described himself, Fletcher's language sometimes was unnecessarily flowery, overusing, for example, double-barrelled adjectives. In fact, one thing he really didn't cover, which would have been interesting, was circumstances where a writer who thinks they are cleverly using a technique to influence our emotions or state of mind, instead irritates the reader, or makes them give up reading entirely (I've done this with three books in my time, one of which was a supposed classic) and/or makes them throw the book across the room.

This is a book that is fresh and inspiring. I'd definitely recommend that anyone who writes (or wants to write) should read it, but also anyone with an interest in how the brain is affected by surprisingly subtle influences. A real find.

Hardback: 
Bookshop.org

  

Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on