Scan barcode
denouement's review against another edition
2.0
DNF. I wanted to read all of this book for my thesis and the idea is so interesting. But after all the baseless conclusions the author arrived at from simply nowhere (what was that whole section about how the difference in play between boys and girls comes from, of course, biology and not the obvious conclusion - that would actually aid the point the author was trying to make, mind you - that story and the stimuli we give children somehow shapes them from even earlier than we thought??), and they just kept being piled on and on and on, i just had to let drop this book. How disappointing.
bookjerm's review against another edition
2.0
This book was just ok for me. I was expecting something more profound / insightful about humanity's attraction and ability to create narrative. This never quite delivered for me. I felt like much of the pages of this short book were lengthy anecdotes, which I felt buried the point of a lot of the chapters.
billmc's review against another edition
3.0
This was an interesting overview but I agree with other reviewers that it didn't seem to offer much new. In addition, there were times when the analysis seemed superficial. For example, on page 96, he talks about "...split-brain patients were a boon to neuroscience. Thanks largely to these patients, scientists were able to isolate and study the workings of the two hemispheres of the brain. They discovered that the left brain is specialized..." He suggests that 1962 was a breakthrough year in the study of brain function localization. In actuality, doctors and neuroscientists were studying localization as early as the late 1800s by looking of victims of both strokes and traumatic head injury.
yousrabushehri's review against another edition
3.0
Definitely an interesting read. A lot of the stuff was pretty much common sense to me or things that I've been told or heard of before as an undergrad English major and MA student.
Overall, it was an easy read. Funny and entertaining and really does give great examples to back up Gottschall's claim of the Human being a Storytelling Animal.
Overall, it was an easy read. Funny and entertaining and really does give great examples to back up Gottschall's claim of the Human being a Storytelling Animal.
booklizzie's review against another edition
3.0
I found this book to be an enjoyable read... That should have been abridged into an academic journal article. The information is well cited and mostly well chosen, but the musings and personal insights seemed a bit like intellectual fluff of graduate-school-essay quality.
Note: Dear Jonathan, Star Trek DID deal with the emotional minefield of the holodeck in at least one minor character's development. Cite: Reginald Barclay in season 3 episode 21 of Next Gen.
Note: Dear Jonathan, Star Trek DID deal with the emotional minefield of the holodeck in at least one minor character's development. Cite: Reginald Barclay in season 3 episode 21 of Next Gen.
caitlin_89's review against another edition
3.0
Stories aren't just entertainment. We live for them, live by them, look for them, make them, learn from them, etc. Story is as human as ... well, everything I can think of right now is also something animals do. But story? Story is essentially human. And that's the point of this easy-to-read book.
It's not groundbreaking. It's not super cohesive. It feels more like essays or an article at times. But it has poignant observations and smart moments and interesting thoughts, so it was definitely worth the read.
It's not groundbreaking. It's not super cohesive. It feels more like essays or an article at times. But it has poignant observations and smart moments and interesting thoughts, so it was definitely worth the read.
lizwisniewski's review against another edition
4.0
I started out thinking that this was going to be a dumb book. Yes, that is the only way to put it - I felt the author started out stating the obvious, or ideas that were not very interesting. But, as I read on I was pleasantly surprised to find myself learning and thinking about the role story plays in our lives. I found myself, stopping and thinking and saying ah-ha! So it was not a dumb book after all! It was a good book that just started out dumb.
jesassa's review against another edition
3.0
Great idea! Great start! A mostly great interior. The final chapter went well with a recent read Ready, Player One but was less interesting to me. It was pretty short and I loved a lot of the chapter quotes. A good quick read.
rbreade's review against another edition
For a couple of years now, I've been watching fMRI studies pile up evidence that narrative, fiction in particular, is good for the brain, and in this book Gottschall delivers a thorough account of this phenomenon. He has an engaging style, some of which I'll quote in a bit, that makes this a quick read, though the content is well worth a slower approach to allow for pondering, or at least marginalia.
The theme of the book is that our species might justifiably be called Homo fictus--fiction man. Gottschall:
Gottschall goes on to summarize the puzzling thing about fiction, the thing that underlies the claim of some people to never read fiction because they don't want to waste their time: "Evolution is ruthlessly utilitarian. How has the seeming luxury of fiction not been eliminated from human life?" Possible explanations are discussed, all of which are plausible, including one that suggests that the brain, rather than being designed for story, actually contains glitches that make it vulnerable to story.
Along the way, Gottschall examines some of the fascinating science that has come into play around the puzzle of story and the brain, such as the 1990s discovery of mirror neurons, which might be the engine that drives the empathy that good fiction engages. As mirror neuron researcher Marco Iacoboni, speaking of what happens when we watch a film, puts it, "Mirror neurons...re-create for us the distress we see on the screen. We have empathy for the fictional characters...because we literally experience the same feelings ourselves....'Vicarious' is not a strong enough word to describe the effect of these mirror neurons."
Nonfiction, designed to persuade through argument and evidence, consistently comes in second to fiction in measures of effectiveness at changing people's beliefs. "When we read nonfiction," Gottschall writes, "we read with our shields up. We are critical and skeptical. But when we are absorbed in a story, we drop our intellectual guard." I write this as someone who loves nonfiction, too, but there is a reason New Journalism and Creative Nonfiction make use of fictional techniques, and Gottschall has put his figurative finger squarely on it.
This developing line of research is confirming for all us lovers of fiction what we knew in our hearts to be true: narrative, fiction, is good for you. The next time someone sneers at your attachment to fiction, possibly adding the insult of "I only read nonfiction" or "I only read things that are true," you have my permission, and Gottschall's, to deploy these fMRI studies with extreme prejudice.
The theme of the book is that our species might justifiably be called Homo fictus--fiction man. Gottschall:
You are a creature of an imaginative realm called Neverland. Neverland is your home, and before you die, you will spend decades there. If you haven't noticed this before, don't despair: story is for a human as water is for a fish--all-encompassing and not quite palpable. While your body is always fixed at a particular point in space-time, your mind is always free to ramble in lands of make-believe. And it does.
Gottschall goes on to summarize the puzzling thing about fiction, the thing that underlies the claim of some people to never read fiction because they don't want to waste their time: "Evolution is ruthlessly utilitarian. How has the seeming luxury of fiction not been eliminated from human life?" Possible explanations are discussed, all of which are plausible, including one that suggests that the brain, rather than being designed for story, actually contains glitches that make it vulnerable to story.
Along the way, Gottschall examines some of the fascinating science that has come into play around the puzzle of story and the brain, such as the 1990s discovery of mirror neurons, which might be the engine that drives the empathy that good fiction engages. As mirror neuron researcher Marco Iacoboni, speaking of what happens when we watch a film, puts it, "Mirror neurons...re-create for us the distress we see on the screen. We have empathy for the fictional characters...because we literally experience the same feelings ourselves....'Vicarious' is not a strong enough word to describe the effect of these mirror neurons."
Nonfiction, designed to persuade through argument and evidence, consistently comes in second to fiction in measures of effectiveness at changing people's beliefs. "When we read nonfiction," Gottschall writes, "we read with our shields up. We are critical and skeptical. But when we are absorbed in a story, we drop our intellectual guard." I write this as someone who loves nonfiction, too, but there is a reason New Journalism and Creative Nonfiction make use of fictional techniques, and Gottschall has put his figurative finger squarely on it.
This developing line of research is confirming for all us lovers of fiction what we knew in our hearts to be true: narrative, fiction, is good for you. The next time someone sneers at your attachment to fiction, possibly adding the insult of "I only read nonfiction" or "I only read things that are true," you have my permission, and Gottschall's, to deploy these fMRI studies with extreme prejudice.