How Fiction Works

Quite interesting

Concise and masterfully distilled take on novel as an art form. Never pretentious, down to concrete examples anyone can enjoy with a multitude of “yes!” and “aha!” it walks through (one narrative of) the history of the novel in a way that leaves something to find for anyone.This is not a tome to be studied for ages, rather like Kurt Cobain or the Sex Pistols would throw irresistible short riffs on aspects of a good novel, which then linger as literary hooks, getting you downloading literary classics to your already overgrown pile of reading, which you will now read with opened eyes.Damn this was good.

Overall this is a pretty good introduction to literary criticism and some of the theories behind the analysis of fiction. It's pretty easy to read but I found myself having to look past many of the examples the author gives to illustrate the concept because I felt they were either poor choices or simply incorrect.A couple of examples: in discussing the difficulties authors can face in balancing authorial voice versus character voice he criticises John Updike in his novel Terrorist, for having an 18-year-old Muslim schoolboy specifically cite one of the sura’s in the Qu’ran, when he is ruminating on the state of the world. Wood claims this is unrealistic and in the footnote suggests that its preposterousness is illustrated if we try to imagine a Christian schoolboy citing chapter and verse of a line from the Bible in a similar way. I’m astounded that Wood, a Professor at Harvard, has never encountered the type of Christian who does exactly that!The second example is in discussing the debate about the pros/cons of realism. Apparently Barthes, in his attack on Realism, famously accuses of Flaubert of describing the presence of a barometer as being purely for effect, for having no meaning beyond an attempt at verisimilitude, unlike the symbolism associated with pianos and other objects that are described. But historically, barometers do have symbolism. They, along with telescopes and timepieces, etc. are associated with rationalism and the Enlightenment. I would hope that some literary theorist out there has pointed this out, but if so, they seem to have been ignored, because this seems to have become the example par excellence of description for description’s sake. Perhaps this lack of knowledge is forgivable, but what I find even more amazing is that Wood, Nuttall, Barthes and, by inference, many other literary theorists, don’t actually understand how barometers work! Wood is positively gleeful about how useless they are and how they are only owned by people trying to appear middle-class. You’d think they would make an attempt to find out before revealing their ignorance in print. And no — it does not appear to be being said in irony (p.65-6).There are many other examples like these, and of course, the wider points he is trying illustrate are still valid. However, it definitely makes me question him as being a voice of authority.

It says so much that I came to Jame Wood so late. I'd been reading Martin Amis and the rest for a long time before I even heard of him. Wood is humane, perceptive, not interested in gleeful hatchet-jobs on the second-rate or pointless discussions of private life. (It's so much easier to talk about Hemingway's hunting trips than it is to talk about which books are actually worth reading, and why.Wood is also not interested in showing off his cleverness by talking up "unjustly neglected" writers. He focuses on the big names and talks carefully about what makes them worth reading. Few, if any rivals.

Woods is one of the best contemporary critics. You don’t always agree with him, but he always makes you think. For this book to work best, you have to engage with it and think for yourself too.

I bought this paperback book to use for my studies on creative writing and I like to flick through my reference books, of which I have many. Unfortunately, this book came with deckle edges (see images) and I cannot actually see anywhere on this webpage, or even on the book itself, that it was advertised as such. A smooth edge on a book allows you to flick through page by page when looking for a particular page but with deckle edging that doesn't work out so well; not at all really.As I haven't actually used the book yet, or read it, as it only arrived today, I cannot tell you as to how valuable it is as a research tool, or not. The print is large enough and clear, and the paper somewhat old-fashioned in texture but not in a bad way.There is a rather limited list of contents at the front (see image) and yet, within the 'chapters', there is numbering which breaks the chapters into sections without any mention of why: no subheadings. See image. According to the contents page, page number (33) comes under the 'Narration' chapter, and yet there are two breaks on page (33) numbered 26 and 27. If a writer is going to do that, number paragraph breaks, then there needs to be some explanation as to why, e.g. subheadings. There is an Index at the back which refers to page numbers only. It all seems very odd. Anyway, you have been warned.

From the description and the other reviews I expected much more of this. It started well but the more I read of it the more I felt the author simply wanted to air his own views, quite possibly well-founded, but somehow he didn't seem to think it necessary to support his opinions with a wealth of examples. Surely any teacher or critic of literature should not only be able to do so but should also understand that opinions without adequate evidence are rarely convincing. It was almost as though he were addressing a common-room of colleagues, so he felt that they should identify all the specific examples for themselves - and if they couldn't, they did not deserve his further consideration. I don't presume to contradict his ideas, but feel that as part of his target audience I was not presented with a clear and well-argued case that I might readily agree with.