Scan barcode
warwriter1939's review against another edition
2.0
Here's what I'm going to tell you. Here it is. Here's what I told you. Here's examples of what I told you. Here's more examples of what I told you.
After you get your basic plots, it's repetition from there.
After you get your basic plots, it's repetition from there.
kerrycat's review against another edition
I've been meaning to read this for years, and I'm sure there's a lot of good in here . . . but when someone wants to use Star Wars as an example and can't get several key facts straight (did he actually see the movie? even once?) I'm done. it's hard to regain any credibility with me when you misquote the most quoted line of the film.
katykelly's review against another edition
5.0
It's all about archetypes. A new way to look at stories. Long but worth the time.
I did wonder at times if I'd manage the entirety, but actually, once I'd settled into listening, this sped by.
A fascinating account spanning the whole of recorded storytelling, splitting the narratives we are familiar with (or not so) into seven categories. These are each broken down into constituent parts, elements focused on important to each, examples given that exemplify their structure and characteristics.
I liked the way the author details each book he utilises - the synopsis of the entire plot, useful if you've not read it or can't remember the detail, in order to compare it with whichever of the seven plots it fits into. I even learnt about several books I've not yet read (and sometimes not heard of). Even some popular films (Close Encounters, E.T. The Extra Terrestrial) are used as examples, showing that it's not just literary fiction that fits.
It did take some concentration, on audiobook, to continue listening for in excess of 38 hours, but the narrator's voice was absorbing and rousing.
This is a book I actually own in paperback and would want to read again on paper, to really attempt to take in more, there is so much detail that it feels impossible to soak up everything and see the constituent parts as sections of the whole.
Seeing stories as one of seven plots is an unfamiliar way of looking at a particular narrative, but a useful one, and picking out the common elements and archetypes an excellent means of classifying, breaking down, or potentially creating one.
Surprisingly enjoyable, though I would want a second read-through.
With thanks to Nudge Books for providing a sample Audible copy.
I did wonder at times if I'd manage the entirety, but actually, once I'd settled into listening, this sped by.
A fascinating account spanning the whole of recorded storytelling, splitting the narratives we are familiar with (or not so) into seven categories. These are each broken down into constituent parts, elements focused on important to each, examples given that exemplify their structure and characteristics.
I liked the way the author details each book he utilises - the synopsis of the entire plot, useful if you've not read it or can't remember the detail, in order to compare it with whichever of the seven plots it fits into. I even learnt about several books I've not yet read (and sometimes not heard of). Even some popular films (Close Encounters, E.T. The Extra Terrestrial) are used as examples, showing that it's not just literary fiction that fits.
It did take some concentration, on audiobook, to continue listening for in excess of 38 hours, but the narrator's voice was absorbing and rousing.
This is a book I actually own in paperback and would want to read again on paper, to really attempt to take in more, there is so much detail that it feels impossible to soak up everything and see the constituent parts as sections of the whole.
Seeing stories as one of seven plots is an unfamiliar way of looking at a particular narrative, but a useful one, and picking out the common elements and archetypes an excellent means of classifying, breaking down, or potentially creating one.
Surprisingly enjoyable, though I would want a second read-through.
With thanks to Nudge Books for providing a sample Audible copy.
sofijakryz's review against another edition
3.0
A valuable book for someone who wants to get familiarised with the general patterns recurring in most stories we read, watch or listen to, irrespective of whether they are the ancient myths, folk tales, classic works of literature, plays or movies. A couple of “buts” aside.
“The Basic Seven Plots” indeed covers a wide range of stories – from the biblical stories to Gilgamesh, to the ancient Greek myths, tragedies or comedies, to works by Dickens, Austen, Bronte, Tolstoi or Dostoyevski, to works defining the modern pop culture, such as “Star Wars” - commenting on the plot devices and character figures commonly met in all these stories. Surprisingly, there is way more overlap in different characters or situations presented in those stories than one would have thought.
Not only are the readers introduced to figures and plot elements used in rags to riches, quest, voyage and return, tragedy, comedy, overcoming the monster and rebirth, but, if you are someone like me – less well read and less knowledgeable, you will also get a crash course on classical works. I feel more motivated now to fix the holes in my knowledge of the classical literature.
This book is not without its shortcomings, though.
I think, for a beginner interested in creative writing, this book initially sounds almost a bit too academic. “The Seven Basic Plots” covers a lot of material and although most of it is the most widely known works of creation in the Western culture, the feeling of how overloaded or not the reader feels will depend on their breadth of knowledge. At the same time, it is somehow very repetitive at times, especially the bits where author comments on how well the characters or plot elements of a selected story correspond to the author’s theory.
I also found this book quite conservative and at times – strongly opinionated. I believe that many a reader may find this irritating. While I do agree that certain archetypes identified in the classical or works of literature, folk tales or ancient myths would include character attributes that would in those days be associated with the sex of characters (e.g. bravery etc. – masculine, empathy etc. – feminine) and set a kind of guidelines what an ideal male or female should be (or contrary, what they should not be), the times and attitudes have changed and I suppose we would expect those desirable “light” features from any human being, irrespective of their sex. At least in the Western cultures. So I wish the author had selected a different nomenclature than “feminine” or “masculine” attributes or values or put more emphasis on the fact that this is how things were interpreted in the past but these days - not necessarily.
There are those awkward bits where the author is excessively critical of feminism or other cultural changes that happened in the last century. While it is true that they have diverse outcomes and a range of manifestations, I got impression that the author is critical of them per se and that gets a bit too much at times (homosexuality on the same scale as the general relaxation of the ability to control sexual urges, really? What about heterosexuals in classical stories then? Paris of Troy stealing Helena, etc.? Zeus and his adventures with anything remotely resembling female? Why be so critical of using strong female protagonists in modern stories? We had it the other way round for the most of Western civilisation, why not have some interesting, active female characters now, long as they present universal desirable human values?) There was also the feeling that the author looked down on the more recent works of literature just because they didn’t fit in with the author’s understanding of the classical archetypes.
I am also not sure I agree with the authors interpretation of “cardboard figures” – does being different from archetypal hero/heroine/supporting figure automatically make you cardboard and inferior? I agree that because there are so much more works published these days, there is also an equivalent proportion of superficiality, but not everywhere. There are multiple modern stories where characters develop, change, rediscover themselves. Actually, many people consider classical “perfect” characters cardboard just because they do not always match the real human beings, at least in terms of complexity of their motivations. Or because of naivety of the ideals – society is far too imperfect for them to always work in real life.
The author addressed social and cultural changes that happened in the society over the last couple of centuries, so I was wondering whether he would touch on possibility of new archetypes forming. Booker did that to an extent – discussing similarities among some cultural phenomena – e.g. revolutions, possible archetypes in authoritarian movements. But that was about it. I understand that it is difficult to extrapolate from currently occurring phenomena, but I was expecting more.
I also think that the part where he tried to superimpose those seven archetypes on the actual historical developments was the weakest – archetypes seem to embody something that different societies in the past understood as desirable (or not) in the human beings. Something like an ideal to achieve. Not necessarily something that reflects reality at hand. So they do not fit perfectly. Although one can find parallels, of course.
I also would have wanted more information on archetypes in other cultures – Asian, African, native Australian or American. Some stories were touched upon – where they matched the author’s theory - but only a few. Was it because the author is better-versed in Western literature or because those stories do not meet our archetypes? And I had impression that those cultures were looked down on, too (why emphasise that “bushmen are one of the world’s most primitive cultures”? What does that have to do with the archetypes, especially, if they match? Unless to show universality, but I had impression that was less accentuated).
So all in all, I found my impressions mixed. There were some really useful observations about commonalities in – seemingly – such different plots and what makes humans happy irrespective of which age they come from. Which is good for creative writing beginners. But I was less impressed by the author’s sometimes excessively strongly expressed beliefs, lack of self-criticism and a possible confirmation bias in some situations.
“The Basic Seven Plots” indeed covers a wide range of stories – from the biblical stories to Gilgamesh, to the ancient Greek myths, tragedies or comedies, to works by Dickens, Austen, Bronte, Tolstoi or Dostoyevski, to works defining the modern pop culture, such as “Star Wars” - commenting on the plot devices and character figures commonly met in all these stories. Surprisingly, there is way more overlap in different characters or situations presented in those stories than one would have thought.
Not only are the readers introduced to figures and plot elements used in rags to riches, quest, voyage and return, tragedy, comedy, overcoming the monster and rebirth, but, if you are someone like me – less well read and less knowledgeable, you will also get a crash course on classical works. I feel more motivated now to fix the holes in my knowledge of the classical literature.
This book is not without its shortcomings, though.
I think, for a beginner interested in creative writing, this book initially sounds almost a bit too academic. “The Seven Basic Plots” covers a lot of material and although most of it is the most widely known works of creation in the Western culture, the feeling of how overloaded or not the reader feels will depend on their breadth of knowledge. At the same time, it is somehow very repetitive at times, especially the bits where author comments on how well the characters or plot elements of a selected story correspond to the author’s theory.
I also found this book quite conservative and at times – strongly opinionated. I believe that many a reader may find this irritating. While I do agree that certain archetypes identified in the classical or works of literature, folk tales or ancient myths would include character attributes that would in those days be associated with the sex of characters (e.g. bravery etc. – masculine, empathy etc. – feminine) and set a kind of guidelines what an ideal male or female should be (or contrary, what they should not be), the times and attitudes have changed and I suppose we would expect those desirable “light” features from any human being, irrespective of their sex. At least in the Western cultures. So I wish the author had selected a different nomenclature than “feminine” or “masculine” attributes or values or put more emphasis on the fact that this is how things were interpreted in the past but these days - not necessarily.
There are those awkward bits where the author is excessively critical of feminism or other cultural changes that happened in the last century. While it is true that they have diverse outcomes and a range of manifestations, I got impression that the author is critical of them per se and that gets a bit too much at times (homosexuality on the same scale as the general relaxation of the ability to control sexual urges, really? What about heterosexuals in classical stories then? Paris of Troy stealing Helena, etc.? Zeus and his adventures with anything remotely resembling female? Why be so critical of using strong female protagonists in modern stories? We had it the other way round for the most of Western civilisation, why not have some interesting, active female characters now, long as they present universal desirable human values?) There was also the feeling that the author looked down on the more recent works of literature just because they didn’t fit in with the author’s understanding of the classical archetypes.
I am also not sure I agree with the authors interpretation of “cardboard figures” – does being different from archetypal hero/heroine/supporting figure automatically make you cardboard and inferior? I agree that because there are so much more works published these days, there is also an equivalent proportion of superficiality, but not everywhere. There are multiple modern stories where characters develop, change, rediscover themselves. Actually, many people consider classical “perfect” characters cardboard just because they do not always match the real human beings, at least in terms of complexity of their motivations. Or because of naivety of the ideals – society is far too imperfect for them to always work in real life.
The author addressed social and cultural changes that happened in the society over the last couple of centuries, so I was wondering whether he would touch on possibility of new archetypes forming. Booker did that to an extent – discussing similarities among some cultural phenomena – e.g. revolutions, possible archetypes in authoritarian movements. But that was about it. I understand that it is difficult to extrapolate from currently occurring phenomena, but I was expecting more.
I also think that the part where he tried to superimpose those seven archetypes on the actual historical developments was the weakest – archetypes seem to embody something that different societies in the past understood as desirable (or not) in the human beings. Something like an ideal to achieve. Not necessarily something that reflects reality at hand. So they do not fit perfectly. Although one can find parallels, of course.
I also would have wanted more information on archetypes in other cultures – Asian, African, native Australian or American. Some stories were touched upon – where they matched the author’s theory - but only a few. Was it because the author is better-versed in Western literature or because those stories do not meet our archetypes? And I had impression that those cultures were looked down on, too (why emphasise that “bushmen are one of the world’s most primitive cultures”? What does that have to do with the archetypes, especially, if they match? Unless to show universality, but I had impression that was less accentuated).
So all in all, I found my impressions mixed. There were some really useful observations about commonalities in – seemingly – such different plots and what makes humans happy irrespective of which age they come from. Which is good for creative writing beginners. But I was less impressed by the author’s sometimes excessively strongly expressed beliefs, lack of self-criticism and a possible confirmation bias in some situations.
grvhppr's review against another edition
Honestly just kinda too long with book examples from books I haven't read to understand the concepts completely. I'll just use this website as reference: https://www.how-to-write-a-book-now.com/seven-basic-plots.html
clarks_dad's review against another edition
3.0
Great to read in parts, but as a whole, long-winded and overly repetitive. This book could have easily been 300 pages and been more effective. I think I will consult it again though. It's a good reference tool.
danteo's review against another edition
4.0
Anyone who likes reading or writing, or even some other form of storytelling (like movies for example) really owes it to themselves to read this book. This book will give you so many great new insights and you will gain a much deeper understanding and appreciation on how stories are built up. I found myself looking at stories differently than I did before.
Booker explains how all stories basically fit into one of the seven basic plots. What's more, those stories will go through the same five main stages:
* The Anticipation Stage
* The Dream Stage
* The Frustration Stage
* The Nightmare Stage
* The 'Resolution' Stage, which of course may vary depending on what type of story it is.
These stages are not entirely fixed, as some stages may come back several times in a story, or the story may start at a different stage, but basically all stories follow the same structure.
In the latter part of the book, Booker goes on to explain how storytelling has become 'broken' in recent times by consciously or unconsciously breaking the rules. He makes a very compelling case, although I felt he is too rigid in his opinion. A 'broken' story may just be as powerful in its own right as a 'correct' story, and I see those stories more as an extension of the seven basic plots instead (although some of the examples are really extreme, and I agree that those particular examples should not be recognized as storytelling in any way).
In the end, you may or may not agree with his opinions, but don't let this difference of opinions stand in the way of the main thesis of the book. This remains far and away the best book I've ever read on writing.
Booker explains how all stories basically fit into one of the seven basic plots. What's more, those stories will go through the same five main stages:
* The Anticipation Stage
* The Dream Stage
* The Frustration Stage
* The Nightmare Stage
* The 'Resolution' Stage, which of course may vary depending on what type of story it is.
These stages are not entirely fixed, as some stages may come back several times in a story, or the story may start at a different stage, but basically all stories follow the same structure.
In the latter part of the book, Booker goes on to explain how storytelling has become 'broken' in recent times by consciously or unconsciously breaking the rules. He makes a very compelling case, although I felt he is too rigid in his opinion. A 'broken' story may just be as powerful in its own right as a 'correct' story, and I see those stories more as an extension of the seven basic plots instead (although some of the examples are really extreme, and I agree that those particular examples should not be recognized as storytelling in any way).
In the end, you may or may not agree with his opinions, but don't let this difference of opinions stand in the way of the main thesis of the book. This remains far and away the best book I've ever read on writing.
esther23's review against another edition
2.0
Though this book starts on a very intriguing and interesting note (right up to the middle of the book the story reads as a train), after part two the author just lost me. His explanation on how and why some of the greatest novel ever written don't follow his 'basic plots' just doesn't add up. His lack of references, his odd choice of literary (and non-literary) works to prove his point, I could forgive until halfway through. Only when he started to apply his theory onto "the real world", I couldn't help but think this was utter bullshit.
So even though the Jungian approach might be interesting, future readers should be aware that Christopher Booker is not a literary scholar, only an individual who had an interesting theory and thought he could apply it to every single story in the universe (note: he mostly neglects any story that is not part of canonical Western literature).
So even though the Jungian approach might be interesting, future readers should be aware that Christopher Booker is not a literary scholar, only an individual who had an interesting theory and thought he could apply it to every single story in the universe (note: he mostly neglects any story that is not part of canonical Western literature).