Scan barcode
unnamedreader's review
challenging
emotional
informative
slow-paced
3.75
I did resort to skimming once I finished chapter 3 and only went back to read sections and anecdotes that interested me
alexblackreads's review
2.0
I couldn't get into it. There were some sections I understood and was able to relate to, but there was a lot of medical jargon that I couldn't grasp. I expected that as I'm not a very science-minded person, but when she did stray from the technical, her prose was dry and I had to drag myself through the book.
When she discussed how hypergraphia didn't always make for good writing, I completely understood what she meant because I felt like I was reading an example of it. She rambled and went off topic for pages only to return to previous points she never finished discussing. This book could have used a few solid rewrites.
One thing that turned me off especially was that she seemed very concerned with what constituted "real writing" (apparently not genre writers, unless they're Stephen King) or "true writer's block" and other sentiments of the sort.
I did get a few things out of it, but those occasional tidbits weren't really worth the rest of the book. Maybe someone more scientific than myself would get more out of it, but I was bored and annoyed through the majority of it.
When she discussed how hypergraphia didn't always make for good writing, I completely understood what she meant because I felt like I was reading an example of it. She rambled and went off topic for pages only to return to previous points she never finished discussing. This book could have used a few solid rewrites.
One thing that turned me off especially was that she seemed very concerned with what constituted "real writing" (apparently not genre writers, unless they're Stephen King) or "true writer's block" and other sentiments of the sort.
I did get a few things out of it, but those occasional tidbits weren't really worth the rest of the book. Maybe someone more scientific than myself would get more out of it, but I was bored and annoyed through the majority of it.
ifpoetshadmerch's review
3.0
I feel like this book was written for a very niche audience-- it's a neuroscience and clinical perspective on inspiration and the desire to write. Though Flaherty attempts to explain the science behind it, I can see how her explanation may still be confusing for those without a background in the field. An interesting read, I did find it rather obvious that Flaherty is trained as a clinician rather than a writer, and I thought the book was a bit unorganized. In my opinion, Flaherty also discussed her personal life a bit too often. While these glimpses were at times insightful, other times she seemed to be flaunting belief in her uniqueness. I definitely was not a fan of the ending section, where she compares writing inspiration to religious inspiration-- though she doesn't try to dissuade religious belief, there was definitely a strong under current that connected religion as a creation of fiction.
steph_into_the_pages's review
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
An intriguing look at how creativity and creative inspiration work. Some of the medical jargon was hard to get through, which slowed the pace for me. But it does a good job explaining the connections between creativity, mental health, writing, and brain functions. If you are interested in learning about the science behind what compels humans to write, this is a good read.
homingpigeon's review
5.0
The most interesting book I've ever read--on any topic. It's not just about hypergraphia--it's a fascinating history of reading, writing, and the human brain.
lalodragon's review against another edition
1.0
The book tried and failed everything. My complaints?
1. The writing was horrible. It needed a heartless editor. It rarely left the hypergraphic stage-- incoherent and longwinded.
2. I'm highly skeptical of all the posthumous diagnoses. (You know Moses' metal illnesses? Really?)
3. The science didn't seem to hold up, mainly relying on the above. (If there was much behind it, it stayed behind).
4. The author's experience was annoyingly invoked and abandoned. It interrupted the rest of the book, but was dropped before it could be interesting itself.
5. The "effective help" which the book wanted to suggest was denied. Any remedy was denounced (medicine has side effects, therapists don't understand).
The book said effectively nothing. Even the author said that, though she was driven to write this, she often doubted that what she wrote was true. I learned one interesting thing from this book. (That the relatives of the mentally ill might have creative advantage.)
But two stars, not one, because the book had its charms. They did not make it worth reading; they only made me think that it was worth reading, until the rushed ending.
1. The writing was horrible. It needed a heartless editor. It rarely left the hypergraphic stage-- incoherent and longwinded.
2. I'm highly skeptical of all the posthumous diagnoses. (You know Moses' metal illnesses? Really?)
3. The science didn't seem to hold up, mainly relying on the above. (If there was much behind it, it stayed behind).
4. The author's experience was annoyingly invoked and abandoned. It interrupted the rest of the book, but was dropped before it could be interesting itself.
5. The "effective help" which the book wanted to suggest was denied. Any remedy was denounced (medicine has side effects, therapists don't understand).
The book said effectively nothing. Even the author said that, though she was driven to write this, she often doubted that what she wrote was true. I learned one interesting thing from this book. (That the relatives of the mentally ill might have creative advantage.)
But two stars, not one, because the book had its charms. They did not make it worth reading; they only made me think that it was worth reading, until the rushed ending.
bill_desmedt's review
2.0
I've sort of stalled out on this book, and I'm not sure if or when I'll return to it. The proximate cause is the following passage (from page 46) comparing normal to hypergraphic (i.e., compulsive) writers:
It is, of course, gratuitously insulting to characterize genre writers as not really writers (save for Stephen King, who evidently helped Flaherty out with the book itself, judging from the Acknowledgements). But, worse, it forgoes the opportunity of analyzing arguably the most hypergraphic major author of the 20th century, if not of all time.
I am alluding, of course, to science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, who in the years beginning in 1974 up to his death in 1982, in the grip of a self-described revelation, covered some eight thousand pages with (largely handwritten) text.
Even a radically condensed excerpt of this Exegesis of Philip K. Dick (Pamela Jackson and Jonathan Lethem, eds., Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011) runs to 940 pages.
But, of course, it isn't quite writing, now is it? ...
Who counts as a prolific -- if not quite hypergraphic -- writer? Those often mentioned include Balzac, Burgess, King, Oates, Proust, Trollope, Updike … Of course, who gets on the list is influenced by factors other than output. For instance, my list contains few genre writers because of the convention that genre writing isn't quite writing.
It is, of course, gratuitously insulting to characterize genre writers as not really writers (save for Stephen King, who evidently helped Flaherty out with the book itself, judging from the Acknowledgements). But, worse, it forgoes the opportunity of analyzing arguably the most hypergraphic major author of the 20th century, if not of all time.
I am alluding, of course, to science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, who in the years beginning in 1974 up to his death in 1982, in the grip of a self-described revelation, covered some eight thousand pages with (largely handwritten) text.
Even a radically condensed excerpt of this Exegesis of Philip K. Dick (Pamela Jackson and Jonathan Lethem, eds., Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011) runs to 940 pages.
But, of course, it isn't quite writing, now is it? ...
More...