Scan barcode
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
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
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
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).
tandewrites's review against another edition
2.0
read for a uni project, here are the quotes i'm taking for the essay about the 'overcoming the monster' plot:
The realm of storytelling contains nothing stranger or more spectacular than this terrifying, life-threatening, seemingly all-powerful monster whom the hero must confront in a fight to the death.
One may sum up by saying that, physically, morally and psychologically, the monster in storytelling thus represents everything in human nature which is somehow twisted and less than perfect.
And we never have any doubt as to why the hero stands in opposition to such a centre of dark and destructive power: because the hero's own motivation and qualities are presented as so completely in contrast to those ascribed to the monster.
Despite its cunning, its awareness of the reality of the world around it is in some important respect limited. Seeing the world through tunnel vision, shaped by its egocentric desires, there is always something which the monster cannot see and is likely to overlook.
reader_cheryl's review
4.0
"The Seven Basic Plots Why We Tell Stories" by Christopher Booker is, at over 700 pages, overwhelming at times.
Overall, I see it more as a textbook. It goes into great detail about what he considers the seven basic plots: Overcoming the Monster, Rags to Riches, The Quest, Voyage and Return, Comedy, Tragedy, and Rebirth.
The book itself is divided into four parts with thirty-four chapters. There is a lot of information packed into the pages--analysis of stories, a lot of psychology, a lot of history. It's not really a book to sit down with and read cover to cover, but a book that needs a lot of time to really think about what Booker puts down on the pages. Since the book is required for school, time isn't a luxury I had while reading this book.
As a writer, I found the first twenty pages the most helpful (parts one and two). The types of plots Booker identifies are dissected in great detail, using well-known works as examples. I have a lot of highlighting and post-it flags in those two sections. There is a lot of helpful information in what Booker says; information that will be useful in my own writing. This is a book I will keep close at hand.
Overall, I see it more as a textbook. It goes into great detail about what he considers the seven basic plots: Overcoming the Monster, Rags to Riches, The Quest, Voyage and Return, Comedy, Tragedy, and Rebirth.
The book itself is divided into four parts with thirty-four chapters. There is a lot of information packed into the pages--analysis of stories, a lot of psychology, a lot of history. It's not really a book to sit down with and read cover to cover, but a book that needs a lot of time to really think about what Booker puts down on the pages. Since the book is required for school, time isn't a luxury I had while reading this book.
As a writer, I found the first twenty pages the most helpful (parts one and two). The types of plots Booker identifies are dissected in great detail, using well-known works as examples. I have a lot of highlighting and post-it flags in those two sections. There is a lot of helpful information in what Booker says; information that will be useful in my own writing. This is a book I will keep close at hand.
davehershey's review against another edition
4.0
Why do so many of our most cherished stories seem the same? There's an ordinary person who is probably an orphan (Frodo, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, etc.) who goes off on some sort of quest to fight against a great evil. This story has small differences, but the big picture is the same.
The reason is that there are, as Booker says, seven basic plots: Overcoming the Monster, Rags to Riches, the Quest, Voyage and Return, Comedy, Tragedy and Rebirth. Within these stories there is overlap as individual stories could have aspects of some, or all, of them. Booker excels in explaining each of these stories. I admit I skipped some of the summaries of stories and perhaps he could have shortened the summaries or added less. Yet offering as many as he did had value for each reader may want to read summaries of different stories.
Booker goes on to get down to the nitty-gritty, diving into the archetypes of our unconscious which has produced these similar stories across cultures. Humans had a wholeness that has been broken in some way so a repair is needed, something is wrong. There is opposition. Booker identifies male and female traits that need to come together for wholeness to happen (power and order with selfless feeling and healing). I imagine some readers may bristle at the traditional understanding here of male and female traits. What is interesting is that Booker does not say only males have male traits and only females have female traits. For a hero, or heroine, to be made whole all these traits may be present. This could happen in one hero acquiring the female traits. A hero who only has the male traits self-destructs (think Ahab in Moby Dick).
Speaking of Moby Dick, Booker spends a lot of time talking about how stories have gone wrong in the last couple centuries, drifting away from the universal archetype. This is seen in how some stories resolve with only the outward appearance of wholeness. The reconnection with the true self, seen in the best stories, is both inward and outward. So it is not just that Odysseus comes home and reclaims his throne, but that he is a better person and better ruler than when he started out.
The book is long, maybe longer than it needs to be. Booker spends the last two chapters trying to connect the history of stories with the history of humanity. This is helpful and interesting but perhaps could have been more concise. That said, I enjoyed it.
One thing Booker was not clear on was whether he likes the stories. He seems to certainly prefer the stories that fit the archetype and is critical of more recent stories that take it apart. Moby Dick is one example of a story that misses the archetypal mark. But does he like Moby Dick? Does he like those mystery stories or dystopian rebellion stories that almost form an 8th and 9th story type? The reader may not be faulted for thinking Booker is kind of arrogant, disparaging anything that does not fit his traditional view of a hero overcoming the darkness to be light (or not overcoming it as in a tragedy). Really, I am just curious what value he finds in more modern stories, if any?
Overall, I liked this book. I have been listening to lots of Jordan Peterson, talking about archetypes and stories, as well as reading CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien and there reflections on the power of stories. I even think of the renewal of the importance of stories in theology from NT Wright's emphasis of the Jewish story in scripture to Kevin Vanhoozer's idea of the Bible as a drama. We are storied creatures. The question is, why? Booker's book helps answer that.
To some degree, this book makes me think of how there really are two ways to form a story: one with a hopeful and happy ending and one without. Game of Thrones, to this point anyway, is hopeless. It is realistic, in that there are no promises in the real world. Sometimes the potential hero dies a meaningless death. Then there is something like Lord of the Rings where there are powers moving behind the scenes in such a way that we know the hero will triumph. I wonder how much our culture's rejection of hope, rejection of a goal or purpose for humanity, rejection of myth, has led to our desire for "realistic" stories. We like stories that show real characters in all their dark glory (from Frank Underwood to Walter White).
Yet, we also want good to triumph. We want a glimmer that darkness does not have a last word. The archetype, the basic story we find in all cultures, gives us this. The question is, is this how the real world is?
I hope so.
Finally, this book has made me want to reread some of my favorites, as well as read some stuff I've never read before. So Dostoyevsky, Dickens, Shakespeare and more are back on my reading list.
The reason is that there are, as Booker says, seven basic plots: Overcoming the Monster, Rags to Riches, the Quest, Voyage and Return, Comedy, Tragedy and Rebirth. Within these stories there is overlap as individual stories could have aspects of some, or all, of them. Booker excels in explaining each of these stories. I admit I skipped some of the summaries of stories and perhaps he could have shortened the summaries or added less. Yet offering as many as he did had value for each reader may want to read summaries of different stories.
Booker goes on to get down to the nitty-gritty, diving into the archetypes of our unconscious which has produced these similar stories across cultures. Humans had a wholeness that has been broken in some way so a repair is needed, something is wrong. There is opposition. Booker identifies male and female traits that need to come together for wholeness to happen (power and order with selfless feeling and healing). I imagine some readers may bristle at the traditional understanding here of male and female traits. What is interesting is that Booker does not say only males have male traits and only females have female traits. For a hero, or heroine, to be made whole all these traits may be present. This could happen in one hero acquiring the female traits. A hero who only has the male traits self-destructs (think Ahab in Moby Dick).
Speaking of Moby Dick, Booker spends a lot of time talking about how stories have gone wrong in the last couple centuries, drifting away from the universal archetype. This is seen in how some stories resolve with only the outward appearance of wholeness. The reconnection with the true self, seen in the best stories, is both inward and outward. So it is not just that Odysseus comes home and reclaims his throne, but that he is a better person and better ruler than when he started out.
The book is long, maybe longer than it needs to be. Booker spends the last two chapters trying to connect the history of stories with the history of humanity. This is helpful and interesting but perhaps could have been more concise. That said, I enjoyed it.
One thing Booker was not clear on was whether he likes the stories. He seems to certainly prefer the stories that fit the archetype and is critical of more recent stories that take it apart. Moby Dick is one example of a story that misses the archetypal mark. But does he like Moby Dick? Does he like those mystery stories or dystopian rebellion stories that almost form an 8th and 9th story type? The reader may not be faulted for thinking Booker is kind of arrogant, disparaging anything that does not fit his traditional view of a hero overcoming the darkness to be light (or not overcoming it as in a tragedy). Really, I am just curious what value he finds in more modern stories, if any?
Overall, I liked this book. I have been listening to lots of Jordan Peterson, talking about archetypes and stories, as well as reading CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien and there reflections on the power of stories. I even think of the renewal of the importance of stories in theology from NT Wright's emphasis of the Jewish story in scripture to Kevin Vanhoozer's idea of the Bible as a drama. We are storied creatures. The question is, why? Booker's book helps answer that.
To some degree, this book makes me think of how there really are two ways to form a story: one with a hopeful and happy ending and one without. Game of Thrones, to this point anyway, is hopeless. It is realistic, in that there are no promises in the real world. Sometimes the potential hero dies a meaningless death. Then there is something like Lord of the Rings where there are powers moving behind the scenes in such a way that we know the hero will triumph. I wonder how much our culture's rejection of hope, rejection of a goal or purpose for humanity, rejection of myth, has led to our desire for "realistic" stories. We like stories that show real characters in all their dark glory (from Frank Underwood to Walter White).
Yet, we also want good to triumph. We want a glimmer that darkness does not have a last word. The archetype, the basic story we find in all cultures, gives us this. The question is, is this how the real world is?
I hope so.
Finally, this book has made me want to reread some of my favorites, as well as read some stuff I've never read before. So Dostoyevsky, Dickens, Shakespeare and more are back on my reading list.