Scan barcode
dmturner's review
Was re-reading and realized I wasn’t in the mood right now to consider the pathology of my tendency to write all the time :)
alexanderp's review
challenging
informative
slow-paced
3.0
What saves this book for me is the sheer breath of knowledge that Flaherty brings to the table.
I wanted a bit more concrete references when it came to writing or maybe even a little more nuance, but all things considered this is hopefully just the first step into this sphere of research.
I'll more than likely return to this book in the future.
I wanted a bit more concrete references when it came to writing or maybe even a little more nuance, but all things considered this is hopefully just the first step into this sphere of research.
I'll more than likely return to this book in the future.
citrusmatcha's review
1.0
TLDR; don't read it.
Good grief. Never have I dragged on a non-fic for as long as I did with this book. I was expecting a technical treatment of the topic, but I walked away with a dryly written autobiography of a neuroscientist who suffered depression whose manifestation is that of hypergraphia. The idea of it sounds great, but the execution was not.
Needless to say, her writing is not that compelling. It could have used some organization, and I agree with most reviews complaining about the lack of an effective editor. The blurbs really don't reflect the feeling of the book. And while many of her statements are indeed derived from scientific studies (which are referenced extensively at the end of the book), many of those studies are still in their early stages and are highly inconclusive. I would get an insight or two from a few inconclusive studies.. But a whole book of it mish-mashed in an incoherent way? Maybe not.
All in all, this is more memoir than popular science. The author talks more about her personal experience rather than the science, which is quite misleading from the premise of the book. It's probably not what you're looking for.
Good grief. Never have I dragged on a non-fic for as long as I did with this book. I was expecting a technical treatment of the topic, but I walked away with a dryly written autobiography of a neuroscientist who suffered depression whose manifestation is that of hypergraphia. The idea of it sounds great, but the execution was not.
Needless to say, her writing is not that compelling. It could have used some organization, and I agree with most reviews complaining about the lack of an effective editor. The blurbs really don't reflect the feeling of the book. And while many of her statements are indeed derived from scientific studies (which are referenced extensively at the end of the book), many of those studies are still in their early stages and are highly inconclusive. I would get an insight or two from a few inconclusive studies.. But a whole book of it mish-mashed in an incoherent way? Maybe not.
All in all, this is more memoir than popular science. The author talks more about her personal experience rather than the science, which is quite misleading from the premise of the book. It's probably not what you're looking for.
katherinevarga's review
3.0
I found this book fascinating, but I had to read it while pinching my nose.
On the one hand, I love books about writing processes, so I couldn't resist a neurologist's quest to understand her own intense desire to write. She references extreme psychological scenarios as well as quotes and anecdotes from famous writers. She looks at both the "perspiration" and "inspiration" sides of creativity, as well as the pain and rewards of writing. I can't speak to how rigorous/legit her discussions of brain science were, but she gave me a lot to think about in reflecting on my own writing methods and motivations.
On the other hand, much of the language in this book is SO outdated and off putting. The author uses the word "normal" a lot, I guess to describe people who don't have mental illnesses, which I found, at best, very confusing. She also engages in gender essentialism (at one point saying she was "taken aback" when a friend accused her of being an essentialist, but then proceeds to be essentialist). She makes grand generalizations that alienate entire groups of people. I went "nope nope nope" too many times while reading this to full-heartedly recommend it. I'm sure there are more inclusive books about writing and the brain out there.
On the one hand, I love books about writing processes, so I couldn't resist a neurologist's quest to understand her own intense desire to write. She references extreme psychological scenarios as well as quotes and anecdotes from famous writers. She looks at both the "perspiration" and "inspiration" sides of creativity, as well as the pain and rewards of writing. I can't speak to how rigorous/legit her discussions of brain science were, but she gave me a lot to think about in reflecting on my own writing methods and motivations.
On the other hand, much of the language in this book is SO outdated and off putting. The author uses the word "normal" a lot, I guess to describe people who don't have mental illnesses, which I found, at best, very confusing. She also engages in gender essentialism (at one point saying she was "taken aback" when a friend accused her of being an essentialist, but then proceeds to be essentialist). She makes grand generalizations that alienate entire groups of people. I went "nope nope nope" too many times while reading this to full-heartedly recommend it. I'm sure there are more inclusive books about writing and the brain out there.
More...