Scan barcode
timdams007's review
3.0
Actually a mustread. However, the author seems a bit too full of himself and also provides way to many examples for the (few) novel points he likes to bring across.
steven_v's review
2.0
In my ongoing quest to learn more about story structure and character design as I work on my own fiction writing, I chose this book as the next instructional reference, because it comes so highly recommended by many others. In particular, many who skewer another oft-recommended book, Save the Cat!, as being too simplistic, hold this up as being a much better reference. Having read this entire book in one day, I find it hard to defend that assertion.
I think that the author of the book, Brian McDonald, does a good job of explaining what he means by "invisible ink" -- it's all the parts of the book you don't see. The backstory the author wrote, but doesn't come out explicitly; the theme (which McDonald calls the "armature"), which is usually not openly stated; and the like. These elements are important, and McDonald certainly doesn't say anything that is untrue. However, most of these things are common knowledge and I have been aware of them since high school.
Some of the major points that McDonald claims are "invisible" to most people but key to developing a good story are:
Three act structure -- mentioned briefly but not really explained at all
An over-arching theme, such as "You are who you choose to be."
Show don't tell
Use supporting characters to show "might have been"
The main character should change as a result of the climax
Balance externalized action with internal/emotional content
This is all good basic advice, but it's the same advice you will get from any writing book or any writing class. There is nothing really new here.
Furthermore, telling us that we should do these things doesn't provide a whole lot of help. Most of these ideas can be dispensed with in a few short pages (and, indeed, they are, by McDonald). The question I always have is, "OK, knowing about these things, how do I implement them in my own writing?" For example, how does one come up with a theme? What sorts of themes resonate? How do you know when you have a good one? McDonald's book is completely mute on this point.
For those who claim that this book is better than Snyder's Save the Cat!, I would point out that Snyder does a much better job with theme than McDonald does with "armature" (which is the same thing under a different name -- another annoying habit of McDonald's is coming up with new names for old concepts). For example, Snyder points out that many writers don't sit down and say, "I want to write a story about the theme 'you are who you choose to be,'" but rather, as they are writing the story, the theme can often evolve out of it. Snyder tells us that either way is fine -- setting the theme first and then writing the story, or writing the story and letting the them arise almost as an "emergent property." McDonald, in Invisible Ink, says nothing about either process. Where does the theme come from in a story? He doesn't provide any clue at all.
The same is true for most of the rest of McDonald's advice: it is extremely vague and general. It's easy to wave your hand and say "Balance the external and internal action." But how does one do this? Surely there are techniques -- tried-and-true methods that help one take an internal struggle and externally dramatize it. Certainly, MacDonald provides lots of examples from his favorite movies like Jaws and E.T. But telling me that Jaws is an example of an internal struggle that has been externalized does not explain the process by which one would go about doing the same in one's own story.
In the end, this book was extremely superficial and had very little meat on its bones. Out of all the books on writing I have read (and it's been a good half-dozen by now), this one has the smallest quantity of helpful advice. For all the razzing Snyder takes, I credit him with at least providing the aspiring writer a bunch of techniques (bulletin boards divided into acts with a certain number of index cards per act... suggestions on how many pages to have per section of the script... etc) to accomplish the advice he is giving you. With Invisible Ink, if you don't know how to come up with a 3-act structure, McDonald's book won't help you. And if you don't know how to come up with a theme, it won't help you do that either. All it'll tell you is that "you need one!"
Overall, I found this book to be extremely general and simplistic. I read this book in a day, not because it was so good I couldn't put it down, but because it was such pablum that I was able to blow through it. A good book on writing should see me making highlights and notes all over it. I highlighted TWO sentences in this book and made not one note.
If you know anything at all about things such as theme and character development, this book is probably too basic for you. If you've never heard of theme or don't know anything about dramatization, then perhaps this book is worth a look.
A final word... I read the eBook version of this on my Nook. It was horrible. Other than periods and commas, nearly all forms of punctuation are absent, including apostrophes and colons. In many cases these characters weren't even replaced by spaces... they are simply deleted. This has the effect of running words together. This is not the author's fault, but someone screwed up turning this into an eBook. I'd suggest getting the paperback or hardcover of this book instead. Definitely do not buy it for the Nook.
I think that the author of the book, Brian McDonald, does a good job of explaining what he means by "invisible ink" -- it's all the parts of the book you don't see. The backstory the author wrote, but doesn't come out explicitly; the theme (which McDonald calls the "armature"), which is usually not openly stated; and the like. These elements are important, and McDonald certainly doesn't say anything that is untrue. However, most of these things are common knowledge and I have been aware of them since high school.
Some of the major points that McDonald claims are "invisible" to most people but key to developing a good story are:
Three act structure -- mentioned briefly but not really explained at all
An over-arching theme, such as "You are who you choose to be."
Show don't tell
Use supporting characters to show "might have been"
The main character should change as a result of the climax
Balance externalized action with internal/emotional content
This is all good basic advice, but it's the same advice you will get from any writing book or any writing class. There is nothing really new here.
Furthermore, telling us that we should do these things doesn't provide a whole lot of help. Most of these ideas can be dispensed with in a few short pages (and, indeed, they are, by McDonald). The question I always have is, "OK, knowing about these things, how do I implement them in my own writing?" For example, how does one come up with a theme? What sorts of themes resonate? How do you know when you have a good one? McDonald's book is completely mute on this point.
For those who claim that this book is better than Snyder's Save the Cat!, I would point out that Snyder does a much better job with theme than McDonald does with "armature" (which is the same thing under a different name -- another annoying habit of McDonald's is coming up with new names for old concepts). For example, Snyder points out that many writers don't sit down and say, "I want to write a story about the theme 'you are who you choose to be,'" but rather, as they are writing the story, the theme can often evolve out of it. Snyder tells us that either way is fine -- setting the theme first and then writing the story, or writing the story and letting the them arise almost as an "emergent property." McDonald, in Invisible Ink, says nothing about either process. Where does the theme come from in a story? He doesn't provide any clue at all.
The same is true for most of the rest of McDonald's advice: it is extremely vague and general. It's easy to wave your hand and say "Balance the external and internal action." But how does one do this? Surely there are techniques -- tried-and-true methods that help one take an internal struggle and externally dramatize it. Certainly, MacDonald provides lots of examples from his favorite movies like Jaws and E.T. But telling me that Jaws is an example of an internal struggle that has been externalized does not explain the process by which one would go about doing the same in one's own story.
In the end, this book was extremely superficial and had very little meat on its bones. Out of all the books on writing I have read (and it's been a good half-dozen by now), this one has the smallest quantity of helpful advice. For all the razzing Snyder takes, I credit him with at least providing the aspiring writer a bunch of techniques (bulletin boards divided into acts with a certain number of index cards per act... suggestions on how many pages to have per section of the script... etc) to accomplish the advice he is giving you. With Invisible Ink, if you don't know how to come up with a 3-act structure, McDonald's book won't help you. And if you don't know how to come up with a theme, it won't help you do that either. All it'll tell you is that "you need one!"
Overall, I found this book to be extremely general and simplistic. I read this book in a day, not because it was so good I couldn't put it down, but because it was such pablum that I was able to blow through it. A good book on writing should see me making highlights and notes all over it. I highlighted TWO sentences in this book and made not one note.
If you know anything at all about things such as theme and character development, this book is probably too basic for you. If you've never heard of theme or don't know anything about dramatization, then perhaps this book is worth a look.
A final word... I read the eBook version of this on my Nook. It was horrible. Other than periods and commas, nearly all forms of punctuation are absent, including apostrophes and colons. In many cases these characters weren't even replaced by spaces... they are simply deleted. This has the effect of running words together. This is not the author's fault, but someone screwed up turning this into an eBook. I'd suggest getting the paperback or hardcover of this book instead. Definitely do not buy it for the Nook.
a_little_person's review
fast-paced
1.0
I think that the commodification of storytelling techniques brings about an array of the same product. This book is filled with "clever" advices, which feel not only superficial, but also very one sided. I don't think it is a "know the rules to break it" type of advice, but more a "if you want to write good stories, you have to...". Only as a pure beginner does want one to dabble in them, and see at the many ways of looking at storytelling.
I have to disagree with the premise that the aim of storytelling is to teach. And find the position of the "teacher" who preaches his morals to the audience rather repulsive. It is a way of looking at film writing philosophy which ultimately doesn't add anything to the seventh art. This book serving mostly for income it seems (since it is not his only book about that subject - with this one not going anywhere deep enough for an understanding of storytelling)
I will not talk about that awfully prehistorical and false view of "feminine/masculine apsects", since it isn't controversial to see this paragraph as anything but enforcing harmful stereotypes.
I have to disagree with the premise that the aim of storytelling is to teach. And find the position of the "teacher" who preaches his morals to the audience rather repulsive. It is a way of looking at film writing philosophy which ultimately doesn't add anything to the seventh art. This book serving mostly for income it seems (since it is not his only book about that subject - with this one not going anywhere deep enough for an understanding of storytelling)
I will not talk about that awfully prehistorical and false view of "feminine/masculine apsects", since it isn't controversial to see this paragraph as anything but enforcing harmful stereotypes.
josiahdegraaf's review
4.0
Most of this book was review for me, and I tend to prefer books that are a bit more systematic in its exploration of storytelling. But it was still a good book with plenty of solid tips! And I did learn a few things from it. Especially if more systematic approaches like Weiland's aren't your cup of tea, you may prefer MacDonald's approach.
Rating: 3.5-4 Stars (Good).
Rating: 3.5-4 Stars (Good).
vinjii's review
4.0
If you're looking for an excellent book that teaches how to create compelling stories, look no further. Invisible Ink is a quick and easy read, provides plenty of examples and explains everything without drowning the reader in details.
codalion's review
4.0
This is one of the most useful, concise books I've read about storytelling. It's very no-frills and written with the assumption that the reader already is a committed writer who doesn't need to be sold on the spiritual or emotional significance of writing: which I appreciate, since one thing that turns me off about many books on writing is that they try to instill their audience with inspiration. I have inspiration. When I don't have inspiration, it's beyond the power of a writer's memoir to inculcate. I take the fire of real and honest motivation from all the usual places: an idea, a new favorite book or show, an obsession, a good day. I don't need that from a book on writing at this stage. I need helpful perspective.
McDonald's book is good for that. Even though it contains some very straightforward, very beginner-level advice, it also has some concise observations that resonate: and some clarifying truth that's important to keep in mind. I imagine if you find this kind of thing prescriptive and trammeling: great, you'll know that immediately. But if you're interested in flexible skeletal structure, this is a good one.
The masculine/feminine analogy is obnoxious, though. Not only does it come with the author's unnecessary and defensive and sort of blandly 1990s views on gender, but I'm not sure it makes any sense as a comparison in the first place. It's true that many writers tend too hard towards shallow bare-bones plot obsessions and many get bogged down in concept and prose and atmosphere, but I don't think this is a gender split; like 80% of the time it's a maturity split. Kid/teen writers and other total beginners characteristically only think about external plot. Then if/when they develop a knack or ear for prose and think critically and deeply about characterization, they lean hard on this--especially since it often gains them praise as a young writer and marks them apart from category 1. Then they often get sort of stuck in a rut there.
I think reading this as a gender thing requires a parrotfish model, or maybe an inverted erastes/eromenos situation. I dunno. In any case, I think if there is a strong gendering slant in patterns in young writers here, it has a lot more to do with complicated sexism and masculinity-related issues in education. As long as literacy carries both a homophobic stigma and the subtextual worry that it's not a lucrative pursuit for a future provider, boys are going to be underrepresented in it--at a certain age more girls read and write, period.
Anyway, the book is still very useful. I like some of the obvious identifications--like the stuff about dialogue--and then the harsh but totally real advice about writing for other writers (ie, don't) and how to think of feedback.
McDonald's book is good for that. Even though it contains some very straightforward, very beginner-level advice, it also has some concise observations that resonate: and some clarifying truth that's important to keep in mind. I imagine if you find this kind of thing prescriptive and trammeling: great, you'll know that immediately. But if you're interested in flexible skeletal structure, this is a good one.
The masculine/feminine analogy is obnoxious, though. Not only does it come with the author's unnecessary and defensive and sort of blandly 1990s views on gender, but I'm not sure it makes any sense as a comparison in the first place. It's true that many writers tend too hard towards shallow bare-bones plot obsessions and many get bogged down in concept and prose and atmosphere, but I don't think this is a gender split; like 80% of the time it's a maturity split. Kid/teen writers and other total beginners characteristically only think about external plot. Then if/when they develop a knack or ear for prose and think critically and deeply about characterization, they lean hard on this--especially since it often gains them praise as a young writer and marks them apart from category 1. Then they often get sort of stuck in a rut there.
I think reading this as a gender thing requires a parrotfish model, or maybe an inverted erastes/eromenos situation. I dunno. In any case, I think if there is a strong gendering slant in patterns in young writers here, it has a lot more to do with complicated sexism and masculinity-related issues in education. As long as literacy carries both a homophobic stigma and the subtextual worry that it's not a lucrative pursuit for a future provider, boys are going to be underrepresented in it--at a certain age more girls read and write, period.
Anyway, the book is still very useful. I like some of the obvious identifications--like the stuff about dialogue--and then the harsh but totally real advice about writing for other writers (ie, don't) and how to think of feedback.