This is a book about how to write stories that will evoke emotion in the reader and be memorable for that reason. Author Cheryl St. John, who has apparently published many books, presents sections on emotion, tension, conflict, dialog, and creating memorable characters. At least, that is what the author is trying to do in principle. In practice, she gives very little actionable advice, and many of her pointers are highly subjective. In the end, I felt like she was telling me how to write a book she would like to read, rather than how to create a compelling story in general.
St. John does one thing very well in this book: She gives good, general advice on what a story needs to be a "page turner" for the reader. For example, she tells you that you need conflict in your story to sustain it, and that "in order for conflict to matter, we have to care." She tells us not to information-dump in the first chapter, but to unravel the backstory gracefully, a little at a time. She describes the "scene and sequel" technique, which has been around for years (each intense scene should be followed by a sequel in which there is some winding down, some reflection on what has happened). She says that well-written dialogue is more powerful than narrative. I agree with these things.
However, beyond naming these principles and providing excerpts (mostly from her own books, which makes this seem more like a commercial than writing advice) in which these principles were ostensibly followed, Ms. St. John only rarely provides us with instruction on how to achieve these things. For example, how does one go from a blank page, with nothing, to crafting a story with good conflict? She really doesn't say.
The book is also riddled with pointless platitudes that do nothing to help the writer. For example, she says "The reader must feel the story." What does this even mean? It's incredibly simplistic and doesn't provide any assistance to someone trying to write good fiction. Worse, her own simplistic platitudes in one chapter sometimes contradict those in other chapters. For example, early on she says, "A story is feelings." Then later, without batting an eye, she states, "A story is a series of stimuli and reactions." But then later on, she says "a story is feelings" again. Which is it? And how does knowing that "a story is feelings" do anything to help a writer achieve success?
Finally, I found this book to be highly opinionated. St. John clearly enjoys reading books or watching movies with a certain style of writing, and her book is clearly designed to help you write stories she likes, rather than stories that are, more generally, good. She even admits to this bias on page 87: "My critique partners kid me about loving angst, and I do." And although she then says you don't "need" angst, if you look at her examples of what she likes and what books and movies she advises us to emulate, they are almost all riddled with angst. It does not help that her personal favorite is Pay it Forward, a movie that I utterly despise. There is no sense in which I think Pay it Forward was a good movie. And in fact, even St. John doesn't really think it's a good movie, because she admits that she hates the ending and that she has "edited" it in her own mind so that the kid doesn't die at the end. If it's such a good movie why did she have to make up her own ending for it? How she can not see that this makes the movie fatally flawed is really beyond me. This and some of the other examples she uses of movies she thinks are "great" but that I think are awful, call into question the entire line of her advice. Again, if these are the kinds of stories her advice will help me write, no thank you.
In the end, I found this book to be only marginally helpful. She definitely gives some good general advice about how to set up plot and dialogue, but for a 250+ page book, there is very little that I found, as a writer, I could act upon. I don't feel as though I can write with any more emotion, tension, or conflict now than before I picked up the book, and since that was its purpose, I don't think it succeeded very well.