Wonderworks: Literary invention and the science of stories

by Angus Fletcher

'Fascinating. It blew my mind!' Malcolm Gladwell Wonderworks reveals that literature is among the mightiest technologies that humans have ever invented, precision-honed to give us what our brains most want and need. Literature is a technology like any other. And the writers we revere – from Homer to Shakespeare, Austen to Ferrante – each made a unique technical breakthrough that can be viewed as both a narrative and neuroscientific advancement. But literature’s great invention was to address problems we could not not how to start a fire or build a boat, but how to live and love; how to maintain courage in the face of death; how to account for the fact that we exist at all. Based on Angus Fletcher’s own research, Wonderworks tells the story of the greatest literary inventions through the ages, from ancient Mesopotamia to modern-day America. It draws on cutting-edge neuroscience to demonstrate that the inventions really they enrich our lives with joy, hope, courage and energy, and they help our brains heal from grief, loneliness and even trauma. From ancient Chinese lyrics to nursery rhymes and fairy tales, from slave narratives to contemporary TV shows, Wonderworks walks us through the evolution of literature’s crucial blueprints, and offers us a new understanding of its power.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, History, Writing, Literary Criticism, Books About Books, Literature

480 pages, Paperback

Published March 17, 2022

About the author

Angus Fletcher was Distinguished Professor Emeritus, City University of New York, and the author of Allegory: The Theory of a Symbolic Mode, Colors of the Mind, and A New Theory for American Poetry, among other books.

Reviews

[cadence · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really cool. I'd recommend this to any fan of literature, learning, and science. I absorbed the history lessons and literary analysis better than the neurological explanations, and at times my reading was slow because each chapter can essentially stand on its own. But, totally thought-provoking. Methinks this is a book to keep close by.

[Skyler Jordan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Angus Fletcher presents 25 literary concepts/features/developments (irony, tragedy, detective stories, soliloquy, rediscovery, etc., etc.) as narrative technologies and relates them to neuroscience. The idea is that each of these elements of narrative function so well because they trigger specific neurological responses in our brains. The scope is great and the excecution is admirable. With the understanding that this is not a work of science, there is much to gain for readers and all lovers of narrative.

The earliest chapters are without a doubt the most impactful and the later chapters feel, at times, like a bit of a reach. That being said, for me, some of the later chapters are the best and most enjoyable. This is a book that I believe contains truly meaningful and revelatory material for readers. I felt Fletcher was able to connect narratives that I adore with hard science such that the joy and power of story was justified in a way I hadn’t imagined possible.

Don’t worry if you haven’t read all or most of the works discussed. I promise it doesn’t lessen the impact. If you have read a work that is discussed I am willing to bet you’ll end the chapter feeling a greater appreciation for it. Fletcher makes a consistent effort to give suggestions for how to use these literary technologies in your own life. These may prove useful to you but the true magic of this book is the that the power of story can be justified with modern science in a direct and useful way.

A must read for lovers of literature. It left me consistently inspired and genuinely moved. Chapter 20 in particular, featuring “One Hundred Years of Solitude” and Kafka’s “Metamorphosis”, has lodged in my mind and in itself made the whole book worth it.

[Angeline Walsh · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot of fun, but some of the “science” parts seemed shoehorned in. It seemed that a connection between stories and writers across time should have tied together each chapter, and the addition of evolutionary psychology (sigh) theories spoiled that. The brain science parts were interesting - the biological determinist parts less so. Fletcher is a skilled writer - if he’d focused solely on literary technique instead of making claims about how emotions work it would have been a much stronger book.

The author also could have been far more diverse with the works he chose to explore - Don Quixote and Hamlet are both the focus of two chapters each, and other works were mentioned repeatedly as well. The only philosophers focused on were a handful of ancient Greeks and Jean-Paul Sartre (not one female philosopher mentioned at all).

My favorite chapters were 7 (Jettison Your Pessimism), 8 (Heal Your Grief), 15 (Bounce Back From Failure), 18 (Feed Your Creativity), 19 (Unlock Salvation), 22 (Believe In Yourself), and 23 (Unfreeze Your Heart). The rest I could honestly have done without.

[Henrik · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dette er den første boken jeg skriver en anmeldelse på som jeg ikke har lest.
Jeg har imidlertid lest halvparten, i tillegg til koklusjonen, og når boken er på 450 sider, tenker jeg det burde være nok til å oppgjøre seg en mening. jeg orker rett og slett ikke lese alt..

Jeg hørte om boken, som virket intressant nok, gjennom en podcast. Angus Fletcher, kjente jeg vagt til fra før, som en literaturviter jeg i mitt eget sinn har lagret på samme sted som Harold bloom. Det som skulle vise seg var at Wonderworks slett ikke var skrevet av den Angus Fletcher jeg tenkte på, men en annen! Denne Fletcher er derimot ogspå akademiker, med grader innenfor både nevrovitenskap og literaturvitenskap. En overraskelse, som slettes ikke trengte å være negativ. Jeg har flere bøker som omhandler kunst av Eric Kandell, hjerneforsker og vinner av nobelpprisen. Problemet er bare at wonderworks gjennom sitt forsøk på syntese mellomm disse to verdenene ender opp med å lage noe som både er det verste av nevrovitenskap og noe som fjerner alt det vakre fra litteraturen.

Bakpå boken står det:
Based on Angus Fletcher's own research, Wonderworks tells the story of the greatest literary inventions through the ages, from ancient Mesopotamia to modern-day America. It draws on cutting-edge neuroscience to demonstrate that the inventions really work: they enrich our lives with joy, hope, courage and energy, and they help our brains heal from grief, loneliness and even trauma. From ancient Chinese lyrics to nursery rhymes and fairy tales, from slave narratives to contemporary TV shows, Wonderworks walks us through the evolution of literature's crucial blueprints, and offers us a new understanding of its power

Allerede her burde jeg ha luktet lunta.. Fordi her står det at forfatteren med sine lærdommer fra nevrovitenskapens siste nybrottsarbeid viser at litteratur faktisk funker!
Trenger vi virkerlig nevrovitenskap til å fortelle oss at den funker?

Bokens er bygd opp av 27 små kapitler som alle tar for seg et tema: å komme seg videre etter å ha oppleevd traumer, pessimisme, selvfølelse, kjærlighet, undring, mot osv. Her viser Fletcher første dokumenterte bruk av et litterært virkemiddel, som igjen er assosiert med de respektive temaene. Etter en liten narativisering gjort av forfatteren selv, av skaperen av dette virkemiddelet, går han over til å forklare virkemiddelet i seg selv. Etter dette følger et delkapittel som tar for seg nevrovitenskapen knyttet til dette psykologiske fenomenet og dets tilknytning til virkemiddelet. Til slutt kommer han med forslag på bøker, filmer eller annet medie hvor dette virkemiddelet finnes.

For det første er hans formidling av psykologisk kunnskap og forskning utrolig forenklet, men det er ikke det største problemet. Det største problemet er at boken ender opp med å bli alt det som er galt med moderne nevrovitenskap.

For Fletcher forfekter en så reduktiv nevrovitenskap at den blir intetsigende. Han sier for eksempel at illiaden vekker motet i oss fordi den frigjør oxtrocin i hjernen vår. Dette blir akkurat det samme som å si at illiaden funker fordi den gjør oss modige. At Feelgood filmer gjør oss glade fordi de frigjør endorfiner er akkurat det samme som å si at de gjør oss glade fordi de gjør oss glade. Den eneste forskjellen er at man bytter ut metaforene [psykologisk tilstand] med [nevrokjemisk tilstand] for forklare det. Vi er like langt. Tenk om en foreleser på Den Norske Filmskolen hadde sagt til en av de aspirerende regissørene som gikk der, "for at feelgood filmen din skal bli bedre så må du endre på den slik at den frigjør mer endorfiner". Hadde han da visst hva han skulle gjort? Jeg tror ikke det. Dialogen mellom foreleser har ikke hatt noe substans. "Har du tenkt på å bare gjøre filmen din bedre eller?".

Fletcher finner på å skrive ting som Our brain has a natural desire for justice (s.60), en annen gang blir han nesten selvbevisst:
And love is also one of the most powerfully rewarding emotions that our brain can experience. It's been shown scientifically to improve our mood, increase our energy, and make us enjoy everything more. (although you probably didn't need science to tell you that.) (s.54)

Problemet som Fletcher ikke ser ut til å forstå i sitatene over, tross hans dual degrees in neuroscience and literature, two published books, and dozens of peer-reviewed academic papers (fra bokens bakside) er at det som kjærlighet får hjernen vår til å oppleve ER kjærlighet.
Kjærlighet ER alle disse tingene. Kjærlighet er IKKE det som gjør at HJERNEN vår opplever alle disse tingene.

Problemet blir dermed at nevrovitenskapen som Fletcher presenterer tåkelegger forståelsen vår av de presenterte psykologiske fenomenene i stedet for å forklare dem. Og mellom linjene ligger et enda skumlere budskap: At ekte kunnskap bare er den (nevro)vitenskapen kan presentere for oss.

Dette skinner gjennom i hvordan han selv skriver om oppfinnerne av disse literære virkemidlene.
And Like modern neuroscientists, the ancient Greeks also learned that it was possible to convert the nervous energy of fright into valor's heroic grit by adding oxytocin. (s.37).

et annet eksempel: Thus did our long-ago ancestors discover a scientific solution to the guilt that follows bereavement . (s.134)

med andre ord så blir litteraturen kun bra i den grad den klarer å være nevrovitenskap. I vært eneste kaptittel gjør han den samme tabben Han ser rett og slett ikke at selv om litteratur kan lære oss om hjernen, er det studier av hjernen kan lære oss om litteratur begrenset. Det er dette Kandell har forsått i hans bok Reductionism in Art and Brain Science: Bridging the Two Cultures hvor han viser at abstrakte kunstnere på mange måter kom frem til de samme konklusjonene som hjerneforskere har gjort, bare gjennom prøving og feiling. Slik jeg husker kandell, prøver han å få frem at kunsten og nevrovitenskapen har det samme målet, et mål som er større enn de begge: å forstå mennesket.

Kompleksiteten i litteratur, og kunst for øvrig, er så mye mer enn oxytocin, eller et eksperiment. På samme måte er sinnet vårt, eller bevisstheten vår (to mye mer åpnende metaforer), mye mer enn hjernen vår. Skal vi forstå disse perspektivene må vi ta i bruk alle former for kunnskaping, ikke bare nevrovitenskapen.

[Vivian Witkind · Rating 5 out of 5]

The scope made me skeptical. A history of technological innovations in the art of storytelling from ancient Mesopotamia to Tina Fey? Is “technology” the right word? Did the inventors have any idea how they fit in to what could be interpreted as a progression? And can you really relate the “technologies” to human needs that modern science is able to identify in particular parts of the brain? It’s a self-help book with storytelling as treatment based in neuroscience. I’m an expert in neither literature nor the brain. But the author was clearly trying to squeeze too many pigeons into his pigeon holes. Early in the book I came to the discussion of Socrates’ dialogue with a young man named Meno. The “technology’ in question was irony. Socrates told the boy that “even the wisest men don’t know what virtue is.” Meno allowed that, in fact, he himself had that one down. Oops. And so began the education. “You’re Meno,” says Fletcher to the reader. So is “every one of us, even Socrates.” I decided to go with the flow and refrain from judgment. It was worth it. In 25 chapters with titles like “Float Above Hurt” and “Bounce Back from Failure,” I was introduced to or reminded of literary greats. It was exciting, immersive and, in fact, wonderful. I wanted more.

[Joe · Rating 1 out of 5]

Looking at the rating of this book, I definitely had a different experience than the vast majority of other readers. I was curious to see what Fletcher meant by "literary inventions", and how they have impacted our lives and culture. The inventions Fletcher discusses are interesting. They are primarily ways that language has been used or structured in a novel way (novel for its time, but widely used today)--such as using stories as political propaganda, the structure of an effective apology, etc. He has fascinating insights, and even has a section in each chapter where he reviews modern science behind how these literary devices work in our brains, and then he gives modern examples in film and literature where we can see these inventions being used today. It's a fabulous structure! And his explanations of these inventions are told in a very narrative way, giving this book the feel of a narrative history or narrative nonfiction. His narrative is great at helping make the creation of these literary inventions really relatable. All of this made me excited as I read it.

Then I wanted to look deeper into his research and his claims.

This is a fairly academic topic, and yet there are no footnotes or endnotes in any chapter. There is an appendix with a heading to each chapter and then a paragraph with each sentence being a short description of where a particular fact came from. But there is no way to connect that direction back to a particular fact in the chapter--because there are no footnotes. You just have to take your best guess. Granted, it's usually fairly obvious, but not always. This paragraph format also does not follow any kind of style guide like MLA or APA or Chicago. Therefore, these "citations" don't even contain all of the typical information--like journal name, page number, or date it was accessed. So, there is no real way to verify his claims or look deeper into his sources. If you want to learn more about a particular figure in history and their literary invention, Wikipedia would be a better place to look for sources than this book.

It may sound like I'm being too harsh or placing too much emphasis on citations, but if he is going to discuss scientific research into how the brain works, and tap into historical figures and give them motivations for using language the way they did, then he needs to have strong citations to back all that up. He could be saying anything or making up scientific research to reinforce his points, and we have no way of checking his claims. That fact alone makes me feel more comfortable classifying this book as historical fiction than narrative history. If you are looking for some great narrative history, check out anything by David McCullough, not Angus Fletcher.

I was so disappointed by how far this book missed its potential that I could not finish it. It is going on my DNF shelf, not my "come back later" shelf. And that was my experience with this book.

[Stephen Stewart · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wonderworks by Angus Fletcher strives to connect literary techniques and works to emotions the works can inspire in readers. The author uses his background in neuroscience to explore the science of how these literary techniques should inspire these emotions or feelings in readers.

I enjoyed Fletcher's writing style a lot. The book was easy to read, and Fletcher is a strong storyteller. I appreciated how Fletcher would set the scene each chapter and dive into an author's past or state of being as they wrote their literary works. My favorite part of the book was Fletcher's discussion of each literary technique, its history, and how it is used in various works. As an English major, I found his literary analysis enjoyable and I loved tracing the history of these techniques. The range of works discussed was fun too, and it exposed me to works I had never read before.

Where this book falls flat for me is in connecting the literature and techniques explored to the emotions and feelings. I struggled with the neuroscience portion of each chapter - I wish that more time had dwelt on this portion of each chapter to make it feel substantial and more well thought out. The brevity to the neuroscience overall led it to feeling hollow to me. I also struggled with the conclusions of each chapter, and felt like the chapters, while leaving me a list of works that could also inspire such emotions in me, left me wondering what I had just read and how everything really connected at the end. Often, I found myself frustrated by the twists and turns that a chapter would take in connecting the literary ideas to the emotions. For example, in one of the ending chapters, Lesson Your Lonely, I followed the argument regarding literature leveraging dissonance and unresolved endings, but I struggle to understand how or why these techniques achieve the stated goal of alleviating loneliness. Perhaps I was not as attentive of a reader as I should have been, but the conclusions of each chapter I felt did not help in summarizing the message of each chapter.

Personally, as I loved the discussion and analysis of the individual techniques as well as the scope of the literary works I wish that the book had focused more on these aspects. That probably would just be a different book and maybe this book wasn't for me. But in terms of this book, I feel like I walk away skeptical of the connection between literature and emotion as laid out by the author, which is unfortunate. I'm not sure if the solution would be to highlight the neuroscience element and play into that angle, or just ditch the neuroscience and provide a stronger literary analysis for how the techniques affect the reader.

[Jackie Hwang · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very cool and interesting analysis on how various literature devices have neuroscience affects and positive influence on our well being. He postulates that literary devices have developed over time, building on each other--like a science--and they have a material affect on our cognitive abilities and feelings (experiences of the world).

Flectcher writes in an upbeat, hopeful, and encouraging tone that also balances critical analysis and scientific prowess. Overall, I think it is digestible even if the subject matter is a bit foreign to me, but I do think neuroscience is super interesting! I also like how this book weaves together history x literature x neuro x arts x biology x pop culture. Perhaps my biggest critique of this book is that after a while the writing style gets a bit old/cheesy and the chapters are pretty formulaic, but the content is interesting and encouraging. Reading is so important !

Reading builds empathy, ex: in fiction we can experience with other characters experience without having to encounter those challenges on our own. Devices such as an unreliable narrator force us to pause our assessments before judging someone.

My favourite chapter was "Heal from Grief." As Hamlet expresses his feelings of grief, he acknowledges his feelings out in the open. Griefs complications are captured in Hamlet as he tries to honourably respect his fathers death and vocalizes that to an audience. He trusts an audience with his fathers memory and also acknowledges that his emotional experience is not unique, thereby ameliorating his lonliness.

As a book that analyses the history of books, it asks some fundamental questions:
- What is central to the human experience? Going on emotional journeys via stories together?
- Analyse what you're feeling and why - literature can help us identify and put words to our emotions
- Information gathering
- Wonder, couriousity, learning (love is wonder + intimacy)
- Belief in luck and optimism is important
- Justice?

[yan ✦ · Rating 3 out of 5]

this is my oppenheimer. my avengers: endgame. an exhaustive tour of the inner workings of your literary heroes—homer, virginia woolf, mary shelley, ursula k. le guin, and many more (i could go on and on).

this book challenges us to look at literature as an actual technology drawn from lessons in neuroscience and the long-forgotten principles of the sophists. makes sense: by its basic definition, technology is applied science designed to solve problems. here, literature is seen as a series of inventions that troubleshoot very human problems like grief, isolation, and the aftershocks of trauma.

pros:
~the scope. this book name-drops generously, and i loved learning new tidbits about writers i already adore + the science behind their brilliant works
~it’s not stuck in the ancient canon. we get the greeks, but we also get elena ferrante and alison bechdel
~each chapter ends with a media list (books + films) that use the same “invention" so the reader can deep dive on their own

cons:
~just a personal preference: not a self help book girlie. it was only until about 3 chapters in when i realized this was one although the chapter titles (jettison your pessimism, free your mind, invent your future) should've been dead giveaways.
~the prose would sometimes lean towards linkedin-style writing, giving ✨"that kid? elon musk."✨ i forgave it for the first instances but after a while, it just became formula. if it was meant to incite wonder, a childlike amazement as referenced, then it did the job... to a fault.

love/hate:
~no footnotes: one one hand, it granted flow-state reading—me not hurrying to check the notes for reference—but it also made me think "did this factoid actually happen or was it just written in for effect?" if you're curious, yes there are notes + index at the back.

personal biases aside, i learned so much from this book and would 💯 recommend it to my reader friends! after a year of diving into all kinds of genres and falling harder for the classics, this felt like the perfect last read for 2025!

[Ann Mat · Rating 5 out of 5]

I appreciated the entire concept map of literary inventions presented in the book. While I hoped for more diversity by showcasing some iconic literary works, I understand the historical limitations. I found it difficult to recall some of the writers listed at the end as recommendations. Initially, I was fascinated by the lesser-known details provided, yet I could easily follow the recurring themes. Throughout, I was eager to read about Elena Ferrante and appreciated the mutual admiration for Mi Amica Geniale. I was especially struck by the dynamic between Lila and Lenu, which demonstrates complex literary psychology rarely referenced elsewhere. I also valued the historical insights on Greek mythology, particularly concerning Sappho and Paean. The novelty of Machiavelli's inventori intrigued me, especially as it defied tradition and may have been considered taboo. I appreciated the sections explaining the brain's mechanisms for overcoming pessimism and the science of psychedelics. The distinction between eustress and distress in horror stories helped clarify how belief systems form and why we can be gullible. I found it helpful to learn that confusion around Virginia Woolf's stream of consciousness technique is expected, as its purpose is to make readers’ minds wander rather than to follow a precise line of thought. The background on Winnie the Pooh and Christopher Robin was also enlightening, especially since I am not familiar with their literary tradition. Overall, this book taught me a great deal, and I wish I had read it before teaching my literature class.

[Jeffrey Rasley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fascinating examination of literary inventions from ancient Mesopotamia to contemporary authors, like Elena Ferrante. Fletcher describes each technical breakthrough in literary creativity, which are "engineering enhancements to the human heart and mind." His method is "Neuroscience + Rhetorical Narrative Theory = Story Science." The result is to unearth the psychological effects of story.
Fletcher credits Aristotle as the earliest known advocate of the method in 335 BCE in his Poetics. But Story Science fell out of use for thousands of years, before being revived by the Chicago School in the mid-twentieth century. It is now being propagated by scholars at Project Narrative at Ohio State University.
If you love literature, Fletcher's Story Science will not dampen your love. "Wonderworks" is full of delightful nuggets and deeply thoughtful wisdoms.

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.75 - Fascinating, but a bit esoteric and rambling. It reminded me of sitting in creative writing classes in grad school listening to other students draw grand conclusions or introspective interpretations from modern/postmodern literature and thinking, “Huh.. Okay, yeah, I guess I can see that.” I did appreciate the analysis of literature’s various affects on the brain. Because of those factors, I’m not surprised Malcolm Gladwell liked it. It has that same sort of a + b = c formula of a Gladwell book or podcast, where he gives you c at the start, then spends most of his time discussing a before ending with a twist at b. Worth the read.

[Elien · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a vast and completely fascinating read! Neuroscience is not something I'm very familiar with, but Angus Fletcher breaks it down enough for a layman to understand. This approach to literature, of what effect is has on you instead of what it is trying to say, is enlightening, and I will definitely take it with me going forward. The chapter on grief was especially moving to me, considering my personal life at the moment.

[Nina · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's not an easy read by any means but interesting in an esoteric kind of way. Perhaps one may become more aware of the many influences which inspire or inform writers of today, if you can recall any of the ones proffered by the author!

[Kathy Brown]

I don't do stars, but highly recommend this resource for writers and all lovers of literature. Fascinating look at the way story affects our brains, our emotions, and attitudes. Creativity neuroscience!

[Jan Morrison · Rating 5 out of 5]

A revelation of a book! I'm completely obsessed with this book. Fletcher is a flat out genius and I cannot stop thinking about the way he reads and what he has discovered and described so brilliantly. If you love reading (and if you don’t what happened doing here?) you must read this book.

[Maggie Keim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Neuroscience connects the history of writing and reading story. Not just a wealth of factoids but it often transitions into profound musings on the science and art of wonder, loneliness, on and on into all the reasons a good story makes me cry.

[Will · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic! Thought-provoking, very well written and a great resource.

[BrookeLynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Corny in places and not convinced by all of the author's claims yet provides plenty of food for thought.

[Tiffany Mathews · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book hit all of my strongest interests in one place. The intersection of history/psychology/sociology/literature was extremely well-captured and a fascinating take.

[Julia Romanowska · Rating 5 out of 5]

Magical, thrilling, eye-opening theory about the power of literature. How to heal yourself with books.

[Jeni Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating, inspiring and incredibly enjoyable look at the science and artistry behind literature's effect on readers. Absolutely wonderful read for anyone who's life is enriched by reading.

[Andrew Marcelle · Rating 1 out of 5]

Nope

[Andy J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant book. Huge perspective shift in how to think about fiction / story / literature and the role it has in your life.

[Claudia · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book feels like a year-long seminar, connecting complex workings of the brain and stories...from the beginning of recorded literature.

Fascinating, deep, sometimes inaccessible. But...fascinating.

I wanted a two-hour class devoted to each 'literary invention' Fletcher sets forth. I want more examples, discussions, notes.

As ONE book, I'm not sure if this is a total success. It's a firehose with so very much information, so very much to think about. I'll keep this one close and come back to it.