Customer Reviews
Short, Clear, Stimulating, and Entertaining 
2009-01-05
The book reminds one of some of Virginia Woolf's readers. But the book is better thought out, shorter, and probably a bit more coherent than Woolf. Although saying that, Woolf's books are still outstanding reads and classics in their own way and this is not a negative comment on Woolf.
I have read the book three times and am still amused that he decides to attack amazon.com reviewers for their focus on character problems - justified or not - because amazon reviewers are far, far, below Wood in their literary sophistication.
The book is worth the price. He presents clear and impressive arguments along with historical discussions on the evolution of modern literature including Don Quixote, 1605, The King James version of the Bible, 1611, Robinson Crusoe, 1719; then, on to Fielding's Tom Jones, and the pivotal works of Diderot, Stendahl, Flaubert, and Dostoevsky. Each time I read the book I found a few gems.
As an example, I have read all of Saul Bellow's works but I gained some additional insight from his discussion of Bellow's background in poetry. There are numerous other examples including comments on Tolstoy.
Also, I liked his discussion on the evolution of the soliloquy in literature. Similarly, I enjoyed his comments on Henry James and Nabokov.
All in all it is great reading covering selected authors from Cervantes to John Updike. Wood motivates the reader to go back and look at a few old gems such as Henry James`s "What Maisie Knew."
I bought the hardcover version. The book is 250 pages long plus it has a list of interesting classics at the back. I highly recommend.
Falsely advertised 
2008-12-25
1. "Fiction" in the title should have been "Novels in the Classical Canon".
2. The author's "common reader" seems to be someone
- immersed in the Classical Canon, either currently or recently (Examples from books I had read years ago were not presented with enough context to be meaningful to me).
- with an advanced degree or equivalent in literature and literary criticism.
This book bears no resemblance to that portrayed in its advertisements, including those on the book itself. The front inside of the dust jacket states "...enlightening to writers, readers and anyone else interest in what happens on the page." The first quote on the back of the jacket states "... should delight and enlighten practicing novelists, would-be-novelists, and all passionate readers of fiction. -- The Economist"). However, the other three quotes should serve as warning of what the book is (literary criticism of the classics that is itself high literature and intended for aficionados of such works).
This disparity is at the core of--and justification for--the use of words such as "self-indulgent", "over-wrought", "pedantic", ... in various negative reviews here.
The author claims this book was inspired by earlier classics on writing fiction, but I see no relationship beyond the topic headings. It assumes that you already have firm grounding in fiction writing, and is probably inaccessible if you don't. If you do, it will add very little to what you already know. The typical treatment of an example makes an obvious point than then wanders round and round and round, adding nothing. Many of the discussions seem intended only to display the author's (unquestionable) erudition. This goes on long past being frustrating, past being irritating, to being aggravating.
The physical layout of the book is also a problem. The lines are only slightly longer than what you find in a typically newspaper (a quick sampling yielded counts of 42-54 characters). My (basic) training in layout was that such short lines divert effort to the physical act of reading, to the detriment of appreciating it.
About me: I am a scientist/engineer who writes extensively (promotional materials, advocacy, reports). I read advice on fiction writing because I long ago learned it provides some of the most relevant and important techniques for honing what I write, starting with structuring the material as a story greatly improves comprehension and retention.
Helpful for the general reader 
2008-11-28
Points in this book's favor -
It's short, and very readable. In the introduction, Wood promises to be "mindful of the common reader" and to try to "reduce .. the scholastic stink to bearable levels". He does a commendable job of keeping his promise.
Wood's enthusiasm for reading is evident throughout, and is infectious. The strongest aspect of the book are the many specific examples that Wood provides of what works and doesn't work in fiction. Refreshingly, the ratio of positive to negative examples is high, so that we are treated to eloquence inspired by enthusiasm, rather than critical disregard, for the most part. His insights on Chekhov, Joyce, Nabokov (to name just a few) prompt me to go back and (re)read the work in question.
On the other hand:
Although I didn't find Wood's style overtly pompous, there is an inescapable sense that one is reading dispatches from what Walter Kirn, in his wicked New York Times review, refers to as "someone who has attained the detached, big-picture perspective of an orbiting critical satellite". In other words, a slightly offputting air of detached omniscience - that one is reading tablets handed down from the mountain.
Wood displays an enthusiasm for Flaubert (and, to a lesser extent, Henry James) that borders on burbling adulation. There's nothing wrong with this, of course, but when coupled with what appears to be a blanket dislike for almost everything even remotely postmodern, one begins to feel that Wood might be a helpful guide only for a certain subclass of fiction. David Foster Wallace, for example, gets dissed several times throughout the book, with little recognition of his considerable talent and influence. Of the 90 or so works referred to in the book, only 20 date from 1965 or later; 21st century fiction is clearly not where Wood's primary interest lies.
On balance, though, I very much enjoyed the book. Wood's discussion of such topics as narrative voice, effective characterization, use of detail, convincing dialog, and "realism" is generally clear and thought-provoking. For a middlebrow reader like me, this book is likely to be helpful.
A perfectly valid, and thoroughly amusing, view to the contrary is contained in Walter Kirn's New York Times review at the link below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/books/review/Kirn-t.html
Self Indulgent 
2008-11-14
I first discovered this book while perusing the the lit-crit section of the local book store. Although my arms were full, I put down what I had and picked up 'How Fiction Works' and gave it a try.
A few moments later, I put the book down. Perhaps, I thought, it was because of my already-busy day, or the fact that I already had several books that I was more interested in reading. But I couldn't get into this book.
A few weeks later, I was back at the bookstore and decided to give it another try. Again, nothing.
Yesterday it was more of the same. Nothing about this book 'popped' for me. It was over-written and self-indulgent (a sign of which is surely the acclaim by the so-called literary community). It appears that this book was written for the sole purpose of being written. It does not, in any way, come close to the beauty and simplistic complexity of Forster's 'Aspects of the Novel.' (I realize that 'Aspects' was a series of lectures and 'How Fiction' is a book, but that should change very little.
This book is extremely impossible to grasp. Overwrought and confusing, 'How Fiction..' is successful only in that alienates itself from the reading public and certainly does not belong in the same discussion with 'Aspects of the Novel.'
Two Stars
Excellent 2008-10-22
James Wood is one of the clearest, and most insightful of contemporary literature critics. This little volume is an extraordinary little to guide to creative writing from an obviously well read author. Wood privileges the modern realism of Flaubert and Tolstoy over more avant-garde approaches to literature. But nevertheless he is more than balanced in assessing the various perspectives on voice, detail, and character. He often emphasizes the importance of the inner tension between the voice of the author and the voice of the character, and assesses various authors in their successes (Joyce), and failures (Updike) with this perennial question. This is a truly intelligent and well written literary guide.
Brilliant little book 2008-10-03
What makes a story a story? What is style? What’s the connection between realism and real life? These are some of the questions James Wood answers in
How Fiction Works, the first book-length essay by the preeminent critic of his generation. Ranging widely—from Homer to David Foster Wallace, from
What Maisie Knew to
Make Way for Ducklings—Wood takes the reader through the basic elements of the art, step by step.
The result is nothing less than a philosophy of the novel—plainspoken, funny, blunt—in the traditions of E. M. Forster’s
Aspects of the Novel and Strunk and White’s
The Elements of Style. It sums up two decades of insight with wit and concision. It will change the way you read.
2008-09-21
I am enjoying this book, but am not enough of a scholar to give a serious or creditable evaluation. Wood talks about the author's aesthetic distance, and wonders if such a thing is even possible, because all the voices of narration are ultimately the author's voice, and all characters are ultimately aspects of the author as well. He devotes some pages to characters that are either flat, caricatures, or rounded and full. He cites many writers to illustrate, which I enjoy.I haven't finished the book, but I would recommend it to anyone who loves fiction and wants a deeper understanding of the elements that make it either work or not.
A critic's defense of traditional realism 
2008-09-18
I had hoped to learn from this book how to read and write fiction better. This is not a good reason to read this book. I learned little. The book is a defense of common literary realism against the attacks of avant garde experimentalists. Wood defends it by interpreting examples drawn from classic traditional novels (Flaubert, Tolstoy,... Bellow, Updike). I found his examples well chosen and expertly interpreted, but if you already understand that good writing involves narration, telling details, vivid characters, sympathy for characters different from you, language that is powerful, economical, and musical, and that literature should give delight as well as truth, you won't learn much. You'll find some great illustrations of writers accomplishing these things well, but if you read fiction, you'll already have your own examples.
Obviously James Wood has never written a novel 2008-09-12
I bought this book because I am in the process of writing a novel and thought it might be helpful. Uh. Wrooong. Here is my favorite sentence in the 86 pages I managed to get through: "Anyway, one can accept Barthes's stylistic proviso without accepting his epistemological caveat: fictinal reality is indeed made up of such 'effect,' but realism can be an effect and still be true." This guy (near as I was able to ascertain) was writing about using detail to show the passage of time. He attributes deep, meaningful significance to the rat-a-tat scatty groove a writer falls into while creating a sense of place and time. Why the writer said the clock faced the fireplace has almost zero meaning to the writer, but to James Wood, it is profound. No fledgling author can benefit from being coached to step back from the process, which is what Mr. Wood's book attempts to do.
I am closing this book forever at page 86 because it hasn't taught me a single thing. It hasn't opened my eyes in any way. And it certainly has no relationship to the writing process. This is a book on how to be a critic. I live in San Diego. We have a local paper called the Reader. The Reader has a film critic who is so obscure and sneeringly condescending that nobody reads his reviews except to see in what way he ripped apart a favorite film. James Wood's book reads like one of the film critic's columns from the Reader: Remote and disconnected from the topic. Plus, this book is genuinely archaic in both it's style and it's orientation to the medium. If you buy it to learn how to write you will waste your money. Buy Bird by Bird by Anne Lamontt instead. I gave this book one star because they wouldn't let me give it less. NOTE: This the only review I have ever been motivated to write.
Best book on writing fiction ever. 2008-09-03
I learnt more about reading and writing fiction from this little wonder than anything else. Its also an opinionated, amusing joy to read.
I leant it to a freind who loves it to, but I cant wait to get it back again.
