I went into this book having read the other reviews, so I knew what I was getting.I agree whole-heartedly with a number of things other people have said:

~It drowns itself in metaphors and analogies.

~The author comes off as being hugely egotistical.

~The first 10 -15 % of the book is an infomercial (which seemed unnecessary as I’d already made the purchase).

~In terms of writing craft, there isn’t anything new (which the author freely admits).

However, when all of the above was set aside (unread by me, I skipped all the analogies, rants against pantsters, and ‘selling’ points) I thought that he did a good job of teaching the structural elements of story-telling to people who had no idea that stories even have structure. I particularly liked his three dimensions of characterization and found his explanation on scenes as somewhat weak.

I would recommend this book to someone who is just starting out as a writer.He teachs in a very easy-to-understand way.

For someone who has studied story-telling extensively, it came off as a dumbed-down, community-college class explanation and I’d recommend Donald Maass’s Fire in Fiction instead (same ideas, Stanford level explanations).

I also found the reoccurring ‘pantsters must all feel stupid’ rants offensive. Plotter vs. Pantster has NOTHING to do with skills, abilities, speed, or understanding of structure. And EVERYTHING to do with how a writer connects to creativity.I connect by fighting with the story on the page at the story, scene, paragraph, and sentence level.That the author connects differently does not negate my own (or other pantsters) experience.