Notes on Craft for Young Writers - The Art of Fiction

This book contained some fascinating insights into the art of writing fiction, but frankly, I thought it was written very poorly(!). I did not flow at all and read much like some of the worst textbooks I've seen. He obviously has read a wide variety of books, but he assumes the reader is familiar with them.
I think this may be a good book for English majors or experienced writers, but not for young writers. For us young and inexperienced writers, he talks above our heads.
Even the style can scare a person away. He writes in the style of John Smith and others who could fit maybe one paragraph on a page. It's just not conducive to digesting the material.
In short, if you're a young writer, go trying "Writing Fiction Step By Step" by Josip Novakovich or something like that. But experienced writers, you may enjoy this.

Although there are more "accessible" books on writing available, nevertheless _The Art of Fiction_ is one of the finest. Gardner goes beyond discussing plot, scene, character development, and dialog; indeed, he forces one to think about how words fit together on a page and synthesizes the so-called elements of story writing. His advice reveals the true difficulty of creating an excellent story, but he encourages one to struggle through them. Especially helpful are the mind-bending exercises at the back of the book. _The Art of Fiction_ was an epiphany for my writing--and for me.

What most people don't know about good writing could fill a book. This is probably that book. If you're considering purchasing it, don't hesitate. 'The Art of Fiction' is worth any price if you honestly want to learn to write. Gardner is the most readable authority. However, I offer one warning: His mathematical explanation of plotting profluence is cold. Profluance can be achieved more organically, I believe, and the process of artificially constructing emotive 'triggers' (as will be plain all over 'Grendel' after reading his instructional book) is, to use Gardner's own term, a little frigid. But then again, if it hadn't been for John Gardner, I might never have become that sensitive to linguistic nuances. Get this book, buy it for anyone who you believe wants to write. But do not be wooed into thinking John Gardner's mastery can be your own. 'The Art of Fiction' is a path, not a destination.

it's probably because you recognize your own mistakes derailed within its pages. The chapters common errors and technique should be every beginning writers bible.
i've heard some criticism of the book saying john gardner is an egomaniac name dropper, but if you aren't willing to wade through a little ego mania and name dropping to understand gardner's ultimatly correct observations on fiction then you'll never be able to make it as a writer. you'll never make it through an m.f.a. or doctorate program, and you'll certainly never realize you own mistakes.
i found the examples helpful and plentiful, the advice sound, and the humor (though for critics of the book it may have gone over their heads) beautifully crafted. a fabulous and worthy addition to any library.

This book is more gentle than I imagined something from the famously egomanical John Gardner would be. And it does have some good advice. But I DO think that one should consider that 1) Gardner notoriously said, "I am the greatest writer since Chaucer." 2) Almost all of Gardner's many novels and short-story collections are already out of print. Hardly Chaucer-like!

This author is SO condescending throughout the entire book that it's painful to read. He also always & only refers to writers as he and him. Any good info he gives is buried beneath his grating, infuriating perspective as a cis hetero white middle class male who knows everything. I'm sure Steve Bannon would love it.

This writer goes beyond mere technique and talks about what fiction really is and how it works its magic. Any writer wants to use fiction should have this understanding of the fiction tool.
Get it. It might be slow going at first because you have been dumbed down. Stay with it and something will happen deep in your brain. It will be good.

I am sorry! A previous review had this to say: "...when I've used this text in my college intro to fiction-writing courses, it doesn't fly too well. My students are put off by Gardner's insistence that the young writer is always male, and they usually haven't read many of the works to which he refers...they feel it's impossible to do anything even remotely correctly." My opinion is that a good teacher will show his(or her :->)students the value of great tools that they can learn from, and put away their cheap opinions (bred by current politics and ideas) about very stupid little points in the style of writing. If we can't teach our kids this, then they will head in the direction of spoiled people who want everything on a silver platter. UGH to this reviewer. YEAH to this book

For fans of John Gardner or experienced writers who might enjoy an articulate critique of their craft, this book is fine. But for a "young writer" looking for guidance its value is questionable.
It reads like a narcissistic tribute from a self-satisfied college professor who likes to hear himself speak. There are plenty of other books available dealing with the fundamentals of writing that should prove far more helpful for beginners.

There is some very good information in this book but, in general, I did not like it. I found it sometimes too abstract, sometimes simplistic. Moreover, I think that the author is right when he says that writing very long sentences may be a good exercise, but I just wish he had not done it so often in his text.
I much prefer David Lodge's "The Art of Fiction"

I've been reading books on writing fiction lately, after 20 years as a relatively successful non-fiction writer with my writing in publications like Writer's Digest, Success, Omni, Reader's Digest..
Frankly, I picked up this book over ten years earlier. And it was, I now realize, so dry, boring and difficult to get through that I put off my novel writing for years. Beware!
Since then, I've read some great books on writing-- Christopher Vogler's THE WRITER's Journey, and Robert McKee's STORY STRUCTURE.
I breezed through these, marking them up like crazy because of all the good ideas.
I told a literary friend of mine about the books I'd been reading and he pooh-poohed them, insisting that Gardner's was the "real thing."
So I went back and revisited it. I found it as turgid as the first time. Now, you may think I am some kind of airhead who doesn't do deep. But I am one of the few who actually finished reading Foucault's Pendulum, and have recently finished Ken Wilber's Marriage of Sense and Spirit-- a discussion of postmodernist scientific models and paradigms, as well as the journals in brain research I usually read for my profession I can read dense, difficult material!
Bottom line: I'd hate to see this book turn someone off to writing when there are some great books out there. Maybe I'll revisit this one in a year or two.

As an MFA student, I thought this classic would be useful, but I found it extremely difficult to focus on what Gardner was trying to say because his message is relayed in such a pompous tone that it was nearly impossible for me to see past it. I understand that he's good at what he does, and bravo to him-- but please, it's hard to take someone seriously when they tout their opinions as facts. I'd recommend reading this because every person is different and what someone else might find this book brilliant, but personally I was so turned off by his cockiness that I had to stop reading.

Concepts exposed are complex and abstract. When reader understands the underlying ideas, he finds profond and pertinent tools to become a serious artist/fiction writer. Author goes to the heart of the craft with deep concepts and practical advices that make the difference between writing and creating art.

I am astounded that someone who plans on teaching us how to write has subscribed so wholeheartedly to the two cardinal rules of bad writing:
1) using big words and fancy language where smaller, simpler language can be used in a transparent attempt to sound smart and
2) dropping lots of obscure names so that the reader will assume Mr. Gardner is smart.
Well, neither attempt has succeeded. If the purpose of writing is, in the end, the communication of ideas, then this book can just barely be considered writing. Yes, there are some fine points hidden in here. And, if you're familiar with all the 19th-century literature that's referenced, then perhaps you can, with the aid of a thesaurus and multiple readings, discover them. But if you are an intelligent person interested in finding help in becoming a more serious writer, and don't care how many syllables Mr. Gardner can pack into a sentence, I suggest staying away from this book, and perhaps destroying any copies you come near. To tell the truth, I'm embarrassed for this man.

Clearly John Gardner is a literary genius, however not being one myself I found that his style was a little overbearing, it does not offer the inspired start to writing fiction that I was looking for.

Tendentious and outdated in the sense that Gardner's views on the mechanics of fiction come right out of English departments of the 1940's and 50's. And I know it's been said elsewhere, but his defaulting to the masculine personal pronoun is incredibly grating. And then there's the question of why we are supposed to care about the views of someone who was neither prolific nor especially successful himself as a writer of fiction? He makes a few interesting points, but overall it's a pretty tedious read.

No wonder John Gardner didn't write more fiction books. He was far too preoccupied with what he believes makes good fiction, rather than actually writing it. "Creative atrophy" I believe John Gardner himself would call it. If there's ever been a better example of the "those who can't do, teach" argument, I haven't encountered it. This is hardly the place a "Young Writer" should start. Instead, how about reading what you like and avoiding "ignoramouses" such as John Gardner? John Gardner is unable to accept the fact that many of the world's finest writers never made it through college, and many more didn't have the luxury of a "rigorous classical education." The most hilarious part is where Gardner mentions that only through a line-by-line university level discussion will anybody ever be able to fully enjoy Shakespeare. It's interesting to note how Gardner, who "taught" creative writing at the university level, fails to exhibit the critical thinking and objectivity he says one can only obtain through a college education.