Quantcast
Tor Forge

Science fiction. Fantasy. The universe. And related subjects.

Latest Posts

› archive

Latest Comments

› show all

Hot Bookmarks


Blog Archive


posted Tuesday October 27, 2009 02:36pm EDT

Story Psych: A Semi-Scientific Look at What Makes a Good Story

Megan Crewe

As a psychology major and someone whose day job regularly draws on psychological principles (I’m a behavioral therapist for children with special needs), I thought it’d be interesting to do a series of posts examining how the science of the mind might be applied to the world of literature.

To start things off, I’ll be tackling one of the biggest questions there is: just what is it that makes a story “good”? From a psychological perspective, that is.

One of the biggest factors, I’d guess, is memory.

Memorable does not necessarily equal good, but it would make sense that a story with scenes and characters that stick in readers’ minds would be far more likely to become a success than one without that sticking power. While you’re reading, you’ll enjoy a story more if you have a clear memory of what came before and how the events are building to the climax. And afterward, if you continue to remember and think about the story, there’s a sense that you’ve read something powerful. You’re certainly more likely to recommend that story to others than one you’ve already forgotten.

How does a story—or anything else, for that matter—become memorable? Well, to begin with, it has to avoid interference. Whether information stays in your memory long enough to stick depends a lot on whether it gets displaced by new information before that can happen. So you’re more likely to remember three characters who are introduced across three separate chapters, for example, than three who are introduced on the same page. A story that gives its important events and people due time on the page before moving on is more likely to be remembered than one cluttered with overlapping actions and introductions.

Simply not providing immediate interference isn’t necessarily enough, though.  For a story to be remembered, it helps if it’s original, too.  If you already have memories of similar information, they can make the formation of new, related memories more difficult. Have you experienced one of those moments when you can’t recall whether a specific event or character appeared in one book or another (when those books have similar tones and/or plots)?  That’s this effect in action. Studies have also shown that people tend to remember events that involve actions and locations they’ve experienced infrequently better than those where the situation and setting are more familiar to them. So the more distinctive a story is, the less likely your memories of other stories will interfere with it, and the more likely it will stand out in your mind.

But while unique events, characters, and settings can make a story more memorable, an unusual structure may throw readers’ memories off. It’s been suggested that people have a sense of story grammar that dictates what sort of events they expect to happen in any given story, in what sort of order: for example, a beginning with an introduction of characters and setting, a series of attempts at goals and the outcomes of those attempts in the middle, leading to a resolution at the end. Researchers have found that people remember stories that follow this expected structure better than those that stray from it. In fact, readers may inadvertently misremember the events in an “ungrammatical” story so that it better fits the structure they expect.

One final memory aid is visualization. Most psychologists believe that people can recall information more easily if it’s encoded in their memory both linguistically (what it means) and through imagery (what it looks like), simply because that means you’ve made more mental connections and have more avenues by which to access those memories. Anyone who’s tried using mnemonic tricks to improve memory knows that many of them involve associating information with images, and this is why.

So what does that mean for storytelling? I’d say that a story told in a way that evokes images in readers’ minds is more likely to be remembered than one that doesn’t, or does so less. When you think about your favorite novels, do you have some sort of visual impressions that go with it? I would guess most of us bring images to mind when we think of the scenes that resonated the most with us—images that skilled words on the page conjured for us. Maybe that’s why so many authors are now using book trailers to get word out about their newest works: the hope that a dynamic visual will stick in the minds of the reading public longer than a simple cover and description!

Those are a few of the ways memory might influence which stories are lauded and which are not. Over the next few days I’ll examine how behavioral principles and persuasive techniques might come into play as well.


Megan Crewe is a Canadian young adult author whose first novel, Give Up the Ghost, was recently published by Henry Holt Books for Young Readers.

ReddIt Stumble Upon del.icio.us Digg It Send via Mail
BOOKMARK
PRINT

categories: Written Word, Science
tags: psychology, stories, Memory

8 comments
Dan Sparks
1.  RedHanded
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday October 27, 2009 05:03pm EDT
Good analysis, an easily remembered story or a story with memorable scenes is definitely a part of what makes a story good. Besides a lack of interference, an original idea, and a story that evokes visualization I would say the reader has to be motivated to remember (as in why should this certain scene be remembered and of course that can be subjective, I may remember different aspects than another person due to what is important to me) and the reader has to be interested in the subject matter. Someone who does not like fantasy/sci fi may not find much in that genre that is memorable whereas I would. Many books can be remembered because of certain scenes being original or easily remembered but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good story.

I noticed you put good in quotes, I'm guessing that like me you realize that good is a very subjective word, as in good.. by what standard?

Would you say that you can tell something about someone's personality or psyche by what books they do find good?
Megan Crewe
2.  megancrewe
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday October 27, 2009 07:34pm EDT
I definitely agree about interest--and that memorable doesn't always equal good. Certainly some stories are memorable for how bad they are!

And yes, the quotes for "good" were intentional. As you say, it's so subjective.

I think what sort of books a person tends to enjoy, and why, is definitely affected by their personality. Though I suspect it'd be pretty hard to figure out just what the effect in any given case was, unless you knew a lot about both the person and their reading tastes.
R. Emrys
3.  R. Emrys
Tuesday October 27, 2009 09:39pm EDT
Having the appropriate story grammar to understand what you're reading helps, too. If you've ever encountered the "War of the Ghosts" studies, then you know how every story carries assumptions about what the reader will already know. And John M. Ford talked about this in terms of how SF/fantasy readers read their preferred genre vs how outsiders try to read it.

I'm looking forward to the rest of these articles--I study this stuff from the perspective of Narrative Worlds Theory.
Megan Crewe
4.  megancrewe
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday October 27, 2009 10:25pm EDT
Yep, I'm familiar with the studies on the "War of the Ghosts" story! That's part of what I was drawing on for the paragraph about expected structures.

Glad you enjoyed the article!
R. Emrys
5.  JJD
Wednesday October 28, 2009 02:10am EDT
Wonderful insights. I've always been fascinated with psychological principles and the study of human behavior and whatnot. I also happen to be working on my own novel at the moment and this is very helpful. I've wondered for awhile what it is that separates a good story from a bad one and those points make a lot of sense. Looking forward to the rest of your articles. Thanks.
Sherwood Smith
6.  Sartorias
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday October 28, 2009 10:55am EDT
Nifty article. I've been thinking along similar lines--without the academic chops you have, but based on a half century of indefatigable reading. One thing that occurred to me recently was that "new" becomes harder to accomplish when one has been reading so long. (Especially when "new" is not the same as "shock.") But predictable patterns are acceptable if the detail resonates with experience--or is convincing.

In other words, a book can be memorable though I know where it's going, just because I take so much pleasure in the ride.
R. Emrys
7.  aleden
Wednesday October 28, 2009 10:02pm EDT
Good analysis on memory, thank you! People mis-attributing information learned in stories to real life is fascinating.

As a media effects researcher specializing in enjoyment I am quite excited for the rest of this series! I hope you will touch on the research in communication that specifically details the cognitive processes of narrative enjoyment. I've always hoped to see more recognition of audience cognitions on popular sites. Thank you so much for doing this!
Allyn Edgar Hughes
8.  allynh
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday October 29, 2009 01:42pm EDT
I've been looking into the same thing lately, and you might want to watch the interview with Alison Gopnik on Charlie Rose, and copy the transcript.

Charlie Rose
http://www.charlierose.com/

27 October 2009
Alison Gopnik

Transcript
http://www.charlierose.com/download/transcript/10693

CHARLIE ROSE:

Alison Gopnik is here. She teaches psychology and directs a cognitive development lab at the University of California at Berkeley. She has devoted much of her time to studying the minds of babies and young children.

In a new book called "The Philosophical Baby" she says that they imagine, care, and experience more than we would have ever thought possible. "Slate" magazine says Gopnik’s book is where you want to go if you want to get into the head of a baby.


Her work ties in to what you are talking about and the "Sense of Wonder" that has been discussed in the past. Here is the key sequence to look at.

ALISON GOPNIK: That’s right.

But we’re starting to see a lot of links between the kind of consciousness we have and what our gray goo is doing. And when we look at babies’ brains, what we see is that they’re actually more connected. There’s more synaptic connections in babies’ brains than adults.

And when you look at adults -- when adults pay attention to something, a tiny portion of their brain relevant to what they’re paying attention to gets to be particularly good at processing. It gets saturated with chemical transmitters that make it changeable.

But the rest of our brain stays the same. And what happens to us in our consciousness is we’re very vividly conscious of one thing, the thing we pay attention to. But we damp down our consciousness of everything else.

So we know something not about the great big question, but about how that particular vivid experience of attention when I’m focusing on something, I’m really conscious of it and everything else disappears. We know how that works in grown-ups.

When we look at babies, what we see is that their attention is all over the place. They’re really sort of paying attention to the whole world at once.

And what they see is determined by what’s the most captivating and interesting information branch. And then when we look at their brain we see that their brains are saturated in these chemicals that we adults just squirt on the tiny part of the brain we want to pay attention to.

CHARLIE ROSE: They have more neural pathways, too?

ALISON GOPNIK: They actually have more synapses early on. And what happens as we get older is that we prune out, we lose those synapses, the connections we don’t use, and the connections we do use get to be stronger and stronger.

CHARLIE ROSE: And what happens to the ones we don’t use?

ALISON GOPNIK: They just kind of disappear. So that may sound kind of scary and depressing, but actually, of course, one of the things that’s really important for us as adults is not to pay attention to everything at once.

In fact, when we say preschoolers don’t pay attention, what we really mean is that they don’t not pay attention. They can’t just edit out the things that aren’t important and just focus on the things that are. That’s our great adult gift.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why do some adults have child like curiosity and others don’t?

ALISON GOPNIK: Right.

Well, I think that’s a good question. I think all adults have the potential to continue to experience the world in some of the ways that children do.

I think a nice example is like when we go to a foreign city. When we go to Beijing for the first time, and suddenly we’re all like babies. We’re in a world that’s new and rich and everything around us is unexpected.

You know, as opposed to our daily life when we’re basically needing, lowing (ph) zombies most of the time. We go to the new place, we have to learn something new and suddenly we experience everything in a new way.


When someone starts reading a book, like the baby, everything on the page seems important. The longer it takes before the reader is blatantly shown the key players and events the less "good" the book is. It's just like wandering through a strange city, everything is overwhelming, because we see everything. You are lost until you recognize the hotel.

That is the heart of telling "good" story. Presenting the information in ways to be clear, discrete, to focus the reader on key moments, so that they can then pick out the important points as they read the story.

"Sense of Wonder" is triggered the same way. Adults have filtered out so much that you have to blatantly bring the "Wow" event to their attention. That triggers a reset, shocking them out of their filters and focusing them on the thing that they would have sneered at or ignored before.

You can tell as big and complex and rambling a story as you want, after you focus the reader on what is important.
POST A COMMENT Name: Email Address: Comment (bbCode allowed):