Storytelling - Part 2

The heart of storytelling lies in oral tradition. In my previous post I tried to define storytelling, but after some research I discovered the closest I came to a correct definition was the story of my grandmother telling me fables when I was young. Many of the ideas I pointed out were close to the truth, for example, the importance of storytelling for socialization of children or the ability to simplify complex issues. However, many of them were also misguided, like the nature of the relationship between stories and information, on which I will comment later.

This will sound really pretentious, but my goal in life is to change the world. I know, how am I going to do that? Well, I plan to use the tools that have been given to me. And for me that is making fictional films. I used to think fictional work has no impact on the way people live – it is mostly just entertainment. I put real value in documentary films and news journalism. This is the work that deals with real issues in the real world, right? However, does reality really have such an impact on the way people think? For example, does a news report about animal cruelty change anything? It is a real example of a real problem. It is a fact. But do people think about animal cruelty after the initial shock value passes? Does this really change the way they see animals? I believe no. On the other hand, a fictional film, something with a story that gets the audience engaged, can have a much greater impact on the psyche in the long run. And that is the power of stories.

A story is like a Trojan horse for ideas. It is a vehicle for the message from the author. And the audience aren't even aware their thinking and behaviour is being altered. This holds true for all storytelling mediums. Story enables an idea to bypass our mental defences without us even knowing. This phenomenon has proven to be very useful in a variety of areas, from education and business to entertainment and religious teachings. That is why I believe I can do more good making fictional films with stories than propagating news facts.

The truth is that the fundamentals of stories are always the same. We have been listening to the same story over and over again. And we know it. At least subconsciously. The difference is the storyteller who acts as an interpreter. Although the fundamentals are the same, the interpretation of them is always different. No just because the storyteller tells it differently, but also because storytelling is an individual experience for every listener and everyone interprets the story differently. Stories are meant to be retold perpetually, constantly changing in details, but at the same time keeping the core of the story alive.

It is an interesting observation that, historically looking, stories were frequently told among people while doing something else. Like spinning thread during long winter nights. Which means that they were not completely listening to the story. Which made retelling it a little bit harder, but at the same time enabling countless varieties.

We could say storytelling is an art of repeating stories. The best stories get passed on through generations. It is a way of conveying memories and life experiences. The fact that a story is many generations old means the original storyteller is most likely dead and that gives a certain weight to the content. Another effect of generational storytelling is that stories and memories start to seamlessly connect to each other. A great storyteller is able to thread a story for as long as he like since he is always able to hide the beginning. Also the nature of stories is that they can always be legitimately continued if necessary. On the other hand, other media usually has to end at a certain point. Which can be really good if one is committed to presenting a strong point. A good example of this is a novel, which really emphasizes the final idea by the finishing at the end of the character's life.

The nature of information and stories is quite different. Before information was widely available via press, stories were the only source on events happening locally and in more remote places. These stories were sometimes mixed with mysticism and not always entirely truthful. Until press came, the tradition of storytelling was blossoming. But after that the scale changed in favour of information which had to be true, or at least plausible, to be considered useful. However, this idea goes against the spirit of storytelling which takes pride in not explaining everything and letting people discern what the moral of the story was.

Everything that is currently happening benefits information, but not storytelling. However, information only has value for a short period of time while it is happening, while storytelling holds its value indefinitely, even increasing it with extra layers and new interpretations. It is now clear to me that information and storytelling are two completely different areas.

While researching the topic of storytelling, I came across much more information which can be seen in the following diagram: http://mrl.li/16vhcS7

Areas I found especially interesting were dealing with the structure of stories, for example, the ideas of transportation and transformation. Another important point for me was a universal presence of conflict in stories. I also read upon how people get absorbed in stories, their brains functioning as that of a participant and not as of a spectator. This supports the claims mentioned earlier on bypassing our mental defences to deliver a message. All of the above will be useful in my further research of the matter and I plan to elaborate on them individually.