Recently, Sean Buvala (@storyteller on Twitter) tweeted,
Sean has been a storytelling professional for over two decades. He lives this stuff. He created the website Storyteller.net before the web ever thought about storytelling. I respect and value his work immensely. However, I disagree with his stance.
He’s not alone. I have encountered many storytellers—all live performing stand-up-in-front-of-an-audience type storytellers—who share the sentiment that performative storytelling is the only true storytelling. (I once met a famous performance storyteller with the initials DW who told me that the Moth brand of first person storytelling was not real storytelling.)
If it’s not live, people to people, it’s not storytelling. It’s one of many other amazing and equal arts that use story.
I am a bass player. When I was in my 20s I played with a band and we got a gig in New York City. The band that went on before us played super intense heavy metal music. They stood in place staring at their hands with their speakers shaking the walls behind them. Not only did they play their songs with precision, they also brought with them their own giant light show. However, despite all the hoopla, they failed to win the audience.
After their set, one of the members said to his band mates, “What’s wrong with this audience? These people don’t know real music when they hear it.”
Whenever someone says that something outside of their mindset is not the real deal, they are usually a purveyor of, or practitioner of, what they consider real. I’m no different. I think that having an open standpoint is more advantageous than compartmentalizing. There are amazing insights to learn when we look at disparate topics (or just about everything) as forms of storytelling.
Live storytelling is only one of many storytelling forms.
I literally just got back from a party and am writing this post. While there, a woman admitted to me that she preferred doing performance over theater even thought she makes her living as a theater professional. I am someone who does not identify with the theater community, so I began to ask others at the party if they see a difference between Performance and Theater. After talking with several people the distinctions between the two became a bit more clear.
Theater, it was said, is codified. It has a history and expectation. Theater expects its participants to understand and carry on a tradition. In theater there’s a particular way to approach the production, direction, writing, lighting, costuming, etc. There’s a language that should be employed when critiquing theater. An audience who “understands theater” will most likely have a different opinion about a play as opposed to a person who doesn’t go to see theater often. Someone at the party went as far as to say that theater was something people (he said “we” as in the theater community) do but weren’t necessarily happy doing. He also said that theater should die, and he’s a theater professional!
Performance, on the other hand, was described as something that unifies an audience. Performance can include theater but is more free and encompasses dance, music, and even include attention-getting outbursts in public. Sound is a huge part of performance. So are words and language. Performance has something to say beyond simply entertaining an audience. It’s less concerned with linear or structured narrative than theater. I got the impression that performance is more spontaneous and free both in how people described it and how they felt about doing it. Performance does not need to be scripted. It’s more alive.
Theater and performance can come together as one and everyone agreed that when the two marry a very special and powerful experience happens. The word “ritual” came up when people spoke about performance. It would seem to me that ritual in theater happens in the production of a play and includes the production workers while ritual in performance happens during the performance itself ad includes the audience.
When I was living in New York City, I asked a storyteller who was prominent in the local scene what she thought about the urban storytelling non-profit called the Moth. She replied, “Oh, that’s first person stories. That’s not really storytelling.”
I was astonished. The conversation ended there. This woman told stories in Central Park every weekend to crowds of children and adults. She had a repertoire of folk tales at the tip of her tongue. She was certainly known by the families who had come to hear her tell her tales and was known in the community as being a storytelling pioneer.
Meanwhile, downtown, the Moth had grown a significant following and stirred quite a buzz. As a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting storytelling, the Moth changed the face of the stereotypical storyteller from a white-haired librarian/grandma with a book in her hand into a young hipster with an entertaining and sexy personal experience to share.
Years have passed and little has changed. I belong to Storytell, a listserv where storytellers “talk shop” via email. Whenever first person stories come up I am again surprised to learn that there are many traditional storytellers who shun first person storytelling. They don’t see the value it in. They think it’s a lesser form of storytelling, if a form of storytelling at all.
Mind you, not all storytellers take issue with personal storytelling. Just some. But why? Could it be that some storytellers are threatened by the fact that anyone can tell a story? Not everyone can tell a story well, nor tell well every time they perform. But every person has an interesting story that’s captivating and interesting. In some cases, their stories have been told at dinner parties, on long car rides, and in places one wouldn’t consider a performance space. The end result is a polished tale worthy of stage time at any storytelling festival across the country.
What are your thoughts? Is personal storytelling not real storytelling?

We saw a sign that said two estate sales were happening side-by-side. We followed the signs and parked the car. Both of the homes were huge, at least six bedrooms. However, it seemed like only one person was living in each house. Sort of sad.
Both houses had the same things for sale.
Television - $10
Decks of cars from various airlines - $3 a bag
A collection of matches from all over the world - $2
Cassette deck - $6
Old 78 records - $1 each
Various art and architecture books - $1 each
It made me think, what will my final estate sale look like?
The Internet has profoundly affected the story of our lives. In the future, things will get a whole lot more interesting. Here are some of my predictions:
At present, people can post photos online and add a name/keyword tag to the image. In the future, every image currently on the Internet will be searchable (like text is now) and faces will be recognized. You’ll be able to search for your favorite movie star or your latest hiring candidate by name, but get results by image. If a face has not been identified by name, their images will be pooled with other images of the same or similar looking faces. Perhaps surveillance camera footage will be included as well. Any photos you have online right now will show up in face searches.
Imagine being able to search for every occurrence of, “I love you,” and media-mash a video based on the results. You could also search video for scenarios such as “car crash” or “space ship fight.” You won’t be viewing the whole movie, just the part that contains the searched topic. Initially, people will label the scene sections much like they currently tag images. Eventually we’ll embed our video media when it is authored to be able to perform well in the searches.
You will have one profile to manage but it will have many pages. Your “professional page” could be used for sites like LinkedIn or Monster. Your “fun profile” could be used for sites like FaceBook and Twitter. An “alter ego” page would be employed when you need an avatar for video games. And your “private profile” could be used for dating. You’ll have a financial page containing what you’re worth, how much you owe, and how much property you own.
In the nineties it seemed like everyone was an ISP until they got purchased by Comcast and AT&T. One day all of the corporate branded websites will be owned by five companies and they will create five private webs. Everything outside of those major five will be considered renegade media.
A single hand held device will become the laptop/cellphone/camera/camcorder/voice recorder of the future. Combined with GPS you will know exactly where a person is at any given moment. The term “online now” will turn to “in Minneapolis now.”
Forget free wifi in the lounge at the terminal. Each seat on the plane gets a screen and a connection. You provide the input device (keyboard, track pad) or rent one for $10 for the duration of the flight. Passengers enjoy playing games with other passengers and even play for prizes.
As electric vehicles become commonplace, it won’t be uncommon that they get fitted with constant wifi. Your car will have a national ID that will get registered to its owner so that nobody else can drive it (sorry teenaged kids) unless you program in a co-driver. We’ll stop using ignition keys and start using finger print sensors or eye scans. Online services will include voice activated web searching and compu-voice “reading” services so you could listen to a Wikipedia entry as you drive.
What does the future of the web look like to you?
• Applied Narrative
• Art, Culture, Design
• Conferences & Festivals
• Opportunities
• Questions
View the Archive