From: nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel)
Subject: Re: Computers not a substitute for books
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:17:57 GMT

In article <7LD2wB1w164w@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us> rachel@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us (Rachel M. Kadel) writes:
>>
>> You mean that listening to story telling is superior to book
>> reading?
>
>Of course!  Of course, when you can get it, a truly skilled storytelling 
>session is ever so much more rewarding than reading a book.  There are so 
>many additional dimensions in a telling of a classic story by a good 
>storyteller.  Even reading a book aloud between two (or more) people is 
>preferable as an experience to reading it to one's self.  Solitary book 
>reading has become more prevalent mostly as a matter of convenience:  You 
>can read what you want to read when you want to read it, rather than 
>waiting to find someone to share it with.  

Actually, this depends on the book.  Written language and oral language
differ in many important ways and many books cannot be read aloud
profitably.

First of all, storytelling is not the same thing as reading aloud.  Real
storytellers never read and, in fact, most don't memorize the story.  So
every telling is different.  If you do read aloud, you lose the spontaneity
of expression that makes oral language more natural.

Oral language has a lot of elements that are lacking in written
language.  The freedom to use different voices, changes in intonation,
gestures, other motion (changes in level - sitting for some parts, standing
for others), etc. enhance the experience.  There's even a difference
between hearing a storyteller on tape and seeing him or her perform (live
or on video).  

When one writes, it is necessary to provide a lot of the information that
could be provided through gesture or voice in words.  So work intended
to be written has more direct description.  When someone tries to tell
a literary story verbatim, it's often boring to the audience because there's
too much detail.

You can see the distinction very clearly if you read stories that are 
intended to be told.  It's somewhat true of Davies' _High Spirits_ but the
best place to look at this is a collection from NAPPS (the National
Association for the Preservation and Perpetuation of Storytelling) titled
(approximately) _The Best Loved Stories from the National Storytelling
Festival_.  Go to storytelling groups and hear the difference between how
people tell personal stories and folktales and how they tell literary
stories.  (For anyone in Los Angeles, I heartily recommend Community
Storytellers.  We meet the second Thursday of every month at the Wildwood
School in Santa Monica and you can email me for more info.  I'd also suggest
the By Word of Mouth series of concerts in Pasadena.)

There isn't any better or worse in this - or, at least, I hope not as I
both write and tell stories.  I find that if I tell a story that started
out written or if I write down a story I've been telling for a while, it
needs a considerable amount of work to have the same effect.  

Incidentally, if you want to hear a really skilled storyteller, you can't
do better than getting Jay O'Callahan's tapes.  In particular, the two
sets of Pill Hill Stories ("Coming Home to Someplace New," which includes
"Glasses," "Chickie," and, my personal favorite, "Politics," and "The
Dance") and "Herman and Marguerite" from "Earth Stories" are wonderful to
listen to.


Miriam Nadel