From: kamorgan@athena.mit.edu (Keith Morgan)
Subject: Re: Computers not a substitute for books
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:10:17 GMT

Miriam Nadel writes:

>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.

	This point becomes excruciatingly apparent in the academic
world when a research paper is read verbatim. I have been at public
lectures where I have already read the paper and been astounded that
the speaker simply, without inflection or amplification, proceeded
through the paper. The stilted nature of this exercise is most
apparent when the audience has a copy of the paper in hand and the
lecture is punctuated with the sound of pages turning in unison.
Granted, there are many research papers that cannot be communicated in
a stylish manner; however, some awareness of the audience is needed.

>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).  

	I wonder if the perceptual skills necessary to listen to even
the best storyteller have been attenuated by the visual communication
styles of our age. I'm not talking about young children who can retain
that capacity of imagination and wonder that allows rapt attention but
adults used to both visual mediums and to reading. Visual modes such
as movies, television, drama, use such a multiplicity of stimuli that
it is (sometimes) hard to be distracted. Reading and reading aloud
appear to be much the same but when we read to ourselves we retain the
ability to skip back word, lines, even chapters. 

	I imagine that the storytellers association that Miriam
mentions in her post is an attempt to recover this lost art. Still, it
seems to me that it is a difficult task given the skills needed to
effectively tell a story.

>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.

	Exactly. And when your attention wanders it is often to the
ceiling, or the shoes the speaker is wearing, or anything else.

>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_.

>Miriam Nadel

	Keith

--

Keith Morgan kamorgan@athena.mit.edu
In the end nothing could be said of his work except that it was
preposterous and true and totally unacceptable. Edward Whittemore