jducoeur | Storytelling as a composite skill

Saturday's Tall Tales event was a fine outing -- a solidly good feast (as one would expect given the staff) and a remarkably good collection of entertainments. I don't think any of the performances were less than good, and some were really outstanding.

It was the first time I've done formal storytelling in *years*, and it was interesting to see how I've come to think of it. My big weakness in storytelling is that I really kinda suck at improvisation: when I'm thinking on my feet, I get ever-more pedantic and dull. I think I did decently on Saturday (I told a highly-embroidered version of The Pike Company On the Causeway), but I didn't really think of it as storytelling.

Instead, I put on a combination of my Writer and Ritualist caps. I spent the two days before the event "writing" the story in my head, and rehearsing it probably two dozen times. Never *quite* the same way twice, but gradually finding the gags that I really wanted to hit and memorizing them top-down the same way I do Masonic ritual: first the broad structure and the relationships of each point to the next, then gradually narrowing down the internal structure of each segment. The only real difference was that I omitted the usual step of word-for-word memorization, but even there I'd probably gotten about half the wording down solid before going on. For the actual performance, I had my verbal brain semi-disengaged (as I generally do in ritual), so that I could focus on hitting the emotional notes without worrying too much about the words.

It seemed to work: it got reasonably good laughs, and was probably the tallest tale of the bunch. (I was surprised that most of the war stories told were so *true*.) But I don't quite think of this process as "storytelling", which I envision as a somewhat more verbally-improvised art. I know that several of the people here are highly experienced storytellers, so I'm curious: how does this relate to how you do it? How much rehearsal and pre-structuring do you do, and how much do you just wing it based on a rough structure?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I have 3 general structures for stories: fully memorized, loosely memorized, and outlined & embroidered.

Fully memorized stories are like Anne of Framlingham's Beowulf pieces. The language, the meter, &c. is so important that it must be told as originally writ. For me, this is usually poetry.

Loosely memorized stories are where I have many important turns of phrase that I must use, but it's not a word for word recitation. This probably the style I'm best at and how I tell Metamorphoses stories. The translation I use is *so* good I want to make sure I have all the clever bits, but allow myself some freedom to play around while I'm telling it.

The outlined & embroidered is kind of like commedia. I know the structure of the story extremely well so I can hang descriptive bits on it as I go along. Yevsha can explain about The Quiver better than I can. This style of storytelling is his forte, but I got much better at it when I was Bardic Champion. I kept one or two stories ready to go at all times upon which I could elaborate and embellish, depending on the situation and time frame.

But no matter what the style, there's a fair amount of practice. I would rarely just wing it. For spur of the moment performances I'll use something I've told often and am quite comfortable with, but it never feels polished to me.

You did very well. I loved the way you were able to hook the "psychology" of Christian's take of Edward the Lame and the Fenceers' Woods Battle to your story. These, and Thorson's stories, were exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to have people tell. Mostly true, with the appropriate hyperbole and embroidery that happens when a bunch of people sit around drinking and saying "No shit, there we were..."

Story-telling for me is very much the same whether I'm telling a story based on oral literary tradition -- Mythology, history, literature, et al. -- or one based on a "no shit, there we were..." or "hold my beer and watch this..." moment.

This sort of thing:
"There were Midrealmers as far as the eye can see! There must have been thousands of them! [dramatic pause] Well, several hundred at least [less dramatic pause] OK a dozen or so. But there were lots more of them than there were of us..."

is as much story telling as:
"King Leondidas and his 300 Spartans faced and enormous Persian army. The emperor Xerxes had under his command 20,000 cavalry, 50,000 infantry the 10,000 Immortals, his personal guards. There were Persians as far as the eye could see and they laid waste to the land like a host of locusts..."

It's all about entertaining the audience, no matter how great or small the story.

Morwenna said much of what I would have said. I have to disagree with your vision of storytelling -- especially in the SCA -- as a verbally improvised art. While many storytellers I know do improvise, most of us do it out of laziness and hubris ;-). Like anything else, the best storytellers prepare for their performances... often quite a bit.

Cariadoc certainly tells memorized pieces, so do most storytellers I know. Every once in a while lightning strikes and I can improvise a piece that sounds as good as one I've prepared, but those are rare occasions (and generally win me a the title of royal bard ;-) ).

In terms of preparation, I would divide my storytelling into three categories:
- poetry, like the Fall of the Niflungs, or Angantyr (the thing I did during dinner at Coronation), or Head-Ransom: this pretty much has to be done word-for word, so I memorize it that way, and repeat and rehearse over and over until I've got it fluently (so it comes out with all the speed and inflection of normal spoken speech)--same way I'd memorize and rehearse Shakespeare

- a period story, like the history of the Franks I did at the event: much as you describe, learning the spine of the plot, the general structure of the story, and some specific turns of phrase, but not memorizing; I think of the prep work as "practice" more than "rehearsal"

- a personal anecdote, like my own Causeway story I told you later: I open my mouth and just tell what happened, relying on my storyteller's instincts for pacing and giving the story a point

That last category may be what you're thinking of as a "verbally-improvised art" form, but not what I think of as my "SCA storytelling" mode, which is rather much what you were doing.

Jes' my two ells of homespun.

I have told primarily improvised stories (shock!) but they are improvised the way commedia is improvised (shock! again).

My use commedia tricks when storytelling. I need the bones of the story first. I have repetitive and tangential lazzi at hand if I get bogged down or need to gain some footing. I have endings that I am headed for all along the way. Without touchstones like these, I'd be babbling.

Then again, I think I have performed three stories with varying success, so this comes with a sizable grain of salt.

"I don't quite think of this process as "storytelling", which I envision as a somewhat more verbally-improvised art."

I almost never improvise, and fail more often than not when I try. I have a moderate amount of material which I tell in a semi-structured fashion, but the vast majority of my repertoire is word-for-word memorized. When I am preparing for particularly special performances, I even work on getting specific tones and gestures memorized. I did well enough that people called me a Master Storyteller, so I presume what I did qualifies as storytelling :)

Storytelling as a composite skill

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Not a good example

no subject