Here's the challenge: Let's take a familiar story type and reduce it to its base elements, so that it might not be recognizable.
First, let's take out the genders of the characters, also the place where the story happens. Most fairy tales now start:
Once there was a person who lived in a place --
This is absolute reduction. In some ways it's not even a story, it's just a scenario, rather like our User Stories from the last entry. This could very literally be any story, unless you have a dead, or non-human protagonist, or a story that takes place in a vacuum, in which case the story could start differently, such as
Once there was a robot who lived in space --
But you see how filling in both the person slot and the place slot suddenly gives the story a character and a feel? It even gives the story a genre of sorts just by replacing those two words. Most people will characterize any story that has a robot or takes place in space as Science Fiction, and for some people that will mean that they stop paying attention.
So how do we tell the story of the robot in space, without saying that it's a robot in space? Having a robot takes away the need to assign a gender, or even a proper name, but these are things that we can use to give character to our protagonist in the first sentence, such as:
Robert lived in a void.
This might still be the story of our robot protagonist, or it might not. It might be a story about a human. With the new opening line, we don't know that a) our protagonist is possibly non-human or b) that they are living in a vacuum. Though we may be applying a gender or an appearance to that character, we are no longer assuming a genre, after all, the void could be a spiritual void, or a metaphorical one. By opening the story this way we disguise our intention to tell a specific type of story until the reader has found a hook, something that keeps them reading the story, regardless of whatever genre may be revealed later. We'll go back to this idea in future posts when we talk about using specific elements to color storytelling.
Now let's go back to our reductionist story. After Once there was a person who lived in a place -- usually we have either a description of that person, or a feeling that they are having, such as "and she longed for a child" or "she was the most beautiful woman in the land."
So now we have:
Once there was a person, who lived in a place and was a certain way, or
Once there was a person who lived in a place and wanted something.
That's just about every story ever.
Now let's try telling a whole story this way:
Once there was a person, who lived in a place, and wanted an intangible thing. The person went to the local wise person and asked the wise person a relevant question, and the wise person gave them advice. The person went home and implemented the advice and was unhappy. The person went back to the wise person for further advice and received it. The person went home and implemented the advice and was even more unhappy. Finally the person went back to the wise person and the wise person gave them a final piece of advice that reversed all of wise person's previous advice. Person went home and implemented this advice and was happy. Person thanked wise person for the new understanding of their initial state.
This is the simplest way I can think of to tell this story. It's not absolutely reductionist. If it were, we probably wouldn't have the character's feelings stated quite so explicitly as 'unhappy' and 'happy' instead we would have just 'an emotion' or 'a negative emotion', but I honestly think that 'happy' and 'unhappy' are sufficiently reductionist for these purposes, and keep the story at a human level.
Likewise, the outcome of the story is not particularly reductionist, because it explicitly states what our protagonist does to obtain happiness, in this case, it's listening to the advice that reverts the story back to its initial state. The story as I told it also has a moral, which is not strictly necessary, but which fulfills the same criteria as starting the story with 'Once'. To my mind, the moral is a formula for indicating that the story has reached a satisfying emotional climax and is now finished, much like saying 'and they lived happily ever after.' or 'The end.' or 'Amen.' all of which indicate a stopping point in a narrative.
If you recognized the story in this form, good on you! It usually takes more than a paragraph to tell the story I'm thinking of, and I have deliberately pared it down here for maximum neutrality. I am certain that there are several possible stories that take this form. I have deliberately removed the gender and professions of both the protagonist and the wise person, the type of location, the nature of the protagonist's desire, and the sort of advice given by the wise person.
This pretty much destroys the story as a piece of entertainment, but it does allow us to look at the story's bones, or elements.
We have {the person}, {the problem}, {the need for outside help}, {the wise person}, {false advice}, {personal misery}, {good advice}, {reader's revelation of a character's cleverness} and {resolution}. In many versions of this story {person} has a partner. I left {partner} out of the equation because it complicated telling the story, but it is an important element, because in some versions of the story the presence of a partner is what causes our protagonist to seek advice.
Now, as with the example of our robot in space above, filling in any one of these elements with a tangible thing will color our story. The question is, how many of these elements are actually needed before a person can recognize the story? For some people, the presence of a wise person is enough, for others, it's the fact that the main character wants something intangible that gives away which story this is.
But if I'd told you the story as I first heard it, you would have heard it as a story, and if I'd said to you afterward "what's the element that makes this story essentially this story and not some other story?" you would probably choose your favorite element, such as a funny element introduced by the {false advice} or the relationship between {person} and {partner} and {the wise person}. It would probably be hard for you to point to the one thing that made it clear to you that I was telling this story and not some other one. Of course, even with a story reduced to this level, what the reader takes away is still entirely subjective.
And this is some of the point of reductionist story telling. It takes the stories back to their elements and lets you, the listener, decide what they're about, and where they fit in your personal mythology. By letting you fill in the details, in an almost mad-libs style, it allows your hind-brain to tell you what you think the story is about. Reductionist story telling is a deliberate invocation of the phenomenon of using art as subjective self examination.
It also works with groups. Here's an exercise to try with friends: Start by explaining that you're conducting an experiment and you want them to listen to a story. Don't explain anything further. Read them the story above and then hand out paper and pen (handing them out after the telling is important so that people don't write down what you read verbatim) then ask them to write down the story as they heard it without talking about it with the others or with you. When they are done, compare everyone's versions. See who added genders, places, desires, and etc. and you will learn something about that person's internal envisioning of the story. At the end of the process, explain to the group what they did.
Alternately, read the story as written above to a group with the same stipulation that it's an experiment, and then ask them to orally reconstruct the story as a group and see who catches on when other people start adding story elements. Don't correct anyone and try not to prompt them through body language. Ideally, tell the story, and then step out of the room and leave a video or audio recorder going. A whiteboard or paper may be good for this too. Play back the video or audio and see what developed from your story. Look at the notes as well. This will tell you something about who is dominant in the group, and what values are important to the group at large. Do pay attention to asides in the recording, as those are very important too, since they may represent differing views. As before, at the end of the process, explain to the group what they did.
> Tune in next time for more reductionist story telling games.
So now we have:
Once there was a person, who lived in a place and was a certain way, or
Once there was a person who lived in a place and wanted something.
That's just about every story ever.
Now let's try telling a whole story this way:
Once there was a person, who lived in a place, and wanted an intangible thing. The person went to the local wise person and asked the wise person a relevant question, and the wise person gave them advice. The person went home and implemented the advice and was unhappy. The person went back to the wise person for further advice and received it. The person went home and implemented the advice and was even more unhappy. Finally the person went back to the wise person and the wise person gave them a final piece of advice that reversed all of wise person's previous advice. Person went home and implemented this advice and was happy. Person thanked wise person for the new understanding of their initial state.
This is the simplest way I can think of to tell this story. It's not absolutely reductionist. If it were, we probably wouldn't have the character's feelings stated quite so explicitly as 'unhappy' and 'happy' instead we would have just 'an emotion' or 'a negative emotion', but I honestly think that 'happy' and 'unhappy' are sufficiently reductionist for these purposes, and keep the story at a human level.
Likewise, the outcome of the story is not particularly reductionist, because it explicitly states what our protagonist does to obtain happiness, in this case, it's listening to the advice that reverts the story back to its initial state. The story as I told it also has a moral, which is not strictly necessary, but which fulfills the same criteria as starting the story with 'Once'. To my mind, the moral is a formula for indicating that the story has reached a satisfying emotional climax and is now finished, much like saying 'and they lived happily ever after.' or 'The end.' or 'Amen.' all of which indicate a stopping point in a narrative.
If you recognized the story in this form, good on you! It usually takes more than a paragraph to tell the story I'm thinking of, and I have deliberately pared it down here for maximum neutrality. I am certain that there are several possible stories that take this form. I have deliberately removed the gender and professions of both the protagonist and the wise person, the type of location, the nature of the protagonist's desire, and the sort of advice given by the wise person.
This pretty much destroys the story as a piece of entertainment, but it does allow us to look at the story's bones, or elements.
We have {the person}, {the problem}, {the need for outside help}, {the wise person}, {false advice}, {personal misery}, {good advice}, {reader's revelation of a character's cleverness} and {resolution}. In many versions of this story {person} has a partner. I left {partner} out of the equation because it complicated telling the story, but it is an important element, because in some versions of the story the presence of a partner is what causes our protagonist to seek advice.
Now, as with the example of our robot in space above, filling in any one of these elements with a tangible thing will color our story. The question is, how many of these elements are actually needed before a person can recognize the story? For some people, the presence of a wise person is enough, for others, it's the fact that the main character wants something intangible that gives away which story this is.
But if I'd told you the story as I first heard it, you would have heard it as a story, and if I'd said to you afterward "what's the element that makes this story essentially this story and not some other story?" you would probably choose your favorite element, such as a funny element introduced by the {false advice} or the relationship between {person} and {partner} and {the wise person}. It would probably be hard for you to point to the one thing that made it clear to you that I was telling this story and not some other one. Of course, even with a story reduced to this level, what the reader takes away is still entirely subjective.
And this is some of the point of reductionist story telling. It takes the stories back to their elements and lets you, the listener, decide what they're about, and where they fit in your personal mythology. By letting you fill in the details, in an almost mad-libs style, it allows your hind-brain to tell you what you think the story is about. Reductionist story telling is a deliberate invocation of the phenomenon of using art as subjective self examination.
It also works with groups. Here's an exercise to try with friends: Start by explaining that you're conducting an experiment and you want them to listen to a story. Don't explain anything further. Read them the story above and then hand out paper and pen (handing them out after the telling is important so that people don't write down what you read verbatim) then ask them to write down the story as they heard it without talking about it with the others or with you. When they are done, compare everyone's versions. See who added genders, places, desires, and etc. and you will learn something about that person's internal envisioning of the story. At the end of the process, explain to the group what they did.
Alternately, read the story as written above to a group with the same stipulation that it's an experiment, and then ask them to orally reconstruct the story as a group and see who catches on when other people start adding story elements. Don't correct anyone and try not to prompt them through body language. Ideally, tell the story, and then step out of the room and leave a video or audio recorder going. A whiteboard or paper may be good for this too. Play back the video or audio and see what developed from your story. Look at the notes as well. This will tell you something about who is dominant in the group, and what values are important to the group at large. Do pay attention to asides in the recording, as those are very important too, since they may represent differing views. As before, at the end of the process, explain to the group what they did.
> Tune in next time for more reductionist story telling games.
No comments:
Post a Comment