Being able to tell a story and do it well for some comes naturally, and to others is considered an art form. For most, such as myself, it’s a technique, a skill that can be learned, mastered and applied. To master the gift of gab form and creative components takes practice, dedication and perseverance. However, first there must be a story, regardless whether the story is worth telling, the storyteller must emphasize the structure of how the story will be relayed to the audience, not only by content, but also by context and syntax. Even so, everyone has their own preference of how to interpret the information they are receiving in order to connect to the storyteller. Doing so, some would reject a story outright or become uninterested if the narration is being conveyed in a manner that the recipient finds indifferent or boring.
Listening to the three different audio streaming sites, I could get a first-hand experience in what I liked in the delivery and style of the content being projected. First The Moth, Had some very personal stories that were being told to a live audience, or at least, I was being led to believe it was being done so. The tales were humorous, and the storytellers had inflections, mid-tones, variable pitches and peaks and valleys in their delivery that evoked emotions, and visuals which allowed the audience to relate in some capacity to their experiences. I felt myself immersed in the audience involvement, allowing myself an added stimulus to my vision of the stories being told.
The Americans Live was told in a more documentary style, with commentary from individuals that were part of the actual events or knew participants of the stories. I found this style to be the most interesting, because it told the stories from a research perspective with first-hand accounts for reference. The stories shared a degree of credibility, with historical documentation and audio interviews depicting the story unfolding as more relevant information came to light. The greatest assets to these particular stories were the tension it created among the characters, and the real-world conclusions did not have a neat or tidy resolution.
The final site was Columbia University Storytelling Project which I found to be my least favorite. With that being said, I believe it to be a great asset to those that are working to establish a DST presence online. Even though it was not my cup of tea, it still garnered a lot of valuable insight into the practice of DSL. The stories conveyed to the site were more interviews such an information broadcast for an enthusiast or students interested in the field of DSL. In the first story about Frankenstein, it started with a computer-generated voice, to mimic an AI, and associated it with Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. Once the voice was completed, the interview, or process of the project was discussed. I spent about five minutes on the interview and didn’t move forward to the rest of the stories, since I lost interest quickly.
As I mentioned earlier, delivery of a story is the key. In the first two streaming sites, the stories' styles and techniques were totally different, but the delivery was more relevant to what I expect, and so I listened and enjoyed the stories being told. I also could relate, understand and walk away with some memory of each story. In the last site, I didn’t connect because the stories sounded dry, and uninteresting, almost like I was listening to a seminar about storytelling, rather than hearing a story I can invest in.