Is it Story or Storytelling that truly make a tale worth experiencing?

[PedroSteckecilo]

How many times have you seen this on a forum "[Game A] has a terrible story, it isn't original at all! Just the same redundant crap we see all the time!" Well I hate to tell you "Junior" but at the end of the day a lot of it is the same redundant crap... at least in terms of raw "Story".

In his book "The Seven Basic Plots" Christopher Booker explains that there are only seven "Raw" stories that are repeated over and over again within literature, with or without the author of said work actually recognizing what is occurring. I'm not going to go into exactly what these 7 Plots are, the list is pretty easy to find on the internet, in fact I'll even give you a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_%28narrative%29

According to this and similar theories like "The Thirty Six Dramatic Situations" as proposed by Georges Polti we can surmise that there ARE no original plots, not really. Every "raw plot" that can be written HAS been written, codified, studied, analyzed and hence can be predicted... at least that's what some people would have you believe.

At the end of the day I don't think it really matters. Expecting a story to be wildly original every time is a sure way to end up a horribly disappointed human being, especially when you realize that barring a divine act you WILL use one of the 7 Basic Plots and many of those Thirty Six Situations no matter what type of story you try to tell. The key to achieving peace with this idea is realizing that at the end of the day, this is NOT the element of Story that truly matters.

"Basic" plot is just that, basic. There are no characters in those 7 Plots, nor are there characters in those situations. They're just the raw elements necessary for the construction of a story, they aren't what make it enjoyable, meaningful or worth experiencing in anyway. Think about it like a building, at the end of the day all buildings will require, to some degree, a foundation, a superstructure, probably stairs depending on the size and height of a building etc. Any building that doesn't have these fails as a building and would not be recognized as such or used as such, and a story is similar. Yet when you look at a particularly attractive building do you pat attention to the foundation, the superstructure, the stairs? Not really I say, these are just the elements that make it a building, not the elements that make it an attractive one. In order to make these individual elements stand out, indeed to make the building itself stand out, something needs to be added to it. For a "Plot" or "Story" this is where "Storytelling" comes in, it is that "something else" added to a basic structure that makes a story memorable, enjoyable and worth experiencing.

Take my most recent favorite game, Mass Effect 2. At the end of the day what are you doing? Saving Humanity from Evil Aliens, a combination of an Against the Monster, A Quest and a little bit of a Journey and Return plotline. Not wildly original by any stretch, yet like its parent Mass Effect 2 comes across as wildly original in terms of storytelling.

You don't just Save Humanity from Evil Aliens, you take a character deeply rooted in a heavily realized fictional universe yet shaped through your personal choices and actions into either a virtual expression of yourself or a fully realized character in their own right. You find companions for this character, earn their trust and learn more about yourself in the process before triumphantly charging off with suicidal abandon to protect the universe and everything you care about because goddamn it you are a HERO and you will save mankind. This to me is the real "plot" of Mass Effect 2, not the simplistic and basic"Save Mankind from Aliens" story you might see on the surface. This belies the uniquely personalized yet cinematically sweeping style of storytelling that characterizes the game, you feel like that hero, you feel like this is your universe to save and that is what makes it different from a standard Humans vs. Aliens space opera.

Something similar could, once upon a time, be said about the classic "Lunar: The Silver Star Story Complete" for the Playstation 1. At the most basic level, Lunar is a game about a Boy rescuing his Childhood Friend from an Evil Emperor who wants to use her Innate Powers for Evil. Standard JRPG stuff right? Pretty much but the addition of warm, funny and likable characters with well done Anime Cut Scenes and the substantial amount of voice acting combined with a well paced set of revelations regarding the overall story makes Lunar something to behold despite its stereotypical trappings. Look at Bioshock, Half-Life, Portal and many other games out there. Many of them really aren't that original in terms of basic plot, but the method by which they convey their narrative, the Storytelling, makes them so much more than that.

Hence at the end of the day it isn't the story itself, it's the storytelling that makes something a truly great narrative. It's a combination of Pacing, Character, Presentation, Art, Dialogue or lack there of, Mood, Setting, Set Pieces etc. not just "plot" that makes something great and allows it to transcend the simplicity of the 7 Basic Plots.

 

[Twad]

In my humble opinion, its two sides of the same coin. Both are needed.

A story is the content, the context. The storytelling is how to tell it.

If one of the two is weak, the whole thing suffers for it.

So yes, its important to properly tell a story, but if the story to begin with is uninteresting, shallow and full of (plot)holes... it wont make much sense.

 

[rockingnic]

It's how it's told over what is told. It's literally almost impossible (if not, it always is) to tell an original story, there's not one game, movie or book in the past decade or two, that I know, that has a story that already hasn't been done before. I've seen some stories that are mediocre but are told so well that they become great.

 

[Altorin]

A brilliant story is nothing unless it is told good, a horrible story can't be saved no matter how good it is told.

(After reading as far as mentioning Mass Effect 2, I didn't want spoilers)
I have no knowlege in literature so I can't form an educated opinion.
However even if every story is a remake of the basic ones, they are still new to us, different setttings, characters, problems, conflict and so on.
So it's still new.

There is no such thing as a horrible story.

Even Twilight.

It's all in the telling.

Joseph Campbell came up with an idea called the monomyth, after studing under Carl Jung. Jung put forward that everyone has the same basic brain, but personal experience leads us to have different personalities... It's called the Collective Unconscious.. We all process different experiences through the same brain, so all of our fears, loves, hatreds are all of the same thing... the guy who hates black people, and the guy who hates chinese people are both hating the same thing.. the guy who is afraid of clowns and the guy who's afraid of rabits are really feeling the same thing etc.

Campbell's Monomyth goes with that and basically puts forth that because human brains haven't changed much since the dawn of civilization, we've fundamentally been telling the same stories over and over and over again, putting a different face on the characters, but the basic story line is the same... guy finds girl, guy loses girl, guy faces the world.

totally butchered both Jung and Campbell in my hamfisted explanations of their opus theories, but that's what they are basically. If anyone with a philosophical side that actually knows what I'm talking about wants to correct me on the specifics, I'd welcome it.

Long story short, whoever's telling the story and how they tell it is really what's important, because there are no original ideas in all of humanity's collective unconscious.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

totally butchered both Jung and Campbell in my hamfisted explanations of their opus theories, but that's what they are basically. If anyone with a philosophical side that actually knows what I'm talking about wants to correct me on the specifics, I'd welcome it.

No worse than I've butchered Booker and Polti

 

[Altorin]

totally butchered both Jung and Campbell in my hamfisted explanations of their opus theories, but that's what they are basically. If anyone with a philosophical side that actually knows what I'm talking about wants to correct me on the specifics, I'd welcome it.

No worse than I've butchered Booker and Polti

Please... Listen to me... The Archbishop Lazerus.. He sent us down here to find the lost prince.. Bastard led us into a trap.. Now everyone is dead.. Killed by a demon he called the Butcher.. Please! Avenge Us! Find this Butcher and slay him, so that our souls can finally rest..

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

You've got a point, and well-worn storytelling structure and themes can be redeemed by good work in other areas (Lunar was a very good example, although I'd credit Working Design's exemplary translation team almost as much as the original writers in that case. Avatar is an obvious example too, although I haven't seen it yet).

I'm not convinced that quality, if uninspired, storytelling is enough to compensate for a lack of originality though. I can't help feeling that it needs something that hasn't been seen before to make something truly worthwhile rather than only a competent retread of familiar material. While this attitude seems to support the production of gimmicky stories, I mean something more than the introduction of noteworthy but narratively inconsequential elements often introduced to allow for some novel scenarios. A fresh perspective, chronology, formal experiment etc. are more the kind of thing I'm talking about. Even if there's nothing new to be told, you can at least tell it in a new way or explore it from a different angle.

It appears that, due to increased familiarity on the consumer's part, and overuse on the creator's part, by rigidly adhering to the established formula, some pieces of entertainment draw attention to their lack of structural originality. And get called out on it. With computer games this appears to have become even more apparent, due to the limited pool of influences game writers tend to draw from: namely sci-fi and fantasy (admittedly, this is much less of a problem now). There is much of merit there, and plenty of imaginative worlds to be inspired by, but from my experience the storytelling tends to be of a fairly rudimentary standard, with mythic overtones but none of the profundity. There is quite a lot of derivative works in those genres too, and most game writers have typically lacked the vision to match good works in those genres and instead resort to producing functional but lacking storylines. Storytelling is a huge factor, but when there's a glut of storylines follow similar plot-paths and settings, with components that can be easily linked to monumental franchises such as Aliens or LOTRs, it's a rightly ridiculed problem.

There is no such thing as a horrible story.

Even Twilight.

It's all in the telling.

I have to disagree with that. I'm certain that it's possible to concoct stories that just cannot work satisfactorily, no matter how the story is told. I'm sure it could be overcome with some changes, but that'd point to the story being fundamentally unworkable.

As for Campbell, I'm pretty certain the monomyth applies to heroic myths rather than universal storytelling. Although the heroic quest is often very relevant in fantasy and videogames. As far as Jung goes, I agree. Features of folktales are generally are present in all storytelling, and there are universal motifs (there's actually an academic catalogue of them, like a much duller TVTropes). But a major point is that while there are commonalities, there are different arrangements of them, not all of them are shared, and unique social preoccupations make them unique. At least, that's my take on it. I've only got a passing familiarity with Jung and Campbell. Hopefully someone can correct us both.

One last thing: I reckon a lack of awareness towards the heritage of storytelling has been a problem in much pulp-fiction for some time. I mean, few games seem to be aware of the implicit metaphor of "youthful group of adventurers overcome ancient evil to secure the safety of the world", for example.

And I'm surprised nobody has brought up what gaming's inherent interactivity brings to new storytelling techniques.Crap, this post is long. And rambling. I'll cut it off now.

 

[CmdrGoob]

Yes.

No seriously, the opening post pretty much nails it perfectly, so I don't know what else to say. Excellent post.

 

[Mortons4ck]

In Greek tragedies, the tell you right up front what's going to happen. Same with Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. It's the telling that makes it compelling. We know we're going from point A to point B, how we get there is what's most interesting.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

I would have to go for storytelling - after all, good storytelling can make even a terrible plot enjoyable, whilst a good story told badly becomes quickly unbearable.

 

[Flamingpenguin]

Storytelling is certainly important, but I disagree that every story is fundamentally the same.
Using your building analogy, I could create a building with no stairs or elevators (Like The Guggenheim, Frank Lloyd Wright), or one with no support beams (built like an igloo, how the walls hold themselves up). The building would still be a building, but by removing (or adding) elements to these 7 basic stories you *can* create a new story.

Also, I'm writing a story for school that doesn't fit into any of those 7.

That's my take on Story, as for storytelling, well what's the point of a good story if you can't tell it well?

Overall, both are equally important and enforce each other. A more interesting story will be easier to tell, and a better narration/"telling" of a story really gives the story it's power.

 

[Nomanslander]

*snip*

Awesome read...really enjoyed it, thanks...=D

Now to check out that link.

 

[ultrachicken]

You can't have the inside of a cup without the outside.

 

[Altorin]

I have to disagree with that. I'm certain that it's possible to concoct stories that just cannot work satisfactorily, no matter how the story is told.

If the story is unsatisfactory, it wasn't told correctly.

I'm starting to sound like Sten from DAO

As for Campbell, I'm pretty certain the monomyth applies to heroic myths rather than universal storytelling. Although the heroic quest is often very relevant in fantasy and videogames. As far as Jung goes, I agree. Features of folktales are generally are present in all storytelling, and there are universal motifs (there's actually an academic catalogue of them, like a much duller TVTropes). But a major point is that while there are commonalities, there are different arrangements of them, not all of them are shared, and unique social preoccupations make them unique. At least, that's my take on it. I've only got a passing familiarity with Jung and Campbell. Hopefully someone can correct us both.

The Monomyth applies to almost all storytelling, because that's all heroic myths were, stories, told by people.

We've been retelling those same stories for thousands of years, only with different faces put on the characters. That's the whole point of the Monomyth.

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

If the story is unsatisfactory, it wasn't told correctly.

I'm still sure that some scenarios can't be adequately told, but anyway, that's well off-topic.

The Monomyth applies to almost all storytelling, because that's all heroic myths were, stories, told by people.

I think that's overestimating the monomyth's scope, although after considering it, I'll admit that the monomyth does apply to more than just the ancient heroic myths. But I'm certain it is too reliant on one style of mythic storytelling. It still has some huge limitations regarding its relevance to modern society. The monomyth is still heavily geared towards males, for instance, and the supernatural focus has been mostly lost nowadays. There are still parts that match Campbell's theory, whether obvious elements or requiring interpretation, but he had quite a lot of broad classification for narrative elements so that's hardly surprising.

The modern developments of the theory could well have eliminated those issues though. It's still a very popular theory in screen-writing apparently, but it's meant to have contributed to the prevalence of rigid three act narratives.

I really need to read that damn book. I always end having conversations about it and have to get by on what I remember from a lecture, its wikipedia page and a section in a Star Wars documentary.

EDIT: Just had a look at Christopher Vogler's take on mythic structure and his simpler account of the stages actually look pretty convincing, when accepted in a broad sense. Dammit, I don't like changing my mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Writer%27s_Journey:_Mythic_Structure_For_Writers for anyone interested. Quite a popular screenwriting book, apparently.

 

[Pingieking]

A brilliant story is nothing unless it is told good, a horrible story can't be saved no matter how good it is told.

I think that instead of labeling a story as "good" or "bad", it's more beneficial to label them as "coherent" or "incoherent".

My opinion: An incoherent story can't be saved no matter how it's told. A coherent story is made by the way it's told.

The original post nailed this whole thing pretty well. To the point that I'm almost mad because there's no discussion value left.

 

[GeneralGrant]

It's all about the storytelling. There are people who can make something boring exciting, through embellishment or other talents.

 

[Altorin]

If the story is unsatisfactory, it wasn't told correctly.

I'm still sure that some scenarios can't be adequately told, but anyway, that's well off-topic.

The Monomyth applies to almost all storytelling, because that's all heroic myths were, stories, told by people.

I think that's overestimating the monomyth's scope, although after considering it, I'll admit that the monomyth does apply to more than just the ancient heroic myths. But I'm certain it is too reliant on one style of mythic storytelling. It still has some huge limitations regarding its relevance to modern society. The monomyth is still heavily geared towards males, for instance, and the supernatural focus has been mostly lost nowadays. There are still parts that match Campbell's theory, whether obvious elements or requiring interpretation, but he had quite a lot of broad classification for narrative elements so that's hardly surprising.

The modern developments of the theory could well have eliminated those issues though. It's still a very popular theory in screen-writing apparently, but it's meant to have contributed to the prevalence of rigid three act narratives.

I really need to read that damn book. I always end having conversations about it and have to get by on what I remember from a lecture, its wikipedia page and a section in a Star Wars documentary.

EDIT: Just had a look at Christopher Vogler's take on mythic structure and his simpler account of the stages actually look pretty convincing, when accepted in a broad sense. Dammit, I don't like changing my mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Writer%27s_Journey:_Mythic_Structure_For_Writers for anyone interested. Quite a popular screenwriting book, apparently.

If you're interested, MovieBob's take on the Monomyth and how it relates to gaming is talked about here:

http://screwattack.com/blogs/DestinRLs-blog/The-Game-OverThinker-Continuum

It's where I get most of my information here (although I have done some personal research on the subject)

 

[Flying-Emu]

It's not the story, it's the writing that matters.