Anything you can do, I can do better

So this week we’ve been looking into web 2.0 storytelling. My first post I wrote about whether I thought this new type of storytelling is, in my opinion, actually storytelling. This post will be about what web 2.0 storytellers can do that conventional storytellers can not.

First of all, my fellow new media writers, the biggest difference I see are videos. Any book, children story, short story, poem, etc. can have illustrations. These are intriguing, they help people visualize the story, but it is not the same as including a video in a virtual story. Whether it’s a written story with an embedded video or a story ‘embedded’ into a video, this type of media can bring new and different interactions into play.

Side note - so this isn't the only way you could go, I was also talking about storytelling as in reading poems, reciting short stories, and stuff along those lines.

For example, children like illustrated books, but they don’t really interact with them from my experience. The interaction I’m talking about happens when they watch, for instance, an Elmo video and Elmo asks them to dance along with him. Reading a book about Elmo dancing does not call for the child to dance. It’s not the same type of interaction. Having this type of web storytelling can be interactive, can add different graphical elements like flash, and can call for more attention. A video can compliment a story and conventional storytelling usually can’t include a video.

On the flip side, web 2.0 storytellers can include a video with their story, but they can’t do live performance. Sure, they can record themselves telling their poem or short story along with have the text on the web, but conventional storytellers can literally gather a group of people, recite their story, maybe have a screen in the background with images, and get the audiences’ attention that way.

This for instance is a live comedian performance by my friend Victor which I consider storytelling. Yes it is on the web, but is it as funny on the web? Do you get the ambiance of strangers, beer, and a stage? No.

Another thing that web 2.0 storytellers can expect when it comes to video, images, and live performances is the personal environment in which they are telling their story. A person on the computer can be at home, at a coffee shop, somewhere where they feel comfortable, and fully enjoy the extent of the story. They can be by themselves, they can be with friends, they can bring it anywhere, but it is the comfortable personal ambiance and portability that sets web 2.0 storytelling apart from the conventional storytelling.

On another flip side, conventional storytelling in the context of live performance or video and images brings you to, most likely, a comfortable audience. When I think of going to a live performance I take the location into consideration. I wouldn’t go somewhere I thought would be uncomfortable. The plus side to the conventional storytelling would be that it brings you out of your personal element into a new place and prepares you with open ears to hear the story. You can’t bring the story with you, watch it with someone later, but I feel like when you go to a live performance it is like you take in more details than if you can watch and re-watch the story on the web.

So basically, I feel like both the web 2.0 stories and the conventional stories have equal pros and cons. I feel like in both contexts you can basically do the same things just in different ways. Depending on what you’re looking for or what you’re doing, you might chose either one. Conventional storytellers can’t expect to get the visual aspect all the time and web 2.0 storytellers can’t expect the full on effects of a live performance.