TL;DR: No, storytelling has not improved over time (since ~8000 ya). What *has* gotten worse are our attention spans, imaginations, and sensitivities—strip all of embodied reality down to 2.1 sensory channels, flip the input context every ~15 seconds, and leave absolutely nothing ambiguous, and you have our current “storytelling” culture creating generations of “consumers” rather than citizens of culture.
To the extent that what you mention are real problems, we could blame some of it on storytelling improvements, the way we can blame some health problems on improvements in food.
The difference between food and and storytelling is that food has become *more* complex over time with the amount of additional processing/ingredients that have gone into the average developed world diet (leading to the health problems you mention), while storytelling writ large has become dramatically simplified in order to achieve greater *effect*, perhaps, but at the cost of its emotional/intellectual/spiritual power--the breadth of storytelling has certainly widened, but largely at the cost of depth (which I would not term an "improvement", but perhaps you are using an idiosyncratic sense of that word here).
I respectfully disagree. I definitely think you’re on to something with more limited attention spans, but I’m not sure what the difference is, to you, between a consumer and a citizen of culture? Fundamentally, what is a story? First and foremost, arguably, it’s a vehicle to entertain. Secondly, it can teach, and beyond that, it can reflect, inspire, challenge and enlighten. To an extent, late stage capitalism does mean that some story forms, books and films for example, have become consumer items, but many artists are fighting this. The indie artist movement is absolutely challenging the notion that industry should control art and readers are responding very positively to this, which suggests that they want variety and authenticity in their stories, rather than simply to continue consuming what industries are telling them they should. I suppose what I’m arguing is that stories are there to be consumed. They nourish our minds and souls, but that doesn’t mean that, just because we are consumers of stories, we can’t also be students of culture. Readers now, more than ever, have a say over influencing storytelling. It has become much more of a conversation between creator and consumer. As a writer, that can sometimes be scary. (People can be harsh!) but it can also be exciting, because it means our stories grow and evolve beyond just our own imaginations.
This was an interesting read! I think there’s a lot of nuance to this question. Perhaps it’s worth also considering what different audiences need from different stories over time? I’ve definitely noticed a trend in my own readers, since the pandemic, wanting stories with hopeful endings and positive messages, as if their emotional needs have changed to require more comfort and reassurance. I think writers have adapted to that. Perhaps a more emotionally resilient future society would look at our current storytelling and think it quaint or whimsical, but it’s what readers need right now, and writers today are better equipped than ever to understand, and respond to, the needs of their contemporary audience. Anyway, I enjoyed the essay.
Thanks! Yes I think the question only makes sense when talking about the relationship between storytellers and their audiences at any given point, as opposed to some other audiences (including similar but slightly different ones that are separated only by a few years).
I would agree. It’s so subjective anyway, and I’m glad it is. I think our society often suggests subjectivity, and by definition, emotion, is a weakness and something to be avoided at all costs, particularly when judging something, but we are fundamentally instinctive and emotional creatures and the enduring nature of story, and the growing number of mediums in which to tell stories, shows this. To deny that subjectivity is to deny our nature, and we’ve been doing that for too long as a species, so let’s be subjective about our art!
It certainly wasn't as influential as Brave New World, 1984, or We, but there is a little-known French book from 1894 that could easily be described as a dystopia. It's L'an 330 de la République by Maurice Spronck.
It is very short, quite fun to read, and very reactionary. It reminds me somewhat of Brave New World in the sense that the societies described are very pleasant, but the underlying themes are ones of decadence and the conflict of civilization.
Have to disagree with you. BNW is “better” than 1984. Or at least it is much more compelling. I find a predictor of late capitalist consumerism from the vantage point of the 1920s (with almost nothing to go on yet) more interesting than propagandist-driven authoritarianism. But maybe it’s time for a re-read.
I don't think we're in a lot of disagreement—I also think that BNW is more interesting, as well as more predictive, than 1984. But I do think that 1984 is both more influential and better told from a strict narrative point of view, although I reiterate that the latter point is made mostly from memory, so I may find I'm wrong when I re-read them. Of course one could also disagree that it's possible at all to separate the narrative qualities from the ideas and context of a book.
Excellent question and very well thought-out article! Regarding the hypothetical time traveler, one response they could have to all our techniques is that they are just distractions rather than real additions to the art of storytelling. If you could tell a *really* good story, you wouldn't need any tricks to make it more engaging or compelling, people would read it regardless. But even taking away all the 'tricks' I still agree with the main point that modern storytelling as a whole is infinitely more rich and diverse than anything that existed in the past, and I wouldn't trade it away for anything (except perhaps for a peek into the future).
I agree that they might think that—but then we might point out that there isn't really a meaningful difference between "real additions to the art of storytelling" and "tricks to make it more engaging or compelling", other than they like the former and dislike the latter :)
I believe that storytelling is one of the key element to tide the community together. Based on what I see in community, the storytelling has gotten worse since everyone loves to engage online rather than offline. and however, I love how writer engage with their storytelling styles, that's where I see the improvement of storytelling.
TL;DR: No, storytelling has not improved over time (since ~8000 ya). What *has* gotten worse are our attention spans, imaginations, and sensitivities—strip all of embodied reality down to 2.1 sensory channels, flip the input context every ~15 seconds, and leave absolutely nothing ambiguous, and you have our current “storytelling” culture creating generations of “consumers” rather than citizens of culture.
To the extent that what you mention are real problems, we could blame some of it on storytelling improvements, the way we can blame some health problems on improvements in food.
The difference between food and and storytelling is that food has become *more* complex over time with the amount of additional processing/ingredients that have gone into the average developed world diet (leading to the health problems you mention), while storytelling writ large has become dramatically simplified in order to achieve greater *effect*, perhaps, but at the cost of its emotional/intellectual/spiritual power--the breadth of storytelling has certainly widened, but largely at the cost of depth (which I would not term an "improvement", but perhaps you are using an idiosyncratic sense of that word here).
I respectfully disagree. I definitely think you’re on to something with more limited attention spans, but I’m not sure what the difference is, to you, between a consumer and a citizen of culture? Fundamentally, what is a story? First and foremost, arguably, it’s a vehicle to entertain. Secondly, it can teach, and beyond that, it can reflect, inspire, challenge and enlighten. To an extent, late stage capitalism does mean that some story forms, books and films for example, have become consumer items, but many artists are fighting this. The indie artist movement is absolutely challenging the notion that industry should control art and readers are responding very positively to this, which suggests that they want variety and authenticity in their stories, rather than simply to continue consuming what industries are telling them they should. I suppose what I’m arguing is that stories are there to be consumed. They nourish our minds and souls, but that doesn’t mean that, just because we are consumers of stories, we can’t also be students of culture. Readers now, more than ever, have a say over influencing storytelling. It has become much more of a conversation between creator and consumer. As a writer, that can sometimes be scary. (People can be harsh!) but it can also be exciting, because it means our stories grow and evolve beyond just our own imaginations.
This was an interesting read! I think there’s a lot of nuance to this question. Perhaps it’s worth also considering what different audiences need from different stories over time? I’ve definitely noticed a trend in my own readers, since the pandemic, wanting stories with hopeful endings and positive messages, as if their emotional needs have changed to require more comfort and reassurance. I think writers have adapted to that. Perhaps a more emotionally resilient future society would look at our current storytelling and think it quaint or whimsical, but it’s what readers need right now, and writers today are better equipped than ever to understand, and respond to, the needs of their contemporary audience. Anyway, I enjoyed the essay.
Thanks! Yes I think the question only makes sense when talking about the relationship between storytellers and their audiences at any given point, as opposed to some other audiences (including similar but slightly different ones that are separated only by a few years).
I would agree. It’s so subjective anyway, and I’m glad it is. I think our society often suggests subjectivity, and by definition, emotion, is a weakness and something to be avoided at all costs, particularly when judging something, but we are fundamentally instinctive and emotional creatures and the enduring nature of story, and the growing number of mediums in which to tell stories, shows this. To deny that subjectivity is to deny our nature, and we’ve been doing that for too long as a species, so let’s be subjective about our art!
It certainly wasn't as influential as Brave New World, 1984, or We, but there is a little-known French book from 1894 that could easily be described as a dystopia. It's L'an 330 de la République by Maurice Spronck.
It is very short, quite fun to read, and very reactionary. It reminds me somewhat of Brave New World in the sense that the societies described are very pleasant, but the underlying themes are ones of decadence and the conflict of civilization.
Intéressant, je ne connaissais pas. Je l'ajoute à ma liste, merci!
Have to disagree with you. BNW is “better” than 1984. Or at least it is much more compelling. I find a predictor of late capitalist consumerism from the vantage point of the 1920s (with almost nothing to go on yet) more interesting than propagandist-driven authoritarianism. But maybe it’s time for a re-read.
I don't think we're in a lot of disagreement—I also think that BNW is more interesting, as well as more predictive, than 1984. But I do think that 1984 is both more influential and better told from a strict narrative point of view, although I reiterate that the latter point is made mostly from memory, so I may find I'm wrong when I re-read them. Of course one could also disagree that it's possible at all to separate the narrative qualities from the ideas and context of a book.
Excellent question and very well thought-out article! Regarding the hypothetical time traveler, one response they could have to all our techniques is that they are just distractions rather than real additions to the art of storytelling. If you could tell a *really* good story, you wouldn't need any tricks to make it more engaging or compelling, people would read it regardless. But even taking away all the 'tricks' I still agree with the main point that modern storytelling as a whole is infinitely more rich and diverse than anything that existed in the past, and I wouldn't trade it away for anything (except perhaps for a peek into the future).
I agree that they might think that—but then we might point out that there isn't really a meaningful difference between "real additions to the art of storytelling" and "tricks to make it more engaging or compelling", other than they like the former and dislike the latter :)
I believe that storytelling is one of the key element to tide the community together. Based on what I see in community, the storytelling has gotten worse since everyone loves to engage online rather than offline. and however, I love how writer engage with their storytelling styles, that's where I see the improvement of storytelling.
While I'm thinking-and thank you for the great article-here's another dystopian for you, if you ever feel like reading it...I remember it being gloomy enough. It's called "Slynx" https://www.amazon.com/Slynx-York-Review-Books-Classics/dp/1590171969
(there are certain similarities to "Farenheit 451" but I can't say I remember very well)
I'd also put "1984" first, in terms of the impression made.
I'm sure there are quite a few more but they escape me now; also, some of them are short stories.
ah. "Roadside Picnic" maybe. I didn't even have it in me to re-read it.