The 'seeds' of storytelling
In the introduction to the Penguin edition of The Epic of Gilgamesh, N. K. Sandars writes, "[i]f Gilgamesh is not the first human hero, he is the first tragic hero of whom anything is known" (7). So, what is it that makes Gilgamesh a hero? As Sandars explains, Gilgamesh is a hero because he represents man in his most universal struggles, and thus stands as an emblem of humanity itself. He is mortal, and thus suffers the fates of mortality; however, he is also heroic, and thus stands as a symbol of man's attempt to be a part of what it means to be immortal-- that is, he is a mortal striving to be immortal, freed from the bonds of mortality.
In one of his essays on literature, J. M. Coetzee admits that all writers are, in essence, fighting against mortality. He points out that, in the beginnings, the tools of literature were themselves symbols of death: the stretched skin parchment which composed the manuscript, the quill of a dead bird dipped in ground minerals composing the writing instrument. It is the writer's wish to etch in these symbols of death something that will bring them back to life, to some degree, something that will allow them to stand for something, to symbolize something even after they have ceased to have any meaning for the creature whose soul has left them behind.
It is difficult to say how much of this noble enterprise constitutes the true seeds of storytelling, but this much can be certain: it is an irremovable part of humanity that has existed for countless years, and we abandon its art at great cost to ourselves as a society.
The cultural integrity of stories can be seen everywhere. When two people meet for the first time in a long while, the first thing on both people's minds is to catch up on their story. Old friends meet and discuss all the things that have happened while the two were separate-- that is, they frame a narrative.
Psychologists and historians basically both work in the 'story' of their fields. Psychologists who study behavior attempt to give a story to seemingly random behavioral patterns. Historians are directly related to the story: in fact, in the creation of history, it was a practice that begun without any distinction from fiction-- non-fiction and fiction were both originally part of history in the ancient Greek world.
Whatever the historical background for human narratology, it is undeniable that it is part of our ways of thinking and operating. Storytelling is, in its nature, a necessity for any social being, and this is one of the main tenets for the studies of animal linguism. This social aspect of storytelling also encouraged the creation of the masters thesis, The Automatist Storytelling System (1996), in which Michael Murtaugh examines the dynamics of interactive storytelling.
Murtaugh's thesis brings about a concise description of how storytelling is actually limited and debased by today's cultural standards. He describes the role of broadening audiences in terms of content and time, and describes how this creates a 'lowest-common-denominator' storytelling which, while easily marketable due to its broad audience potential, ceases to be anything deep and worthwhile.
The Genrification of Storytelling
The nature of storytelling is, one must note, specific and intimate. While it has social implications, the range of the storyteller is usually fairly small. The storyteller, in short, fills a niche. Due to the subjectivity of taste, there are a myriad different storytelling 'niches', not limited to but similar to what one calls 'genre'.
For example, there is the role of storytelling to create fantasy: that is, to create a world in which specific incidents take place 'the way they should', according to some inner desire, however malicious or benevolent. Such storytelling can be related to the genres of horror ('dark fantasy'), romance, and... well, to be honest, this is where the genrification of storytelling breaks down. It is possible to argue that all forms of storytelling have, inherent in their design and by definition, a fantastical element. Even 'cold' non-fiction has, contained within it, an aspect of this 'world as it should be', and is contained in the language chosen to describe any event. On discovering a field of dead bodies, for instance, the choice of language could be either one of horror-- that is, one of concern that this is not as the world should be-- "the bodies littered the ground like forgotten garbage. Birds pecked coldly at the flesh as it began to decompose into the ground." One could also report this same situation in a different language-- perhaps, for instance, the field of bodies represents the destruction of a tyrannical empire-- "the enemy was finally conquered. Their power was stripped away; no more would they harm us. Even the birds had no concern or pity for them. They pecked out their eyes with no fear of reprimand or defensive counter-measure. The world was, for once, at peace."
With this in mind, the necessity for intelligent storytelling can be seen. It is the way in which we view the world, and it is the way in which our view of the world is expressed. It is the way we warn others of potential danger, it is the way we express love and connection to others, and in short, it is the backbone of social relations, both peaceful and malevolent. Without a firm grasp on the storytelling arts, a culture would be constantly confused as to its own view! Without a strong backbone of storytelling, society would have no direction, no purpose... and ultimately, would only exist individually, separated from each other-- subspecies upon subspecies, rather than one species acting in accordance to itself.
The rise of the utopian/dystopian literature in the rennaissance period and afterwards was a reaction to this 'world as it should be' (utopia) or 'world as it should not be' (dystopia) mentality. It is of no coincidence that the rise and fall of this specific form of literature corresponds with the rise and fall of quality of literature. It is also of no coincidence that the academics are consistently arguing over the validity of modern forms of storytelling as 'art'. While a part of this has to do with academic elitism, one cannot overlook the simple and undeniable fact that quality in storytelling in modern media has not lived up, for the most part, with the rich heritage of the storytelling canon. Modern movies can rarely be seen to compete with Shakespeare, Milton, Elliott...
As I have said, a part of this is a function of academic elitism. One must note that Shakespeare was not seen as 'high art' during the Elizabethan period. Studying Shakespeare in schools would be seen by an Elizabethan in much the same way as studying The Simpsons would be for our scholars today. That said, there is also a decline in the aspirations of utopianism/dystopianism that is a direct function of something our society actually highly values (ironically): political correctness.
The Necessity for Political Incorrectness
Political correctness can be a way in which sensitivity of difference is fostered. However, it can also unintentionally create a distance between people by fostering a belief in difference that might not be necessary. There are conflicting views on the differences of humanity: some schools of thought have you believe that everyone is each their own individual, different and exotic enough to have their own reference base, their own identity; another school of thought would have you believe the exact opposite, that we are all the same, created equal.
Often, the use of each philosophical/political framework is dictated by its use in corrent politics; equality for civilian rights, individualism for the sake of patriotism. Without looking at the validity of each of the parties' propositions (those of equality versus those of individualism) I would prefer an analysis of the differences/similarities throughout humanity that allows both propositions-- that we are both similar and different. One such model is that of time-variables; some thinkers believe that humans are all essentially the same, but that what differs is our relationship with time. That is, 'time' as measured in abstract terms, such as 'time of development', or 'time of experience'. People further down this time-frame would be more developed or experienced, but at one time they were essentially of the same character as a person on a different part of the time-line.
While this model is inherently flawed due to the overwhelming necessity to monitor a limitless amount of variables, I think it is flawed not in theory but in the impossibility of perfect practice. But I am not after 'perfect practice', but rather an explanation of humanity that is more conducive to proper storytelling. Storytelling would be impossible in either extremes. If humanity were made of perfectly equal beings, there would be no 'news', nothing that could require communication of any sort-- everyone would know what everyone else knows. On the other end of the spectrum, if people were completely individual, there would also be no need of communication-- indeed, communication would be impossible, because there would be no way of knowing what another person means. Take, for instance, humans and animals-- as of this moment, communication is awkward and minimal at best, due to our differences.
The point of this theoretical contemplation is to point out that our society is at once made of individuals similar and different. This might seem obvious, but the two extreme models observed above are actual models in work in the unconsciousness of many otherwise intelligent people, and their flaws needs to be pointed out.
Political correctness fosters extreme beliefs in one way or the other. Without it, there is increased insensitivity, but with it, there is the danger of censorship. Without censorship, artists are free from the constraints of current ideologies, and are able to work outside the bounds of political restrictions. It is this dynamic, only offered to artistry, that is necessary for a view of utopia and dystopia.
In order to have a view of a 'perfect world', one automatically steps on the toes of others. There are many minimal standards of existence, and there is nothing securing one from contradicting another. An example of this is the impossibility of hedonism and stoicism. While it is incoherent (and overly ambitious) to say that one or the other is 'right' or 'wrong', it is undeniable that the two beliefs-- as they are defined in today's vocabulary-- cannot exist together at the same time, though they might exist in the same person (one at time 't', another at time 'u', for instance).
That said, the admittance of what constitutes a 'perfect' world for an artist runs the risk of constituting a dystopia for another. This is an inherent problem with political correctness-- 'correctness' as it stands in this model requires keeping sensitive to others at the cost of one's own beliefs-- whether right or wrong. While political correctness allows sensitivity in social situations outside of storytelling, it is extremely limiting to the storyteller. For instance, how can the tale of social injustice be told without using the language of injustice? Is it a proper summation of the manner in which a term can be violent to say, for instance, that "the 'n-word' was a derogatory comment"?
Keeping Sensitivity in Politically Incorrect Terms
One thing that is not argued here is a complete abandonment of sensitive principles. A storyteller must also be sensitive and responsible with his or her stories, and although I am a firm believer in free speech, I am also a firm believer in the power of literature to change a society to the whims of the story. Notice here I do not say 'the whims of the storyteller', because, as Yeats was moved to notice, oftentimes the political force behind literature can make a greater push than the storyteller would wish.
What is argued here is that storytelling is a powerful force, one that requires respect and dignity, and a force that is only as strong as the beliefs of the storyteller behind it. This force must be made with freedom, but also with sensitivity to the political implications. In future essays, the power dynamics of storytelling and stories will be examined.