Roland Barthes wrote that “the the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author” (Barthes, last sentence). If I understand this correctly (and I can’t claim to be an expert on post-structuralism!), this was a response to the prevailing authoritarianism of the author in interpreting text. While literature represents permanence in that the text does not change, once something is written it belongs at any given moment to that reader, given meaning and interpretation by that reader.
But with story, we might say that the birth of a listener is a resurrection of the storyteller. And digital media has played no small role in this resurrection.
Digital media, in particular social media and other methods of publishing – or publicizing – has lead to a democratization of of storytelling, both in terms of product and process. Traditional publishing options in print require significant expense (printing, marketing, etc.). Digital publishing is significantly less cost-prohibitive, enabling anyone with access to a computer and internet connection to place their story in the public realm for others to consume. This change in the economics of publishing also dismantles many (though not all) of the power structures of traditional printing. Someone with a story to tell no longer has to convince others to produce their product. Of course, they may have to convince other to consume their product, something further aided by digital media, where consumers become publishers – linking to a digital story, writing reviews, and publicizing the story within their social media networks.
This democratization enables the liberation of both storyteller and consumer. The storyteller is given agency, again both in terms of product and process. Having (a more) equal opportunity to tell their story (a product of their efforts) makes the teller an agent of their truth, but only having a product – for example, telling someone else’s story for them – “does not address the process of that person’s own liberation” (Lambert 117). “Individuals need to be supported in telling their own story; in their own way, to the audiences they choose” (117). Digital media, with the freedom to produce, and produce in any way, is one of these ‘supports’. This in turn can (under the right circumstances) hasten the liberation of the listener from their ‘one truth’, upsetting Us, forcing Us to confront the reality of another fact or truth – and, importantly for social media with its immediate and simultaneous networks, many other facts and truths, or more accurately, many other stories (Chamberlain 222).
But it is important to note that the very media that enables this liberation can also frustrate it. In traditional publishing, the author cannot control who views their product. Social media privacy settings, for example, allow storytellers to much more narrowly select their audience. On the other side of this interaction, restricting our own social media networks, and the more pervasive filter bubbles, can limit that confrontation of other truths that stories force upon us.
Outside of the democratizing and liberating effects of new modes of publishing, digital media enables story, even when it is written down, to retain the impermanence of orality by mimicking the interaction of storytelling. This is achieved through overt and subtle interaction. We see interaction in digital stories that invite comments and that include discussion boards, permitting dialogue between teller and listener, and between listeners – ultimately blurring the line between who is telling and who is listening at any given moment. In this sense, the text is not really final, it is continually reimagined and rewritten as long as that interaction is is enabled. We also see this overt interaction in multimedia stories, such as the stories of Pine Point that combines text, visuals, audio and a listener-directed experience (where the listener is free to digest the story in a non-linear way if they choose).
This interaction that gives digital stories characteristics of oral storytelling can also be very subtle, as in the case of hypertext (text that lies outside the current text, but which is accessible through that current text; though we may more accurately call these hyper-representations, since this can include visuals and audio). Hypertext, accessed through hyperlinks, enable the listener to affect the story by choosing not only when or how to view that text (or other media), but whether to view it.
Of course, this interaction has occurred ion other media – for example, in 18th and 19th century pamphleteering and salons, with multimedia (visuals, text), protracted discussions between authors and between authors and audiences, and source citations. But perhaps we can point to a few important differences, in addition to the democratizing and in turn liberating elements of digital storytelling. Storytelling in the digital age is more immediate, is more simultaneous, and reaches far more people, resulting in incredible economies of scale when it comes to ‘fact finding’, for example (which is to say, when it comes to storytelling).
I think this a question that will come out during the course and in our final project – how significant is the difference between digital storytelling and the older modes of storytelling that also included similar elements of interaction – is it in the numbers, the immediacy, etc.?
Works Cited:
Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Aspen (1967): n. pag. Web. 18 Jan 2014.
Lambert, Joe. Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Community. New York: Routledge, 2013. Web. 18 Jan 2014.
Chamberlain, Edward J. If This is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2004. Print.
“Eli Pariser: Beware online ‘filter bubbles’.” May 2011. Ted. Web. 18 Jan 2014.
Shoebridge, Paul. and Michael Simons. “Welcome to Pine Point.” National Film Board of Canada. n.d. Web. 18 Jan 2014.
“Tom Standage: Writing on the Wall.” 05 Jan 2014. CBC. Web. 18 Jan 2014.