I really enjoyed reading the articles this week, and even more so the responses they produced. It’s really interesting to see how people understand “storytelling” and how they understand what “2.o” represents. I don’t pretend to understand all of it myself, but I think back to Lev Manovich’s ideas of modularity (I apologize if any Clio 1′ers from last semester shuddered at hearing Manovich). If we are able to take digital components, and break them down into their modular components…by nature anyone can pick up these components and re-arrange them in order to create a different product-either slightly altered or radically different. BUT, if you take modular components from disparate sources to create a new product, then the possibilities are endless.
A mashup I saw last semester came to mind:
OK, if you didn’t bother to click the link above, and hear an amazingly “fun”ky mashup, my next comment doesn’t make sense. If you look at this mashup, replace the 1-3 second “sound-bite” with a phrase-each one pulled in from separate sources of storytelling.
So you could conceivably construct a fictional story where the main character…let’s say Jesus… is sharing a long-lost pearl of wisdom with Luke, based on a lost book of Luke that was found by US soldiers in northern Iraq in 2008. In his warning to Luke, we’ll construct Jesus’ words using mash-up cuts from Star Wars to produce this dialogue: (Jesus) “Patience isn’t too big, it’s enough. You know it to be true. ” (Luke) “But, Father, I am a boy. I get excited…it isn’t quite enough to search for patience.” This fictional piece of dialogue comes from Star Wars lines such as Darth Vader saying “Luke, I am your father…search your feelings, you know it to be true”, Yoda saying “the boy has no patience” “…and well you should not” Luke saying “but it’s too big”, Leia saying “being held by you isn’t quite enough to get me excited.” and ” I am not a committee.”
Ok, a screenwriter I am not. But storytelling 2.0 opens the possibilities of taking various tales, told by numerous characters, and re-arranging specific dialogue to create an original story. Suddenly, users can use modular dialogue and re-fashion them in a way they were not originally intended. In storytelling 1.0 and 2.0, the audience is a participant, is a creator (especially when the story is passed down to another generation). But what we can now achieve is a modular disassemble and re-assemble that can produce limitless results–with open and discoverable resources, open and transparent licensing, open and remixable formats needed. The question though, still comes back to the point we have discussed all along: is there a story worth telling?