Are you a storyteller or a writer?

gettingby said:

Just because someone is a storyteller doesn't mean they can't write. And who knows if those writers thought they were more storyteller or more writer. We obviously all do both here. But I think one might come more naturally or be a stronger focus for people.

And I don't think description really has anything to do with it. I think being more of a storyteller or a writer has more to do with how you approach writing and not necessarily how good the work is.

Click to expand...

I certainly didn't mean to imply that a storyteller couldn't write. Those who can do both are the real winners in my mind.

Also, I think I want to differentiate between those who can write a good, grammatical sentence and those who can make me really see/feel/understand through metaphor or use of language or just plain their writing. It seems to me there are a different of levels of writing capability.

I'd like for you to expand on your last sentence. How do you think the approach to the work differs between storytellers and writers? I can't come up with an understanding for myself. Thanks.

Afraid I'm a storyteller. My perception is that the people around me who get published are writers. If you are a good writer, you can turn out books that people will buy, even without a good story. I think only the people who are good at both become great, though. I console myself that good writing can probably be learned, whereas good storytelling is to some extent an innate talent.

morngnstar said:

Afraid I'm a storyteller. My perception is that the people around me who get published are writers. If you are a good writer, you can turn out books that people will buy, even without a good story. I think only the people who are good at both become great, though. I console myself that good writing can probably be learned, whereas good storytelling is to some extent an innate talent.

Click to expand...

Grass is always greener, I guess: writers think storytellers have the advantage, storytellers think writers have the advantage. Maybe it's just a tough business all around.

I think storytelling can be learned, or at least "writers" can improve. I'm learning by paying more attention to story elements and how they contribute to the whole. My storytelling has benefited as a result.

I also think some aspects of writing can't be learned. Sometimes I'll read something and say "I never would have thought to describe it that way!" But "storytellers" can improve too.

The good news, as Old Hack alluded to upthread, is that no matter which we are we can write good stories that sell, even if we have to work harder at some parts than at others.

This is one of the silliest questions I've come across in a good long while.

Laer Carroll said:

This is one of the silliest questions I've come across in a good long while.

Click to expand...

I thought that too, when I first read the header - it looked like a rehashing of the genre v literary thing. But I think OP is just asking which aspect comes more easily to us.

I don't know what the answer is for me. I really think it's understanding the characters.

The hardest part is if someone wants to talk about what I'm writing or what I've written. Hate that with a passion, unless they're my editor or agent or publisher. I find readers terribly intimidating. Next year I'm going to join a book-club and confront my appalling fears.

Or not.

Writing is what you get graded on.

Storytelling is what people remember.


More or less, anyway.

I've ground my way through far too many "critically acclaimed novels" to mistake writing for storytelling; in far too many of those novels there was lots of writing, but no noticeable story. Sure, things happened, often in sequence, but they weren't stories any more than the Betty Crocker Cookbook is.

Dave Williams said:

Writing is what you get graded on.

Storytelling is what people remember.

Click to expand...

Ouch.

Also - no. That's just - no. Totally false dichotomy.

I'm sorry I didn't see this thread earlier, bc I do think it's an interesting and worthwhile discussion.

I *think* I'm more of a writer (though I use the term loosely here) but above all, this this this:

mccardey said:

I really think it's understanding the characters.

Click to expand...

For me, it's all about the characters.

storyteller / less intimidating than the word writer, which seems to imply more skill and know-how

Omg, I totally remember making a thread with this exact question a year or two ago. I need to look it up now.

Back then, I'm pretty sure I said 'storyteller'.
After working on my writing all this time, I think it's safe to say now that I'm both. In fact, maybe more of a writer now and a little less of a storyteller. My characters and plot could be better, but it's all really a matter of upping my storytelling skill level to compliment the writing one. I get plenty of compliments on my descriptions and metaphors, and rhythm and alliteration are in my blood.

I've definately never been much of a verbal storyteller, since I've never been able to get my thoughts in the write order.

Lower your tomatoes, please.

In my community, being called a storyteller implies an honored and respected cultural role that comes with certain responsibilities, so I'm not really comfortable calling myself a storyteller. I'm also not very practiced at oral storytelling yet.

You could say I aspire to be a storyteller. Storytelling is closer to poetry than prose, IMO, and I feel closer to a storyteller when I write poetry than fiction, because it feels more closely linked with oral tradition. I identify as a writer first and foremost.

Chris P said:

As a research scientist by training, I make my living by publishing the results of experiments. In that case, precise descriptions matter and story doesn't.

Click to expand...

What about research scientists who have been caught, often many years later, faking their research?

I think this is a huge misconception, and if a storyteller can't write as well as any "literary" writer who ever lived. To think this is nonsense. The best literary writers, the most beautiful literary writers, who survived the test of time have all be storytellers first, and writers second.

The difference between a "writer" and a "storyteller" is not in the quality of the writing, it's in the kind of story you tell. Until very, very recently in history, there was no distinction between literary writer and genre writer. There still isn't, except in the mind of too many MFA professors, and those who believe what they say, despite all real world evidence to the contrary.

You are not literary because the story is high on character and low on plot. You;re simply a writer who isn't very good at plot, or who has apparently both in to what MFA professors say, but who has read very, very little classic literary fiction. You are not a storyteller because your stories are high on plot and low on character. You're simply a writer who isn't very good at character.

I'm a storyteller, but I know the mechanics of writing as well as anyone, and I can write as pretty a sentence as anyone. I can also draw characters as good and as realistic and as deep as anyone.

But I'm a storyteller, rather than a writer, because of what I choose not to do, which is use my talent and skill to write pointless, plotless, boring silliness that has no story.

I've read far too many good, literary, classic writers to think this is either good or necessary. No matter what any MFA professor tells you, the vast majority of readers want both really good story, and really good characters. And all their historical literary heroes were genre writers, when still alive.

I'm a good storyteller, which means I'm also one hell of a good writer.

Dave Williams said:

Writing is what you get graded on.

Storytelling is what people remember.


.

Click to expand...

And being able to do both is what creates writing that withstands the test of time. Really good storytelling takes really good writing. Without it, you're written bubblegum that may be popular for a while, but that soon has the flavor chewed out, and gets spit away.

You find the same issues of classification in musical theatre. Pretend you're in charge of casting a show. Do you select actors who also sing or singers who also act? That decision will set the entire tone of the performance.

Theatres may be full of people who can do both, but every performer is a bit stronger in one or the other.

Add me to the list of writers.

Jamesaritchie said:

Really good storytelling takes really good writing.

Click to expand...

Really good storytelling doesn't require writing at all. Storytelling was originally an oral tradition.

I'm a writer. And I'm an observer, especially of people. I can draw a good character.

I am a woeful storyteller. I can tell my own stories from my life, in essays or little memoir forms, but I truly struggle to invent compelling stories.

To be honest, I'm glad to be this way around. I can trick people with nice sentences while I (miserably) study the craft of story in a bid to have it sorted before I get found out.

Anna Spargo-Ryan said:

I'm a writer. And I'm an observer, especially of people. I can draw a good character.

I am a woeful storyteller. I can tell my own stories from my life, in essays or little memoir forms, but I truly struggle to invent compelling stories.

Click to expand...

I don't think being a good storyteller means needing to be able to invent good stories.

Many of the best storytellers I know only tell traditional tales or stories from their own life.

kuwisdelu said:

Really good storytelling doesn't require writing at all. Storytelling was originally an oral tradition.

Click to expand...

Yes. One very close friend of mine earns a living going around and telling stories. But unless those words, or a reasonable facsimile of those words, goes down well on paper, they probably don't work orally, either. Like every storyteller I've known, she writes her story first, and then tells it.

I love oral stories. My family started spreading through Appalachia almost two hundred and sixty years ago, and most are still there today. I live just a few miles from the western tail of Appalachia. Oral storytelling has always been part of this culture, and I grew up listening to such tales. Some of my favorite writers come from this culture of oral storytelling.

Anna Spargo-Ryan said:

I'm a writer. And I'm an observer, especially of people. I can draw a good character.

I am a woeful storyteller. I can tell my own stories from my life, in essays or little memoir forms, but I truly struggle to invent compelling stories.

To be honest, I'm glad to be this way around. I can trick people with nice sentences while I (miserably) study the craft of story in a bid to have it sorted before I get found out.

Click to expand...

That reminds me of something Robert Benchley said: It took me fifteen years to discover that I had no talent for writing, but I couldn't give it up because by that time I was too famous

Jamesaritchie said:

But unless those words, or a reasonable facsimile of those words, goes down well on paper, they probably don't work orally, either.

Click to expand...

Sure, though I think oral storytelling translates better into poetry than prose.

Like every storyteller I've known, she writes her story first, and then tells it.

Click to expand...

Interesting. None of the storytellers I know write down the stories.

It's usually the anthropologists who do that.

I find myself equal parts both but not very good at either just yet. There are times that friends of mine are just astounded at a particular sentence or paragraph and others when they are astounded at a story I've told or a character I have described but I haven't become good at both to get them consistently together yet.

I love telling stories but thinking of the details troubles me.

It's a work in progress.

I think this is a really compelling question. Some people upthread had problems with it, but I do agree that it's more of an "approach" type problem. Don't most of us strive to construct a tight plot out of great sentences, whether they're lyrical or meaty?
I thought about this question a lot a few years ago when I was transitioning from film to writing. My thoughts at the time were since they were both storytelling, which squeezed under the "narrative arts" umbrella, it wasn't a big life shift for me
That said, I think I'm a writer first. When I'm trying to balance a story, editing out phrases/metaphors is so much more painful than killing off characters or even plot lines. Shows what's nearest my arteries I think!

This is a good question. Honestly, I try to be both a storyteller and a writer. I used to read a lot of writer-like fiction that didn't have much plot for the beautiful language and ideas and although I still enjoy that kind of writing from time to time, I have more respect for story as I grow older. My hope is that I hit both story and technique, but I also know that I sometimes get caught up in technique at the expense of story so I try to catch that in revision.

Djuna