Isit

Should we call it something else?
Storytelling has existed and been practiced long, long before the web existed; is there anything different in the form a story is told? Is there really a "thing" we can identify as web 2.0 storytelling?

Did we just make it up to get published? ;-)

Or is there a better name to describe what we outline in the article? //Hint- this is the audience participation part//- click the **"Edit this page"** button and add your thoughts, links, stories, ideas below. If you wish include your name or initials, but we also welcome anonymous responses.

I think there is/is not such a thing!
Is everything in the web a story (or fiction?)

Simplicio asks: isn't effective communication more the point than storytelling? My good blog post doesn't have to tell a story to engage readers. The same applies to a wiki edit. If that's true, then isn't storytelling at best the next level, a more advanced, but not necessary, type of communication?

I don't have an answer, at least at yet, but I have some more questions:
 * How does Web 2.0 story-telling differ from two (or more) authors collaborating on writing a story/book?
 * Does the massive collaboration you're talking about potentially developing add to or detract from the creative process?
 * Very decidedly NSFW two smutty group story-telling bits of fun: [|Group Sex - Pirates] and [||Group Sex - Winter Warmer] - they're fun but a very author-heavy group.
 * Do things like blogging writing communities e.g. fanfic communities do a better job of encouraging and supporting writing?

As Simplicio suggests, there is nothing here that makes so called web storytelling anything more than a way to dresss up a rather simple message with shiny exteriors. We need to be developing storytellers, creative minds, not robots who click buttons to make sparkly overlays. 1226573822

My training in English and literature, specifically in American Modernism and working-class literature, assures me that there is definitely a difference when a new genre appears. The mantra of the Modernist period was "make it new," and there was an intense focus on turning traditional narrative on its head. Some argued that it was new for newness' sake, but there was certainly an attempt to say such things as "why can't I represent a stream of thoughts?" "why does narrative have to represent chronological order (nod to Homer here)?" "why does narrative have to make sense?" "why does a painting of a person have to look like a photograph?"

But are we changing narrative or only using new tools to make the same narrative? Is a mashup narrative a new narrative--words, prose, audio, video, cartoons, photographs--how do we read that. Perhaps it's how we read such a text that makes the difference.

I've discovered via twitter another name for web 2.0 storytelling called transmedia storytelling. Look at these youtube videos:

[|youtube video]

[|little red riding hood and transmedia storytellin]

[|Transmedia Storytelling on Wikipedia]

user:whisperstorm

include page="Footer" 