How to Change the World at Bedtime - The Art of Storytelling - Didactic vs Narrative

There are many ways of trying to convince someone that something is true. There is the "BOP!" method, frequently employed by our parents and school teachers.

"I'll tell you what you're suppose to believe, and if you don't repeat it faithfully I'll bop you on the head with this here book."

Such is the method currently being used in segments of our political sub-culture. Either you toe the party line or I'll kick you off my Facebook page, out of my store, or the safe zone at the local university. So much for the pursuit of truth through dialogue and tolerance.

Many of us grew up in such fascist environments. But I don't think those who think much, think much of the effectiveness of such methods. In a pedagogical sense we might describe the BOP method with terms like rote, punishment, telling, didactic, or tyrannic. But most of us more likely appreciate learning through personal experience, discovery, experiment, showing, and simulation. Oh, yes, I should add the verbal pedagogies like dialogue, debate, and argument (as long as the arguments are the logical, not the yelling kind).

To those in the communication professions these two styles of communication can be identified simply as "TELLING" or "SHOWING."  Or, I could use more esoteric terms "DIDACTIC" and "NARRATIVE."  Experience is the best teacher, of course, but TELLING a little boy not to touch the hot stove is safer than actually letting him touch it. And yet, telling him may only elicit the question, "Why?" And that's where SHOWING or perhaps a simulation through a story is better.

Jeremy, you're too young to remember, but one time your Auntie Francine touched the stove when it was turned on, and her hand went up in flames. She screamed and hollered, and cried so hard. We took her hand and put it on ice, but that was so cold she cried even harder. Then the doctor came and took her hand completely off her arm and kept it a bandage for 2 months way up there on the shelf, and she couldn't reach it, or use it, even to pick her nose. How would you like that? Wouldn't it be sad if you couldn't pick your nose?"

Stories are like simulations if you can get your audience to emotionally identify with your protagonist and internally make decisions for the protagonist as the story goes along. There are many techniques for getting your audience to identify with the characters in a story...but we have not the space in this blog. See the on-line training. Yet, when you do it right, your audience will make the transition to believe that THEY are IN the story, and that THEY can HELP the protagonist toward the goal.

Oh, Daisy, don't open that door, there's a monster on the other side and he might eat you and it would really be ugly and I don't want to see that.

But of course, Daisy, being immortalized on the celluloid, can't hear you, so she walks through the door and is eaten by the monster. Blood everywhere. Quit memorable. Next time she'll listen. Oh, right, there won't be a next time. But the "Daisys" in the audience who are living through the simulation WILL remember...which is the point.

[Where does preaching fall into the above lists? Well, it depends on whether the preaching primarily involves didactic or narrative techniques. A good rule of thumb based on research of best selling books is 75% narrative and 25% didactic. Hook the heart, imagination and memory with the story, and then sum up the message with a short didactic explanation. Now, I've heard preachers who will a tell a story that has nothing to do with their message...which only hinders and create cognitive dissonance. The assumption is that that story embodies the applicable moral premise. ]

What Happens When We Tell Stories

I so much want to tell a story here, but your time is valuable. So let me NOT practice what I'm trying to preach and just share with you (e.g. tell you) what happens when you rightly use a story to communicate a particular truth, assuming you're using the Audience Identification Techniques described below.

When you tell a story correctly your audience will:

• Work mentally to fill in the narrative gaps, and figure out what is going on and why. (Narrative communication is inductive. It provides information but the audience has to figure out the premise that holds it all together. That "figuring it out" requires mental engagement.)
• Follow the narrative hook created by the story and try to answer the "story question." Listening to narrative communication is thus very active and engaging.
• Identify with the flawed character, because they (the audience) are flawed.
• Be intrigued about how the protagonist will successfully achieve his/her goal.
• Be held in suspense as the protagonist overcomes obstacles.
• Root for the protagonist at turning points to make the right decision and progress.
• Be sad when the protagonist makes the wrong decision and falls back.
• See themselves in the protagonist's journey.
• Learn with the protagonist what to do and what not to do to have a good life themselves.
• Subliminally recognize the moral truth, even though the outward story may be fictional.
• Ride the emotional roller coaster of the story's ups and downs. This creates adrenalin rushes that burn memories into the brain. 
• Remember the story and its subliminal message because it's visual and a simulation of a life experience. 

Now granted, I'm short-handing a lot of theory and practice here, but perhaps this blog will encourage you to learn how to tell better stories and change the world. ...Now, onward and upward!

What Happens With Didactic Communication

Let me contrast Didactics with Narratives. Unfortunately this will be a lot of propositional pronouncements...the very thing I'm preaching against:

• Didactic communication tugs on the brain. Narrative stories, properly told, tug on the heart.
• Didactic communication involves precisely defined propositional statements, logic, and syllogisms -- (think theology). Narrative communication involves suspense, intrigue, irony, conflict, and metaphors (think bedtime stories).
• Didactics use abstract formulas that pertain to all time, all places and all persons. They are thus impersonal and objective. Narratives pertain to one time, one place, one person and are thus personal and subjective. 
• Didactics make intellectual connections but generally produce no adrenaline rush to burn-in memories. Narratives make emotional connections by producing adrenaline rushes that do burn-in memories.
• Didactics are void of emotional cantharis and are easily forgotten. Narratives, properly told, lead to emotional catharsis and are easily remembered.
• Didactics frequently require rhetorical embellishment (volume, gestures, and pacing)  to keep an audience awake. Narratives can benefit from rhetorical techniques but don't require it. The audience's imagination supplies the embellishment to keep tuned. 
• Didactics require deductive thinking where the conclusion is pronounced up front by the presenter and assumed to be true. Narratives require inductive thinking where the conclusion is derived by the audience through assimilation of the character's experiences. Thus, the conclusion is owned by the audience, not the presenter, and is thus remembered longer.
• Didactics offer theoretical and general descriptions of life leading to the embrace of ideologies that may not  have practical meaning to the audience. Narratives offer visceral and specific portrays of life leading to personal verisimilitude. 
• Didactics treat "cause and effect" intellectually and philosophically. Narrative treat "cause and effect" emotionally and practically.
• Didactics explains truth. Narrative imbues truth.
• Didactics tell audiences what to think, so they leave believing, "It's the presenter's idea, I'm skeptical." Narrative leads audiences to discover for themselves, so they leave believing, "It's my idea. Ah-ha!"

Audience Identification Techniques - How to Tell a Story That Connects with Your Audience

There are numerous ways to get your audience to emotionally identify with your characters and thus learn through your character's successes and failures how to make their lives better, which is the subliminal reason people loves stories...they're like safe simulations of life that teach what is good, true, and beautiful.  But there are "catches" to telling successful stories. Here are some of them. They apply to short and long form stories. If you learn more about these and use them, you'll connect with your audience and they'll learn what you're trying to teach them through the experiences of your characters.

• Imbue in your story a true and consistently applied moral premise. This means that the underlying moral truth of your story must not conflict with Natural Law, although the outward physical story may be a fairytale.  This is the definition of a myth—a story vehicle, which may be true or fictional, but nonetheless communicates a universal moral truth. Much of my book, "The Moral Premise," the on-line "Storycraft Training," and this blog is about this.
• Start with a strong, ironic physical hook.  e.g. your protagonist's goal is out of his or her league and sounds impossible to achieve.
• Articulate an engaging log line. There is a good blog post on this.
• Be sure the conflict of inner values is universal to your audience and not parochial. (That is, don't beg your message and assume something is true your audience may think is false.)
• Your hero or protagonist must be flawed but wanting to be better.
• Your hero must pursue a physical and visible goal that may metaphor a deep moral goal.
• Your hero must be passionate and active, not passive or slothful.
• Structure your story's emotional ups and downs so that there is a regular emotional roller coaster with ever increasing risks. Using the technique in the Moral Premise book, the Storycraft Training, and this blog you can learn that every other scene or sentence must be an ironic, nearly impossible journey for your hero.

Well, there is more!!!  ...and if you're familiar with all of this stuff, you will have recognized this last list as some of the "Secrets of Successful Story Structure" from my free bookmark.

Didactic Message Films Always Fail

I have spent a good deal of time trying to persuade storytellers that message films, with a didactic base will always failed at the box office. The subject matter doesn't matter. Failure is inevitable unless you've managed to target your project (and budget it) to the niche audience that agrees with the film

There are examples every year.

Today I read this story about the Broadway Musical "The Great Immensity," which was clearly a government indoctrination effort produced by climate change supporters.

What must be considered if you're going to connect with a wide audience is to use a conflict of values that is UNIVERSALLY accepted by the wide audience. This is so simple to understand. Follow natural law, not man-made ideology. The audience isn't dumb. And in the case of "global warming" relabeled "climate change" (when it was discovered that the globe is not warming...)  somewhere around 30% of the public believe it's at some level true, and far less than that think it's a priority. That's not a universal value.  [I next expect a musical promoting Kale Cakes in school cafeteria's programs instead of Brownies, to fight obesity.]

The law within the moral premise framework is to match motivational values with NATURAL LAW consequences of actioning out those values. You cannot manipulate Natural Law and win. I don't care if you're a fundamentalist Christian who wants to wave the Bible in your audience's face, or a liberal environmentalist. There may be truth in both messages, but unless the audience agrees with you,  you're going to lose big, folks.

Anyhow, to prove my point, once again, here are some selected quotes form the reviews:

The curtain has come down on Climate Change 

The Musical and reviews of the taxpayer-funded play about global warming are downright icy.

By Perry Chiaramonte - 9/20/14 - Fox News 

The play, which is actually entitled "The Great Immensity," and was produced by Brooklyn-based theater company The Civilians, Inc. with a $700,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, ended its run early amid a storm of criticism from reviewers and lawmakers alike. It opened a year late, reached just five percent of its anticipated audience and likely fell short of its ambitious goal of informing a new generation about the perceived dangers of man-caused climate change. 

Plus, it apparently wasn't very good. 

“Despite fine performances, the musical mystery tour is an uneasy mix of fact and credulity-stretching fiction. It’s neither flora nor fauna,” New York Daily News reviewer Joe Dziemianowicz wrote in a review at the time. “[The] songs — whether about a doomed passenger pigeon or storm-wrecked towns — feel shoehorned in and not, pardon the pun, organic.” 

The play, which featured songs and video exploring Americans’ relationships to the environment, opened in New York in April with a three-week run before going on a national tour that was supposed to attract 75,000 patrons. But it stalled after a single production in Kansas City, falling short of the lofty goals outlined in a grant proposal. 

It was envisioned as a chance to create "an experience that would be part investigative journalism and part inventive theater,” help the public "better appreciate how science studies the Earth’s biosphere” and increase “public awareness, knowledge and engagement with science-related societal issues.” 

According to a plot description on the theater company’s website, "The Great Immensity" focuses on a woman named Phyllis as she tries to track down a friend who disappeared while filming an assignment for a nature show on a tropical island. During her search, she also uncovers a devious plot surrounding an international climate summit in Auckland, New Zealand. 

The description touts the play as “a thrilling and timely production” with “a highly theatrical look into one of the most vital questions of our time: How can we change ourselves and our society in time to solve the enormous environmental challenges that confront us?” 

..... 

"Even the best adventurers can wander off course, and the Civilians do so on a global scale in The Great Immensity,” read a review from Time Out New York. “The inventive troupe’s latest effort is all over the map… It’s not easy preaching green.”