There is perhaps no other artistic endeavor for which project of criticism is as fraught, and thus as necessary, as storytelling. In our field, issues of community commingle with those of class against twin backdrops of Western critical theory and American anti-intellectualism. In order for art form to receive its due, however-meaning that its most talented practitioners and scholars are provided with grants, tenure, reasonable compensation, and all other privi- leges that accompany a seat at grown-ups' table, including, most importantly, audiences and students-some formalization of an authoritative gaze, if not actual gatekeeping, is beneficial.Yet it is this same authority and gatekeeping-stricture and structure-that is most effectively countered by storytelling. The archetype of hero traditionally functions as a critique to existing relations of power and knowledge, a counter to master narrative, a nagging question nipping at heels of definitive answers.This essay attempts to describe challenges facing critical turn in storytelling studies. In doing so, we hope to jump-start a conversation that has, at various times, been initiated and then left to languish, within storytelling community, as well as to help initiate a new paradigm for field of storytell- ing studies. This essay, therefore, is intended to serve as a prolegomenon for future research and discussion within multidisciplinary storytelling studies community.The ChallengesPerhaps most personal criticism of critical turn in storytelling studies can be found in (mostly oral, partly anecdotal) reaction to field of storytelling studies by some members of storytelling art world. Characterized as age-old rivalry of heart and head (Sobol, Gentile, and SunWolf 2), concern among some of our community is that by systematizing or, as some would have it, overintellectualizing storytelling, we would somehow destroy very spon- taneity and authenticity that is its most attractive feature.Writing in 1942, Sawyer was already concerned by divide between folk art and scholarship:Storytelling is a folk-art. To approach it with feelings and ideas of an intel- lectual or sophisticate is at once to drive it under domination of mind and critical sense. All folk-arts have grown out of primal urge to give tongue to what has been seen, heard, experienced. They have been motivated by simple, direct folk-emotions, by imagination; they have been shaped by folk-wisdom. To bring a sophisticated attitude to a folk-art is to jeopardize it. Or rather, it is to make it into something that it is not. (Sawyer 27)If, as editors of this journal observed in their introduction to inaugural issue, the push and pull . . . between storytellers and Academy can. . . be seen in Jungian terms as opposition of Logos and Eros (Sobol, Gentile, and SunWolf 2), then perhaps we can take a cue from a related myth. Cassandra, having refused advances of Apollo, was cursed with a gift of prophecy that no one would accept. If storytelling likewise rejects rational (Apollonian) consideration, it may also find that its messages fail to gain acceptance. Eros, allowing for Logos, can develop a beneficial literacy for form.It is an unfortunate feature of English language that word criticism is burdened with connotation of censure. In popular media, critic often functions as a consumer advocate, assessing relative value-for-money of a commercial venture-be it film, stage play, concert, or exhibition-helping reader decide whether attendance is worth money. Criticism is inherently bounded by subjective experience of critic. Yet role of critic varies with intent. Unlike thumbs-up/thumbs-down mentality of popular media reviewing, criticism may take form of a gift to be unwrapped at birth of a new work, discursive equivalent of a set of silver spoons. …
Read full abstract