I've spent the last week and a couple days watching movies, playing games and reading stories. The current period has presented itself with a plethora of occasions to spend it consuming content. With how disrupted the world has become, many others have sought solace in social and entertainment media of all kinds and forms. With the various opportunities for observation, especially when certain industries in entertainment are experiencing a brief increase in metric performance regarding financials, it's clear that more people are able to consume content than any other time in the recent past. Part of that made me think about our roles as consumers, and how easy it is to do so in an unhealthy manner.

Storytelling is a permeable art form. It streams through all of humanity, taking with it the sediment of it's societies and cultures. While it is not inherently anthropological, at the very least it offers insights into the mind of man. Once a story enters the realm of products however, it gets packaged into a consumable and marketed. It's given a price, a location where it can be acquired and promotional material to give it as much attention as possible. It is protected by the laws of nations (most nations, at the very least) and it becomes possible to prescribe some metric of value towards it. Those consumables become standalone art, disconnected from any supplementary material that may have inspired or directly produced because of it.

In this form, such stories become impervious to the sculpting of cultural osmosis. It's immediate nature cannot be contorted, not without acquiring appropriate licences or directly receiving permission from it's creators. It's form becomes tied to media; an organised means of creating art. For this reason, products that contain stories need to be adopted cautiously by an audience, and shouldn't be observed with the same cavalier as a strictly organic story. Unfortunately, a lot of consumers make this mistake and become attached to spiralling narratives, which are the products of brands and organisations. These entities are too far removed from the heart of a story, and don't necessarily have the same desire to keep it beating that the consumers have. Such is the perils of mass media.

Getting overly attached

In the recent past, many popular franchises have attempted to detach their existing audience for a new one. The logic states that by moving their focus from their already assembled audience, they can gain a fresh one that is much more numerous, diverse, and more accepting of the content they produce, thus increasing sales and profits. The execution of such ideas has only had mixed results, which hardly proves the hypothesis. The companies that own these franchises forget that their existing audiences are fragile, and that the brands they cultivate may have changed, but the appeal of the stories they had developed are timeless. This disconnect has created a rift between the producers and the consumers of mass media. Without a doubt, the origins of this rift are political.

Remember what I said about stories containing, at the very least, the experiences of society and culture? Well, imagine that being the case for the audience of said franchises. It should surprise no one when narratives are irrevocably changed from their origins, that the same audience with this connection vocally disapprove. The negative reaction is only natural for such attached individuals to see what they feel a connection to, being dismantled and recreated in such haphazard fashion. It only encourages the hostility when the situation appears to stem from complete mismanagement of a franchise and it's storytelling. The result of this is the inevitable culture war that we have seen occur during the last few decades. The irony is that the attachment these consumers feel towards their products, is also the same fuel that allows the cycle to continue in the first place. Producers create stories that consumers want to consume. By altering this binary relationship, producers will reduce the amount of consumers, thus lowering the output of stories they can create. The cycle begins to slow down. The worst of it will come when it finally stops.

When the wheels detach

People are attracted to aesthetics. This simple fact appears to be lost on large organisations that produce the most content for consumers. Appearance is not everything however, and it is more likely that the disregard for aesthetics is intentional. The unfortunate reality of this is that most eyes are expected to show the same interest in mediocre content, that they have in high quality work. The large organisations set the industry standard for the smaller organisations and individuals to follow. With the ease that mediocrity can be produced, the supply of said low quality content will only increase. As the supply increases, especially for established brands, the consumers who were once attached and expressed displeasure will slowly distance themselves from what they used to consume. Demand continues to drop, yet supply is somehow increasing. This paradox only spreads the rift further. What we get from all of this is oversaturation.

The only future will be collapse.

Oversaturation isn't the death knell however. The first sign that follows is a scramble for USPs. Unique Selling Points are elements that distinguish a product from any other, and make them more appealing to an audience. USPs allow content to stand out from the rest of the pack. This is gauged by interest (demand) and consumption (sales). The data that follows successful products is analysed for potential USPs, which are then used as the model for other products as well.

The contradiction begins once USPs need to be produced quickly, as the oversaturation requires quick to produce ideas to garner flash-in-the-pan sales figures. Too much content to push with little time to push it, ends up strangling products of any opportunity to produce depth. To keep up with the USP demand, gimmicks become the focus. As gimmicks are by definition "very shallow tricks or devices", are quick to make and easy to replicate, they end up lowering the quality of already mediocre content. The spiral downward is accelerated with such a radical approach to incompetent creation.

The only "saving grace" is when consumers begin to lower their standards. However, this is a short lived victory. If consumers accept mediocre content from the professionals, they will only encourage the degradation of quality even further. Consumers are left with a Catch 22. By accepting the decline in quality, they encourage further works of that nature. By declining the lapse in quality, consumers will latch onto effective USPs with similar gimmicks, resulting in similar low quality content being produced. Eventually there will be no possible way to distinguish between a large organisation that can produce a multitude of content, and a lone amateur that can only produce mediocrity. The industry that powers the producer / consumer relationship would've effectively broken the cycle. Thus, the collapse will be complete.

Answering the question

So what is the solution? The answer is that there is none. What we are seeing is merely a continuation of the cycle that has always been. Human societies do not always progress. They go through entropy. They collapse. They degrade. They rebuild. They succeed. They repeat. Ad nauseaum.

Eventually, when the dust has settled, narratives will begin to take root in the undergrowth. Little pockets of plot will weave together, eventually breaking through the very earth. Stories that speak to the heart of man will shoot towards the sky once more.

The only requirement is time. Time, and the understanding that the cycle will repeat all over again. Thus is the nature of consumption. Until things deteriorate, consumption of mass media will continue to be unhealthy. The only healer is time.

No one naturally speaks in an eloquent manner.

It takes a lot of training to articulate ourselves in our speech, regardless of how well we grasp a language. The realm of monologue may require well constructed dialogue, but in terms of a simple conversation, the majority of us suffer from 'speech disfluency'. When it comes to portraying characters in dialogue, we should make good use of speech disfluency in order to breathe life and personality into them.

What is Speech Disfluency?

Speech Disfluency is a term that refers to any break in, what would otherwise be, fluent speech. Examples of such that occur in natural dialogue are:

• False starts, repeated syllables
• Vocables (uh-huh, hmm), words that have no form but still convey meaning
• Pauses (silence, usually to indicate confusion or deep thought)
• Mispronounciation of words, 'tongue twisters'
• Inconsistent pacing, slowing down or speeding up speech to convey a character's feelings or emotion

When utilised for the purpose of characterisation, speech disfluency attributes an additional dimension to a character's personality. You can illustrate a considerable portion of a character, purely through simulating the way they talk. To elucidate this concept, I'll be presenting a character's personality, while only using dialogue to do so.

Meet Roger

"Hi ya. Umm... ma name's Roger. I'm 54 years old. And I'm 'ere 'cause I'm... cause I'm. Because I'm... addicted... to alcohol."

"I've been drinkin' booze for uhh... uhh... for a long time. A long, long time. It's broken... broken my family. My missus. Uh... uhh, she... she left. My kids don't... don't 'sociate... don't wanna speak to me. Don't wanna see me... anymore. I fink.,. I uh, I... n-need help. Some serious help I fink."

"They said... if I could get sober. Uhhh, maybe we could... sort suttin' out. My kids I mean. She didn't know... still doesn't.... know I've seen my son a few times. Court said I can't... but he... he doesn't care."

"I just... I just wanna see us together again. A family... again. I want us all back home again. Maybe we could. If I just get sober.... maybe we could."

What did the four groups of dialogue tell you about Roger, outside of what he explicitly said himself? Did his unique way of speaking infer any type of personality? What about the description of his circumstances? Is it possible that he was painting a scenario in his favour? Did you detect that the story was not all that it seemed? Was it clear that he couldn't take responsibility for his actions?

There's a lot that can be conveyed through dialogue, that doesn't have to boil down to basic exposition. Each time a character speaks is an opportunity to present what is novel about them. The same information should be presented differently, depending on the character that is speaking. This way, you have distinct, believable characters that all fulfill different roles in the story and for the reader.

Dialogue doesn't need to advance the plot

Some writers advise that dialogue should always advance the plot. I disagree, and to follow such stringent rules is to limit your ability to present your characters in a believable manner. Some of the best dialogue that one has read or seen in media, has had absolutely no relation to the plot or central narrative. The only important thing about dialogue is that it should always portray the characters.

Let's say you have a story about a criminal mastermind, who's speaking to their partner-in-crime whilst preparing for a heist. According to the advice mentioned above, their conversations should essentially boil down to the heist, seeing as it is most relevant to the plot. However, in this story, the partner-in-crime is always presented chewing gum whenever they're anxious. The criminal mastermind hates the sound of chewing gum. Whilst preparing their scheme, the mastermind starts an argument with their partner, that the sound of their chewing drives them insane. This conversation doesn't have any relevance to the plot, and is not mentioned again in the story. However, during the heist, the partner doesn't chew any gum, and is visibly unnerved throughout.

Despite not establishing any exposition explaining this, thanks to the set up via the dialogue, we are able to understand and empathise with the characters we see. This opportunity comes from showing, not telling the audience what you want them to understand. As a result, our characters appear much more believable to them. By facilitating characterisation through dialogue, we open up many opportunities for our stories to captivate the audience. So it's important that we know exactly what our character's need to say, especially when they don't.

^{Proverbs 16:18 (KJV)}

It is particularly dangerous for us to make unequal measure during our assessment of ourselves. As unique characters, our focus should be on understanding our strengths, weaknesses, and then learning what is appropriate for us as distinctive individuals. To do so, we must perceive accurately our own thoughts and feelings towards one's self. This is the basis behind introspection.

Introspection is the examination of our own mental and emotional procedure. Before we can accurately scrutinise the cause of our thoughts and actions, we need to recognise the structure behind them. So little by little, we must construct an understanding of our own psychology. What we come to realise will open us up to a pathway of recognition to what ideas impact us meanigfully and why, and also recognise it's effects on other people. Our reasoning skills develop, allowing us to become sympathetic and empathetic in charitable fashion. For that reason, introspection allows us to gain an understanding of others, to develop self-control, the opportunity to determine where we need to mature, and more importantly, acknowledge our abilities. An inability to recognise what skills we do and don't possess results in the development of incompetence. This is the antithesis to the pursuit of perfection.

Dunning-Kruger's explanation for Incompetence

In 1999, the sociologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning had an article titled 'Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.' published in the American Psychological Association's Journal of Personality and Social Psychology^®. Within it, Kruger-Dunning write the following about someone who is incompetent but overconfident in their abilities.

In essence, we argue that the skills that engender competence in a particular domain are often the very same skills necessary to evaluate competence in that domain - one's own or anyone else's. Because of this, incompetent individuals lack what cognitive psychologists variously term metacognition, metamemory, metacomprehension, or self-monitoring skills. These terms refer to the ability to know how well one is performing, when one is likely to be accurate in judgment, and when one is likely to be in error.

^{(page 1121)}

As part of their study, they used 140 university students as a focus group. They set out a test of logical reasoning for them to complete. These participants were then asked to rate their logical reasoning skills and performance on the test, relative to their classmates, on a percentile scale. They then randomly selected 70 of those students, and gave them a short logical reasoning training packet. The other 70 were given unrelated materials as a filler task, that took the same amount of time to complete as the training packet. Both groups were then asked to complete a metacognition task, where they appraised how well they think they did on the logical reasoning test. Afterwards, they were all given a chance to reassess how well they performed, relative to their classmates. Dunning-Kruger summarised their results as such.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "he who knows best knows how little he knows." In Study 4, we obtained experimental support for this assertion. Participants scoring in the bottom quartile on a test of logic grossly overestimated their test performance - but became significantly more calibrated after their logical reasoning skills were improved. In contrast, those in the bottom quartile who did not receive this aid continued to hold the mistaken impression that they had performed just fine. Moreover, mediational analyses revealed that it was by means of their improved metacognitive skills that incompetent individuals arrived at their more accurate self-appraisals.

^{(page 1130)}

To conclude, according to Dunning-Kruger's study on incompetence, the students who exercised introspection via the logical reasoning packet were more accurately able to assess their skills compared to their peers, and thus able to improve their performance on the logical reasoning test. It should go without saying that an accurate assessment of one's ability is critical to establishing growth and potential for competency.

What is Hubris?

Therefore, to overcome hubris, we must understand what it is, and whether it's definition even applies to us through introspection. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the definition of hubris is "a way of talking or behaving that is too proud". So hubris is a synonym of prideful. Introspection will allow us to expose areas where we talk or behave in a prideful manner.

However, it is important to note that one does not require high self-esteem to be prideful or hubristic. It is possible to exercise pride in one's lack of self-esteem too. To underestimate one's abilities is also another expression of hubris. The reason being is that a lack of confidence stems from narcissism. Due to the excessive interest in one's self, even detrimentally, you poorly evaluate one's ability. Low self-esteem is a result of little introspection, not much. Remember, introspection is the examination of one's mental and emotional processes. Such a process builds self-esteem, because self-esteem is confidence in one's worth and abilities. Confidence is built from knowledge, as the Dunning-Kruger effect established. To have low self-esteem is to hold little knowledge of your own psychology.

Conclusion

In short, what must we do to overcome hubris? We must dedicate ourselves to regular self-assessment. Spend time purposely learning about ourselves first. The easiest way is to establish active interaction. Adopt a hobby, learn a new skill, interact with others a little more etc. Compare your actions and thoughts in each situation you face. Acknowledge that we will fail, and failure is a necessary part of introspection. There is no hard and fast rule to this procedure. As long as you are continually assessing your psychology, your actions will aid your introspective endeavours. As a result, we will become less accustomed to hubristic expressions of identity. In this way, we will have overcome hubris.

What can we say about the Performing Arts? In the literal sense, it's the creative faculties of man, performed for an audience, mostly on a stage. Atmospheric in nature. Inherently dramatic. It captures experience and envelops the audience in it's redolence. Those that partake in the act of enacting on stage, do so with the cultural values that permeate the civilisation it is produced in, alongside the traditions of theatre itself. Yes, the very essence of theatre itself is historical convention. The culmination of centuries of practical ingenuity and expert craftmanship, from thespian to technician, that works together to realise a performance. After 5 years working in theatre, I feel I finally have a little understanding of the cultural importance and significance, the Performing Arts play in modern day society.

The world of Theatre is not too far removed from the realm of Film & Television. Technically speaking, it follows the same basic components that get a performance from the conceptual stage to 'opening of the house'. Like most productions, everything starts with...

1) The Script

Before anything can begin, the ideas that structure a work must be collated. These will act as the framework to get through all the stages of production with purpose and vision. If it is a narrative that's being presented, some form of script needs to be developed. This will act as the construction of the story, and will inform all departments involved in it's invention on what to do to create it. In the case of a play, there are specific conventions which are usually followed. For one, most plays follow a three act structure:

• Protasis (Exposition)
• Epitasis (Complication)
• Catastrophe (Resolution)

These define the pacing of the story. Exposition provides the information that describes and/or explains the characters, and the world your play is set in to the audience. Complication presents the dilemma that your characters face, alongside all of the trials and tribulations that they undergo. Resolution is the climax, where all of the narrative elements come together, forming the dénouement of the story. These three acts are a general system, and don't necessarily have to be utilised, although it is important to recognise why they are ubiquitous for playwrights.

When a play is performed, they are usually separated into two acts, with an interval in the middle. It's important to remember that you are creating something that will be performed to an audience, so they also need to be considered during the development of the narrative.

Using the script format is not necessary for every performing arts production, especially if it's not intended to be a planned, cohesive narrative. Regardless, it is imperative that some sort of structure is used to ensure everything remains on track, during production and during performance. I have worked on many shows that didn't prepare a structure for itself through production to the opening of the house (the play being performed to an audience), and it wasn't pretty. If you have any respect for aesthetic quality, you'll prepare a "script" for your play.

2) Pre-Production

Here is where the theoretical becomes practical. Where ideas start to be realised, and the play takes shape. The "script" is broken down into actionable elements. Do your characters perform the story in various locations? Sets need to be built that represent the setting, including any scenery that decorates them. If your characters are wearing clothes, then costumes must be made for every outfit they wear. Do they interact with anything at all? Properties (props for short) have to be acquired so that they can be used by the actors on stage. To create a particular look, lighting rigs and systems need to be set up, plotted and operated during the show. The same applies to any sound requirements, special effects (like pyrotechnics) and general rigging on stage.

Of course, no one can forget that you need actors to play the characters you have. They need to be auditioned and casted, given the script to learn and the space to rehearse so that they can perform effectively. You also need technicians; professionals that understand how to work on their respective departments (stage, lighting and sound), who can 'get in' all the equipment, rig, plot and operate during the show. I've vastly oversimplified the process involved, but this is an outline of the requirements you need for contemporary productions.

This shouldn't be an issue however. A good production is in essential need of the right team making necessary decisions, ensuring that it is at it's very best and goes up smoothly, with as little hiccups as possible. When all of these things are prepared, that's when you move onto...

3) Technical & Dress Rehearsals

Everyone knows their roles. Everyone knows their lines. Now it's time for action. Sort of. The next step is ensuring that a production can actually play out for an audience from start to finish.

Technical Rehearsals

The actors perform on stage, usually without costumes, while the LX, Sound and Stage Technicians perform their tracks (a list of actions required to run the show). Theses rehearsals are quite haphazard, as the technicians work out synchronising their duties to facilitate a cohesive performance. There will be a lot of stop and start. During this time, the actors will be blocked (positioned) as to where they should be on stage, and what marks (spots) they should be hitting during their scenes. There is a scheduled amount of time for this process, and by the end, the technicians and actors should be able to run through the entire show with no problems. After Technical Rehearsals, the presentation of the performance will be clear, and the production team will know how it appears to the audience.

Dress Rehearsals

Once that is complete, the show is performed entirely with the actors in costume. Thanks to the Technical Rehearsals, the Dress should run smoothly, and essentially present the same way as the final show. The creatives will make last minute changes, if necessary. Usually, the last rehearsal done is an Open Dress, where there will be limited audience members present to see it. Essentially, it's the first performance made available to the public (sometimes this stage is restricted to friends and family of the production staff).

After Dress Rehearsals, we have...

3) Opening of the House

Show Operators know their roles. Actors & Actresses know their lines. The show beginners are in costume and at their positions. Everything is ready. All that is left is to 'Open the House' and let the audience members get to their seats. The curtains open and the performance begins. Here is where all the culmination of everyone's hard work comes to fruition. The play runs through smoothly and you all receive a loud, long standing ovation from the crowd. There is no feeling of elation that matches the mood that comes from a show, performed well with delighted spectators.

I'm generalising the process but I'm articulating the dream of Performing Arts. The intention, if you will. Being able to bring everything together and produce something for an audience is a difficult, yet worthwhile endeavour. It's an important form of entertainment as it inherently cultivates ambience, with the energy from the cast and audience interacting in real time. Each performance is different because of this, especially in the more interactive formations of plays, such as pantomimes. Due to the uniqueness of the environment for this craft, it still offers much sought for value, despite there being competing mediums that offer much better convenience to a congregation.  The heritage of the arts most certainly lives on, and will continue for future generations, taking it's place as the touchstone of intellectual development in culture and leisure.

Renee wafts around the seating arrangement, gliding past all of the highly cultured customers, undettered from enjoying the works of art presented before them. Jimmy and Chace follow, awkwardly shambling past seats, disrupting waiters carrying plates, and generally finding themselves on the receiving end of glares and utterances of disgust. Jimmy turns to confront one of the patrons, but before he can fire off a scathing remark, Chace turns him away. As Jimmy turns, he spots Renee, sitting in a booth at the far rear of the restaurant.

Jimmy slides onto the long seat, sitting directly opposite Renee, who's already sipping a cocktail.

"We shouldn't be disturbed here," she says.

Chace scoots up right next to Jimmy, pushing him into the wall.

"The heck? You ever hear of personal space?" he growls.

Jimmy scowls at Chace, who's reclining in the seat in shame. Renee glares at them both.

"Well? Let's get on with it then,"

Jimmy pulls Chace upright, clears his throat and wipes himself down. Chace, straightening his posture in his seat, takes a folded cut of paper from his pocket. Unravelling it, he begins to speak.

"Let me tell you everything you need to know about exposition. Exposition is a systematic, usually written statement about, commentary on, or explanation of a specific subject. The act of expounding or setting forth information or a viewpoint..."

Imagine reading an engrossing adventure story, with such immaculate pacing and tension, that you didn't want to risk your eyes missing a single second of it. Suddenly, all the action stops, so that you can be told 'all about the secret of the setting'. While the subject matter may be interesting, it certainly doesn't hold the same level of intrigue that the content preceding it did. As a result, you find yourself being pulled away from the narrative, the plot progression broken, and you now realise that the story has lost all of it's tension.

This in itself is not inherently bad, however exposition should be handled appropriately to the demands of the story. If it is necessary for the audience to be made aware of something, you should make effort to ensure they are informed. However, there is one thing to note if you want to hold a reader's interest.

Show & Tell

A simple approach that makes it easier to keep your audience captivated by your story is to show the information you want them to acknowledge. Rather than spoon feeding exposition, if you present it's elements and let the audience build the information themselves, you are encouraging active participation, to a degree. Some mediums benefit from this approach more than others, especially those that have interactive components. Despite this, a "show" approach still engrosses a reader much like a practical assignment engrosses a school student. Getting the audience involved, even if only mentally, can keep up the entertainment value, in moderation.

To illustrate this, I have prepared two simple film scripts built off these two concepts. One script utilises the Tell approach, while the other uses a Show approach. I'll let you decide which one:

• Conveys information better
• Is more entertaining

To begin with, we have the Tell approach:

Now compare that to how I constructed Show:

There are key differences behind the presentation of these stories. The important element is to note that the approach changed the way I articulated the occurrences. When I was focused on telling the audience the exposition, I couldn't logically include Take; a character I prepared before I started writing. I felt his inclusion would've been unnecessary and contrived, as the information you needed to know during this scene had already been established.

However, when I focused on showing the reader what was happening, I had to incorporate more elements to convey as much exposition as possible. Suddenly, we start to see a stark contrast between the personalities of each character. The Man in the Chair sounds snarky and smug, yet when threatened, loses that spunk and recoils. Delia is presented as quite clumsy, yet caring and considerate. Take is much more collected and calculating than Give, who emerges as an aggressive man with a foul mouth and short fuse to match.

Conclusion

While both approaches certainly do have their merits, I personally think that "showing" is far more effective than "telling" in the majority of cases. For one, to successfully execute a show approach, you have to consolidate all elements of your story together into a cohesive whole. You have to consider subtext, and that presents the opportunity to learn the skill of interweaving the plot and the wider narrative together. It becomes a fine balancing act between making the plot understandable while also adding, not detracting from the plot with the subtext and world building. For the audience, it presents something to think about. They get to engage mentally with your story, which changes a passive experience into an active one. It's far easier to captivate someone's interest once you start making them feel like they are involved in the story.

When done correctly, the challenge of presenting exposition without simply telling it does wonders. It makes it far easier to convey the thematic concepts accurately, and the active involvement ensures that your story will leave a lasting impression.

Whenever we're telling a story to an engaged audience, it is imperative that we understand that they have placed their safe keeping with us. As the purveyor of the world we are introducing them to, a high level of faith and confidence (mostly unearned) has been entrusted to us by them. They expect somewhat to be entertained, in exchange for spending some of their precious time on Earth being preoccupied with our tales, and on a deeper level, understanding our interpretation and proclamation on the human condition. As part of this bargain, the audience disregards all of their common sensibilities and inhibitions; to suspend their disbelief at the presentation of our story. The very fact that a viewer will consider whatever medium they're consuming as more than: simply written scribbles, optical illusions, changes in a vibration's frequency, or fallacious sensory feedback, puts us in a strong position that we have to accept by default. As long as they find our story enthralling, they will allow us to manipulate them.

Before we get to approach the stage where we engage the audience in dialogue - having them attentively hang onto our every breath - we must take great care when handling their sensibilities. After all, they have entrusted their psychological well being to us. Us being storytellers, we wield a great power. One that, if used recklessly, can irrevocably damage how a person perceives the world around them. A power that can influence false impressions towards any given subject on the observer. Said power gives us the ability to proclaim lies as truth. To mislead, misdirect and misinterpret a message in malignant fashion. It allow us to evoke evil as good, grace as merciless, maturity as fatuous, favour as disdain and calmness as calamitous, if we so choose. The very power that we wield as storytellers, is the power of assertion.

Assertion allows us to educate others on any topic that they are not knowledgeable about themselves. A story that presents new information in a manner that appears to be candid, will be very effective in how impressionable the reader becomes. For every medium, the audience experiences our story with a certain level of passivity. Something that, although it will vary depending on the individual, will still give us plenty of leeway to permeate ideas into their being. It is largely irrelevant if the concepts they receive come from our preferred reading or not. What matters is that this process is assured and our story will be formative to some degree.

This is not to say that we should fear such power. No, to fear what you wield is to be controlled by it. To allow ourselves as creators to be influenced by our ability to manipulate our audience, is to onset pandemonium into our works, our psyche and our very existence. If we allow the concept of manipulation to manipulate us, we lose our ability to master our own knowledge, forever doomed to be enslaved by it. Rather, we embrace this strength, instead learning to control it. Impart it into our craft with intentionality and adeptly weave it into our stories, with the aim to bring about the desired emotional response and intellectual wonderment, in our audience. We must manipulate our audience wisely and acknowledge the truth about manipulation in terms of storytelling. That no matter what we do when we create our story, we manipulate the reader in some way. If they accept even a solitary moment, whether we think it intentional or not, it is purely because of said influence that we exert upon them. The sooner we acknowledge the gospel, the more timely our stories get to become greater and the faster we develop in our capabilities.

However, a word of warning. As I've stated prior, our stories need their voice and our intention to intertwine, if we desire to manipulate our audience effectively. Earlier in this report, I mentioned very briefly the concept of preferred readings. To summarise it simply, a preferred reading is:

where the sender of a message consciously or unconsciously develops it in ways which intends to guide, limit, or control its interpretation by receivers

_{Oxford Reference, 'Preferred Reading', Archived on 22 May 2020 07:21 BST}

While this concept is wildly contested by sociologists, I want to present how similar this idea is to us when we create stories. For someone, our material will be the first time they've ever been captivated by our portrayed subject matter or style of presentation. If this is the case, that means we can exert influence over certain individuals moreso than others. In this case, we will be their initial reference for future narratives and perspectives that they come across in a similar vein. Additionally, while preferred readings do not mean that we can erase the audience's pre-existing knowledge, we do have the opportunity to press into sentiment. How we portray our ideas can derive an emotional response of all kinds, and we can do so deliberately. To another end, it also gives us the chance to subvert the audience's expectations (however, I feel that this in particular is a long discussion that deserves an analysis of it's own).

Although I do not wish for us to change how we approach storytelling because of the implications with manipulation, I do want us to appreciate the role we have as creators, and to understand the transaction that takes place. The audience gives us their attention and we get to manipulate it.

Picture this. You've come into possession of a gripping story that has captured your curiosity. You start outlining a few characters, imagining them in the world where you story is set. Details are emerging as you work, flying through the planning process with the grace of an inertial bird in gale. Whilst building the presentation of your story, you entrust a draft to someone you know for appraisal. The feedback you receive is as follows:

"It's very good, but the protagonists don't develop at all."

You check through your work and realise they're right. The beliefs, attitudes and actions that your main characters express throughout the story are consistent. Too consistent, you think. Now, you feel you must dedicate time combing through the story, looking for ways that suggest there's been a change of outlook in your leading men. Whether you're successful or not in this endeavour, you feel as though the story would've been better, your persons unscathed.

Hold on. Let's address something with clarity. Character arcs are not just mere plot elements; something that is kept on a checklist that assures whether your story is any good. They are simply the culmination of introspective decisions your characters make. Consequently as a creator, you cannot miss the opportunity to reach understanding, especially to prevent a desire that forces internal development. Doing so will rob what is authentic about them, instead treating it like scrap thrown to the hounds. Rather, as creator, the focus should be to grasp a deep psychological perspective of their personality.

Comprehending the moral quandary

From your position as a creator, you know better about your story than your creations do. Why not consider exploring that disparity to the steep depths of their ignorance? Is it imperative that a lead learns the moral lesson your story deeds to impart? What if they already expressed an understanding of the moral lesson, before the story even began? How about a story where there is no clear lesson, yet the protagonist believes they learnt one anyway? These questions are not meant to be universal or conclusive, but I submit them to encourage a deeper deliberation on where characterisation can go. It is not necessary to give your characters an arc.

Take for instance the idea that storytelling encapsulates real human experience; an informal, yet personal anthropology. Do we need to learn the lessons we should, or think we should, from any given experience? Does every experience require us to learn something new? While our lives can only be witnessed from a first person perspective, we still have a complex interaction with ourselves and the outside realm (that is everything and everyone else). Our ideas are constantly challenged, yet it's entirely up to us and our disposition whether we adapt them to match, or not. Seeing as we, too, are real humans with real experiences, why not draw that familiar uncertainty into elements that make up our story? After all, this serves to strictly open up our options as a practitioner of storytelling. If we acknowledge this as a technique, which makes it an option for character development, but also recognise that characters define themselves, we learn another tool of the trade to employ as needed. To condense this concept into a bite-sized phrase:

"My characters say when they need to develop, if at all"

While we know what's best for our stories and characters even if only subconsciously, our characters have no possibility to understand. If we allow them the chance to dabble in ignorance, even to the final word, we can posit our hand in control of our stories. We should be able to selectively choose when our characters can't be broken, whether they're brittle, if they'll ever break and when they will bend. Alas! Take the character arc, put it in the technical toolbox, and freely apply when you see fit. Your characters certainly don't need it and if you're happier with it gone, your story will be better without it.

"Every story needs an inciting incident."

While I do personally discourage strictly sticking to this sentiment when producing a plot, a creator should absolutely have an objective behind their story. A driving force that overrides any sense of motivation or lack thereof. Something rigid and reliable, that is able to withstand the abrasion of scrutiny, entirely unscathed by it's attempts at laceration. A concept that gives your narrative an inner being.

The premise behind this is simple; stories need a spirit to bind it. In our conscious excitement to tell narratives, the very essence of it's intention has to be conveyed to the listener. They must be able to derive substance from a story in a meaningfully significant manner, allowing them to perceive the ideas it contains at it's core. For this to occur, we must know the purpose for why our story exists.

First and foremost, why should you care about your story? If you don't care about it, you can't expect that anyone else will. So we must justify to ourselves why we should continually put effort into our storyline. A good purpose can justify why our story exists. A great purpose justifies why our story exists and establishes why we should share our story with others. Great purpose, then, is what we must desire for our stories.

What does one first require to give their story a great purpose? To determine this, we must recognise our intentions behind telling our narrative. What encouraged us to want to tell our story in the first place? Perhaps it was simple inspiration that sparked innovation. Maybe a challenge presented itself and tickled our fantasy. It could be that our story was weighing on our conscious, waiting to be told. Whatever the reason, the intention is the best place to approach the formation of purpose, as that will provide the perspective needed for us to create it.

After this has been contemplated and we are able to procure a perspective, we must then consider what our story wants to remark about itself. How should it present itself to the listener? This is a crucial step, because it is this moment where we separate our story from ourselves. It is important that we understand that a told story no longer belongs to us alone, but to all those that it is shared with. This doesn't mean that we lose control over our story as an intellectual property or as creator, but our intention behind it will be lost. The ideas that formulate our story will take a life of their own; it's beating heart the audience that perceives it. What we planned for the story can't be conveyed, leaving only what the story declares to the audience in it's place. In order to prepare for the inevitable, we as the creator must understand what it has to say for itself and adjust it according to our tastes.

It is within these adjustments that purpose begins to take shape. As we marry our intentions with what we want our story to present, we are able to extract purpose from it. Therefore to create great purpose, we must marry great intention with a great sense of self. We treat our story as novel, an interesting new, brimming with potential and waiting to be grafted into the masterwork that it should be. We should not deprive it of anything that drains the life force from it, to ensure that as much of our intention is able to be retained when it is presented to others.

With that said, we should always be striving to create stories with great purpose. So trigger that inciting incident. Give your story great purpose. Whatever you intend, ensure that it is quintessential, so that your intention can be reflected in it's appearance.

Storytelling is the most important component of anthropology. It has the power to encapsulate the entirety of human civilization, culture and progress, by weaving it into a collective series of events.

Stories tell us about experience. The human experience. This makes storytelling an essential skill. An art, if you will.

To understand storytelling, we must understand the structure of storytelling. Therefore, it is necessary to deconstruct the structure of a narrative to understand how we can better build our own; even more so for masterfully told tales. To take an in depth look at classical thought & contemporary think pieces, just to pick them apart piece by piece and translate that into the prose of potential.

I personally aspire to master the art and craft of storytelling. To develop into a wordsmith; forging fantastical feats of fanciful fiction and immutably expressive emotion, that captures the imaginative devotion of readers across the ages. To take on the seemingly impossible endeavour that has claimed the livelihood of the most ambitious of men: perfection.

So think of this that you see before you as the continual struggle to master a craft; a long, continuous persistence in where the goal is to endeavour endlessly, until the demise. When I finally look back at it all, I desire to see a legacy that speaks to the spirit and mind of man. To inform of potential, and to put all that I am, forward to those of the present and future.

I have to thank you for spending precious time observing my efforts, and I hope that you enjoy what you see here.