1

ReportonresearchFederationforEuropeanStorytellingNetwork

Strand3:Professionaldevelopmentofstorytellers

STORYTELLINGREVIVAL:CONTRIBUTIONSTOATHEORETICALBIBLIOGRAPHY

Instructionmanuals

Thefirstandmostexpressiveformofliteraturededicatedtothepracticeofstorytelling

ininstitutionalisedurbanenvironments,thatistosay,withinthecontextofstorytellingrevival

movements,canbefoundintheguiseof“instructionmanuals”andoriginatesintheAnglo-

Saxon educational reformmovement and in libraries organising “story time”. The driving

forcesbehindtheseactionsarethus,forthemostpart,womeneducatorsandlibrarians.A

fewspeciallinesshouldbedevotedtotheseauthors,giventheirexceptionalnature,notonly

outofchronologicalinterest–it’ssurprisingtofindsuchdynamismsoearlyinthehistoryof

storytellingrevivalmovements–,butalsoforthetimelessrelevanceoftheirdeliberationsand

fortheirpioneeringspirit.

In1905,SaraConeBryant,knowninparticularforherchildren’sbooks,publishedHow

toTellStoriestoChildren(Bryant1905).Thereislittlebiographicalinformationavailableon

theauthor,butshedoesherselfrevealthatheradventureasastorytellerfirstbeganwhen

teachingGermanliteraturetoadultstudents.Itcanthusbeconcludedthatsheworkedfirst

asateacherandthendevelopedhercareerasastorytellerinpublicschoolsandlibrariesin

2

Providence and Boston, as suggested by the acknowledgements appearing in the book’s

preface.Interestingly,theworkwastranslatedandpublishedinFranceshortlyafterwards,in

1911, under the titleCommentRaconter desHistoires à nos Enfants et quelquesHistoires

Racontées(Bryant1911).Nevertheless,itishardtodeterminetheimpacttheworkmayhave

had.Itisahighlycomprehensivemanual,whichopenswithafewobservationsonthefigure

of the storyteller and the difference between reading out loud and telling a story orally

withouttheuseofabook.Itmakesreference,eventhen,toarenewedinterestinthisactivity,

a consequence, according to theauthor,of the recognitionof itspedagogiceffectiveness.

Clearly backed by experience, she puts forward a methodology for selecting repertoires,

adaptingtexts,creativeprocesses,whileevenaddressingprosodicandgestural issues.She

also suggests exercises to do with children after the stories have been told. It contains,

therefore,asisoftenthecaseinthiskindofmanual,arepertoireofthirty-onestoriesadapted

bytheauthor,whichincludes,amongothers,folktalesandfables,Biblestoriesandalsotales

ofArthurian legend.Thesuggestedrepertoire isorganisedaccordingto levelofeducation:

kindergartenandclass I;classes IIand III;classes IVandV.Attheend,theauthoroffersa

bibliographyof“valuablesourcesforthestoryteller”,containingmorethanfiftypublications,

including, among others, collections of tales and myths, One Thousand and One Nights,

Grimm’sFairyTalesandAesop’sFables.TheobservationsBryantmakeswhenpresentingthis

bibliographyclearlyrevealsanawarenessofthespecificcharacteristicsofaperformancetext

asopposedtoaliterarytext:“Thebooksinwhichthestory-tellerreallyfindsworthymaterial

areveryfew;thosehavingthematerialinaformeasilyadaptedfortellingarefewer”(Bryant

1905:254).

Tenyearslater,in1915,MarieShedlock,anAnglo-Frenchschoolteacher,whohadan

importantinfluenceonAmericanlibrariesandschoolsintheearly20thcentury,published,in

3

theUnitedStates,TheArtoftheStoryteller(Shedlock1915).Havingtaughtatastateschool

forgirlsinLondon,attheageof46,MarieShedlockgaveupherprofessiontodevoteherself

entirelytostorytelling.ShebecameknownfortellingHansChristianAndersen’sFairyTales,

revealingastyledeemedinnovativefortheperiod.AugustaBakerwroteabouttheimpactof

Shedlock’sworkintheUnitedStatesatthetime:

Shedlockdidnotusetheaffectedspeechthatwasinvogueatthetime,norwasshedidactic.Itwas her inspiration, as she travelled around the United States telling stories and lecturing onstorytelling,thatgaveimpetustotheideaofstorytellingasatrueart.Shedlockinspiredotherstobecome storytellers, among them Anna Cogswell Tyler, Moore’s assistant at Pratt, and RuthSawyer,oneofAmerica'sbest-knownstorytellers.AfterShedlock’svisittoBostonin1902,regularlibrarystoryhourswereestablished(BakereGreene1977:9).

The Art of the Storyteller follows the same format as Bryant’s manual: a first part

dedicatedtomattersofpractice,followedbyarepertoireofstories.And,aswehavenoted

withBryant,behindShedlock’smanyreflectionsthereliesactual,establishedexperience.At

thebeginningofthemanual,theauthoroutlinescommondifficultiesinthepracticeoftelling

stories,includingissuesaboutthestoryitself,butalsoperformanceones.Inthiscontext,and

veryappropriately, shegives thereadera listof“dangers” that thestoryteller faceswhen

telling stories. Some examples are quite enlightening: the danger of adding too many

comments or side issues, of establishing interaction through questions, or of gauging the

effectofthestorythroughthevisiblereactionsoftheaudience.

The repertoire suggested contains literary versions from the most varied sources,

includingEuropeanandAsianversionsofstories,myths,legendsandfairytales,beforeending

withthreetalesbyHansChristianAndersen.JustlikeByrant,attheendofherbookShedlock

producesanextensivebibliography,organisedbysource,suchas,forexample,“Storiesfrom

theFairyBookSeries”byAndrewLang,andby subjects, suchas “Storiesdealingwith the

successoftheyoungestchild”(Shedlock1915:274-276).

4

Threeyearslater,AmericanKatherineDunlapCather,alsoachildren’sauthor,published

EducatingbyStory-Telling–ShowingtheValueofStory-TellingasanEducationalToolforthe

useofallWorkerswithChildren(Cather1918).DespitebeinglesscitedinEnglish-speaking

studies,with the exception of SimonHewyood (2001: 235), thisworkwas translated and

adaptedintoSpanishbyEliseoDiegoandMariaTeresaFreyredeAndrade(Cather1963).It

waspublishedinCuba,beforebecominga“BibleforCubanstorytellers”(Sanfilippo2007:79).

Whileitisdifficulttolocateanybiographicalinformationabouttheauthor,theprefaceofthe

book reveals that, just asBryant andShedlock, shehadworkedas a storyteller in various

contexts:

Thisbookhasgrownoutofyearsofexperiencewithchildrenofallagesandallclasses,andwithparents, teachers, librarians, and Sunday School, social centres, and settlement workers. Thematerial comprising it was first used in something like its present form in the University ofCalifornia Summer Session, 1914, and since then has been the basis of courses given in thatinstitution,aswellasinprivateclassesandlecturework(Cather1918:iii).

Inanearlypartofthebook,Cathersuggestsspecifictalesaccordingtoage,whilealso

suggestingtechniquesforpreparingandtellingstories,andincludesabibliographyinwhich

theworksofSaraConeBryantandMarieShedlockappear,amongothers.Thisisaworkwith

explicitandspecificpedagogicalaims,suchasthedevelopmentofatasteforliterature,for

musicoralsoforthearts,proposingrepertoiresandparticulartechniquesforeachofthese

cases.Inthesecondchapter,theauthorgoesontotalkaboutstorytellingasatoolforteaching

schoolsubjects,suchashistory,geographyandthesciences,providingstoriessuitabletothe

subjectmatter.LikeBryantandShedlock,Catherroundsofftheworkwithalistofstoriesfrom

diversesources,inwhichGermanicversionsoffolktalesplayadominantrole.Theauthoralso

published Story Telling for Teachers of Beginners and Primary Children (Cather 1921), the

officialmanualoftheSundaySchoolCouncilofEvangelicalDenominations,whichfocuseson

5

thepracticalissuesofthecreativeprocessandofperformance,whilealsooutliningstrategies

forpassingonamoralmessage.

Inactualfact,theearlydecadesofthe20thcenturyintheUnitedStatesofAmericaare

markedbytheproliferationofmanualsofthiskind,resulting,withoutdoubt,fromthegreat

momentumsurroundingoralstorytellingwithinthecontextofschoolsandlibraries.Other,

less cited works include: The Art of Story-Telling, by Julia Darrow Cowles (1914), also a

children’sfictionauthor,andSomeGreatStoriesandHowtoTellThem,byRichardThomas

Wyche (1910), one of fewmale exceptions to the rule.Wychewas also president of the

NationalStoryTeller’sLeague,foundedin1903attheUniversityofTennessee,attestingthe

growingmomentumexperienced at the time.Another exampleofmale exceptions in the

English-speakingworldisArthurBurrel,whopublishedAGuidetoStorytelling(Burrel1926).

Throughoutthe20thcentury,manualscontinuedtoappearintheUnitedStates,where

thesemovementscanbe seenearlieroraremoredocumented.Someof themostwidely

knownworks include, among others: TheWay of the Storyteller, by Ruth Sawyer (1942);

Storytelling:ArtandTechnique,byAugustaBakerandEllinGreene(1977);TheStoryteller’s

Source Book, by Margaret Read MacDonald (1982); and also, Storytelling: Process and

Practice,byNormanLivoandSandraRietz(1986).

Althoughinfewernumbers,youcanalsofindmanualspublishedinSouthAmericaand

inEuropeaftertheSecondWorldWar.ExamplesincludePuesseñor…CómoDebeContarseel

CuentoyCuentosparaSerContados,byElenaFortún(1991),aSpanishauthorlivinginexile

inArgentina,wherethebookwaspublishedin1947,orExpériencesdansl´ArtdeRaconterdes

Histoires,byJeanneCappe(1952),publishedinFrance.Theseworkssticktothesameformat

as their English-language predecessors, suggesting specific techniques for storytelling and

repertoirestosuitdifferentagegroups.AnotherexampleofamaleauthorcomesfromBrazil,

6

intheformofpedagogueandmathematicianJúlioCésardeMeloeSousa,who,in1957,under

the pseudonym Malba Tahan, publishes A Arte de Ler e Contar Histórias (Tahan 1957).

Following the same formatas themanuals, theauthor suggestsa repertoireandprovides

technicalpointersonstorytelling,highlightingthepedagogicaleffectivenessoftellingstories

inschools.

Despiteafewmaleexceptions,theauthorsofthesefirstmanualsare,aswehaveseen,

primarily women, women teachers and lady librarians. But, as these storytelling revival

movementsprogressandspread,inparticularfromthe1970sonwards,andmanualsofthis

kindproliferate,theauthorsandspecificcharacteristicsdiversify.Ultimatelytheseexamples

documentanactivitysincethebeginningofthe20thcenturyandidentifytheirmaincontexts:

schoolsandlibraries.Ontheotherhand,theseextraordinaryworksrevealthetechnicalissues

thatthesefirstexperiencesdeemedmostrelevant,predominatedbyrepertoiresofworks,

theireffectivenessandtheirspecificcharacteristics.Aboveallelse,theyclaimtherelevance

oforalstorytellinginworkwithchildren,highlightingtheirpedagogicalandplayfulaspects,

oneofthemost importantfactors in itsdevelopmentandprofessionalizationoverthe last

century.

Nowadaysthisbibliographyisendlessand“instructionmanuals”actuallyseemtobethe

most available and published form of literature about contemporary oral storytelling.

Unfortunately, although some of these manuals are serious and professional works,

supportedby years of experience and thusmaking available highly relevant concepts and

deliberations,thevastmajoritylacktheoreticalreferencesandpresentlimitingreflectionsof

littlescope.

7

Theoreticalworks

After“instructionmanuals”,thefirsttheoreticalworkonthestorytellingrevivalworth

lookingatis,withoutdoubt,TheWorldofStorytelling,byAnnePellowski(1990),published

forthefirsttime1977.Thisisprobably,andasPatrickRyanwrote,“themostinfluential,and

well-detailed,popularstudydescribingstorytelling”(Ryan2003:4).

HavingstudiedArtsandLibrarySciencesatColumbiaUniversity,Pellowskiworkedat

NewYorkPublicLibrary,whereshetookpartinaseminarwithAugustaBaker,whichledto

herinterestinoralstorytelling(Pellowski1990:xv).Sheisalsotheauthorofmanymanuals

(Pellowski1984,1987,1995).

InthefirstpartofthebookAnnePelowskiseekstodefineoralstorytelling,givingsome

historical references dating back to pre-classical examples.Despite being highly informed,

from the outset this quest reveals some weaknesses and the examples cited raise some

obstaclesdifficulttogetaround.Theproblem,asIseeit,liesinthetoofar-reachingdefinition

oforalstorytelling:

Thedefinitionofstorytellingusedhereis:theentirecontextofamomentwhenoralnarrationofstories in verse and/or prose, is performed or led by one person before a live audience; thenarration may be spoken, chanted, or sung, with or without musical, pictorical, and/or otheraccompaniment,andmaybelearnfromoral,printedormechanicallyrecordedsources;oneofitspurposesmustbethatofentertainmentordelightanditmusthaveatleastasmallelementofspontaneityintheperformance(Pellowski1990:18).

Accordingly,thedefinitiongivenbyPellowskicoversawidearrayofartforms,distinct

not only for procedures and techniques, but also for cultural and historical contexts. In

addition,theauthorundertakestoclassifystorytellingtypes,usingseeminglyvariablecriteria,

weakeningitslimitsandstudy.Inthecaseofthefirstkindofstorytelling,whichtheauthor

referstoasbardicstorytelling,thedefinitionstemsfromaperformancemodelinwhichartists

“createand/orperformpoeticoralnarrationsthatchronicleeventsorpraisetheactionsof

8

illustriousforbearsandleadersofatribal,culturalornationalgroup”(Pellowski1990:21).As

the author herself recognises, the boundaries between this type and the next, religious

storytelling,maybetenuous.Thedefinitioncriteriaofthissecondtypeofstorytelling,unlike

thepreviousone,whichissupportedontheperformancemodelandonthecontentofstories,

actuallyconcernsthefunctionandcontextattributedtoit.Inthewordsoftheauthor:

Religiousstorytellingisthatstorytellingusedbyofficialorsemi-officialfunctionaries,leaders,andteacherofareligiousgrouptoexplainorpromulgatetheirreligionthroughstories,ratherthanexclusivelythroughmemorizationoflaws,scripture,catechismandthelike(Pellowski1990:44).

Theauthordoesnotincludethetellingofreligiousstoriescarriedout“byordinaryfolk

ineveryday,non-ritualistic situations” (ibidem) in this type,highlighting the criteriaof the

context in the definition of the following types. As such, folk storytelling consists of the

practiceoftellingstoriesthattakeplaceineverydaylife,athome,atwork,insocialorreligious

gatherings,inthestreetsorinmarkets.Itshouldalsobekeptinmindthatinthedefinition

criteriaofthistype“thepersonswhotoldthestoriestoadultsandchildrenweregenerally

not trained in the art, except through practice and imitation” (Pellowski 1990: 66). The

classification of the following types (theatrical storytelling, library and institutional

storytelling, camp, park, and playground storytelling) clearly reveals the contexts defining

them.Inthecaseoftheatricalstorytellingtheauthorfocusesoninternationalexamples,and

inparticularorientalpractices,while in the libraryand institutional storytelling andcamp,

park, and playground storytelling chapters, references concern the contemporary North

Americansituation.Thelasttype,hygienicandtherapeuticstorytelling,isessentiallydefined

byitsclearfunctionsandaims.

In the third part of the work, Pellowski turns the spotlight on performance related

issues,inadescriptionofmodelsandtechniquestobefoundinvaryingtraditions.Shebegins

withopeningformulae,whilealsoincludingissuesrelatedtothecreativeprocesses.Thenshe

9

analysesmattersofstyleinvarioustraditions,includinglanguageprocedures,vocalworkand

modelsofinteractionwiththepublic.Shealsodevotesachaptertoaccompanyingmusical

instruments, organised by type: chordophones, idiophones, membranophones and

aerophones.Shealsofocusesonpropsusedindifferentstorytellingmodels,withparticular

attentiontoorientaltraditions,suchasKamishibaiorRakugo,whilealsoincludingstorytelling

aidedbyillustratedbooks,astrongelementincontemporaryoralstorytellinginEuropeand

theAmericas.Sheendsthispartofherworkfocusingonclosingformulae.

Inthefinalpartofthebook,theauthor looksattrainingmodels,formalor informal,

whilealsospendingtimeonmanualspublishedinEnglishthroughoutthe20thcenturyandthe

controversialissueofcopyrightonso-calledtraditionalstories.Sheclosesthispartreflecting

onissuesoforality,theculturalcontextualisationofstoriesandtheirpublicationincollections,

beforefinallydefendingtheuniversalityoftheactoftellingstories.Shealsodedicatesashort

finalchaptertolistsomefestivalsintheUnitedStates,CanadaandEurope.

Pellowski’sworkiswithoutdoubtthoroughanddedicated,aprocesspresentingalarge

varietyof sources, thuspromptingagreatdealof relevant reflection.Thework,however,

displaysweaknesses, resulting from the scopeof a concept of storytelling that allows the

inclusionofverydifferentpractices,ofparticulargeographicalandculturalbackgrounds.On

theotherhand,thecategoriessheproposesbecomesketchy,withthecriteriausedintheir

classificationunclear.Bethatas itmay,shedoesthiswithasensitivityallowingreflection,

raisingquestionsaboutcontext,functionandperformancespecifics.Aboveallelse,thelarge

amountofinformationcompiledandthemanylinesofenquiryitoffersareofgreatuseinany

theorisingonthepracticesoforalstorytelling.

AnotherimportantUSworkisTheStorytellers’Journey:AnAmericaRevivalbyJoseph

Sobol(1999).Despitenotbeingexplicitinthebook,wecanconcludethattheworkresults

10

from the thesis previously presented by the author, Jonesborough Days: The National

StorytellingFestivalandtheContemporaryStorytellingRevivalMovementinAmerica(Sobol

1994).TheworkdealsexclusivelywiththestorytellingrevivalintheUnitedStatesofAmerica,

focusing essentially on the history of the National Association for the Preservation and

PerpetuationofStorytellingfestival,inJonesborough,createdin1972.InfluencedbyJoseph

Campbell and by Victor Turner, and from a perspective that places his theory among

PerformanceStudies,Sobolanalysesthedevelopmentofthestorytellingrevivalphenomenon

and of the creation of the Jonesborough festival by making parallels to what he calls

“archetypalmyths”:

TheStoryteller´sJourney,then,isamythography,anexaminationoftheusesofmythinanartisticmovementwhosebasicprogramisthesearchformythinademythologizingtime.Itexaminesthestories we have told ourselves over the years to create, shape, and energize a vocationalcommunity(Sobol1999:15).

Possiblytooclosetothephenomenon,ascanbeseeninthequote,andfocusedonthe

discourseandimageryoftherevival,itmightbecomedifficulttofollowSobol’slineofthought

when you’re not a “devotee”, a term he uses throughout thework. The recognition of a

storytellerarchetype,theimagefuellingallthesediscourses,inadditiontotheanalysismade

ofthecareersoftheAmericanmovement’sartists,recognisingintheirvocationalnarratives

a motive of serendipity that finds parallels in artists in other places, are seminal to

understanding thisphenomenon.His analysisof revivalist imageryandof the festival as a

ritualexperienceinstrumentalintheconstructionofacommunityidentityisenlightening:

Community, in the storytellingmovement, is a termof virtually unchallenged good. It is a keyelement of the revival dialectic, inwhich an imagined past is invoked to summon images of arestoredfutureinordertobringhopeandfervortoatroubledpresent(Sobol1999:154).

Firstandforemostadocumentoftheintentionsandconvictionsofthoseattheheart

of themovement in theUnited States ofAmerica, Sobol’swork is primarily a careful and

11

refreshinganalysisofthisrevivalistphenomenon,enablingthebuildingofbridgeswithother

experiencesandunderstandingtheubiquityoftheimagerybehindtheseartisticmovements.

Ultimately,thisismoreahistoryoftheAmericanfestivalfromananthropologicalperspective

thanatheoryonstorytellingperformance,butitstillmakesaninvaluablecontributionand,

assuch,isastandoutworkinthebibliographyofthissubject.

Movingintothecurrentcentury,anddespitebeingaworkonasmallerscale,wecome

across another essential title on contemporary oral storytelling: Storytelling and Theatre:

ContemporaryStorytellersandtheirArt,byMichaelWilson(2006).Itis,asitsauthorexplains,

“unashamedly centred around storytelling in Britain and Ireland” (Wilson 2006: x). In any

event, the questionsWilson raises on the controversial relationship between storytelling

performanceandtheatrepractices, inparticularwithrespecttotheepictheatreofBertolt

Brecht,arehighlyuseful.Unfortunately,Wilson focuses toomuchon this relationshipand

thus disregards any other influences and conditions determining the storytelling revival

movements.Nonetheless,hepresentsamodel fundamental to theanalysisof storytelling

performance–performancecontinuum–,uponwhich,Ihopetoonedayhavetheopportunity

todevotemyself inafuturearticle.Aboveallelse,andgoingagainstmainstreamthought,

Wilsonrevealsahealthydistrustoftheseartisticdiscourses,presentingaconciseandsolid

definitionofcontemporaryoralstorytellingandstrivingtogainanobjectiveunderstandingof

the phenomenon upon which an entire contemporary mythology has been constructed.

Finally,hetreatsustoacherryonthetopofthecake:theprefacebyJackZipes(Wilson2006:

xiv-xviii).

InFrance,a largenumberofworkshavealsobeenpublishedandas in theprevious

cases,fromthehandsoftheartiststhemselves.Theyinclude,amongmanyothers:Brunode

la Salle, fundamental figure in the French movement, who published something of an

12

autobiography,Leconteuramoureux(LaSalle1995),inwhichsomereflectionsonthecraft

arejoinedbyselectedtales,inaddition,morerecently,toLettresàunJeuneConteur(LaSalle

2016); PépitoMatéopublisheda kindofmanual entitledElNarradorOral y el Imaginario

(Mateo2005),inwhichmanytheoreticalquestionsarebroachedandreflectedonand,more

recently,Descontesàrégler–Desrégleràconter(Mateo2017);MichelHindenochpublished

Conter:unArt?(Hindenoch2012),thetitleofwhichreflectsthecentralissueofhistheoryand

focusesonpracticalquestions,of translatingwriting intoperformance,of the storyteller’s

presenceandregard,withparticularattentiontothematterofvoiceandoflistening.

TurningourattentiontoSpain,PalabrasdeCandil,aneditorialprojectdedicatedtothe

worldoforalcontemporarystorytellingandofreadingmediation,headedbyPepBruno,has

made efforts to publish a theoretical collection inwhich recognised artists from the field

contribute.TranslatedpublicationssuchasthatofPépitoMatéoandBrunodelaSalle,already

mentioned,andalsoContarconloscuentosbyEstrellaOrtiz(2009),PalabradeCuenteroby

NicolásBuenaventuraVidal(2010),andElAnfitrión,elCocineroyelArtedecontarhistórias

devivavozbyJoséCampanari(2013)thuscontributetothetheoreticalliteratureofthefield

ofstorytelling.

TheseFrenchandSpanishexamples,amongothers,representabodyofwork,which,

without doubt, are contributing to the critical mass vital to the theoretical and practical

developmentofcontemporaryoralstorytelling.Verymuchdifferentintheirconcerns,intheir

stylesandproposals,theyconfigurealiteratureessentialtoreflectiononthepracticeoftelling

stories. They pull away from the traditional model of “instruction manual” and present

themselvesasobjectsoffluidreading,goingdeeperintheirtheorising.Inanyevent,theyare

theories arising from individual practice, seeking to pass on experiences and personal

techniques.Assuch,despitetheinvaluableusefulnesstheymayhaveinunderstandingthe

13

practice,intheirteachingandcomprehension,theircontributionstowardsawide-rangingand

systemisedtheoryaresomewhatlimited.

Unfortunately,thenoveltyofthephenomenonanditsmarginalisationmeanthatfew

theoreticalworkshavebeenproduced.Inacademiccircles,intheEuropeancontext,onlya

fewsolitaryresearchprojects,developedindiverseareas,haveresultedindoctoraltheses.

Forthemostparttheystrivetowardsahistoricalandsocialrepresentationofthestorytelling

revivalmovementsintheircountryorgeographicalcontext,oratleastputalotoftheirenergy

intothis.

In1998,MariadeLourdesPatrinipresentedathesistotheÉcoledesHautesÉtudesen

SciencesSocialesentitledLeConteurContemporain :uneétudede la transmissionetde la

réceptionoralesduconteenFrance,publishedlaterunderthetitleLesConteursseRacontent

(Patrini2011).FocusedontherenouveauduconteinFrance,theauthorusesamethodology

establishedinthoroughinterviewingandindiscourseanalysistoportraystorytellersandtheir

activity,whilegivinggreatimportancetothesocialaspectofthestorytellerprofessionand

also reflecting on the relationship between contemporary practice andoral tradition. It is

worthhighlightingthatshedidn’tjustinterviewartistsintherevivalistmovement,butalso

so-called“traditional”storytellers,thatistosay,ethnographicinformantsofstudiesmadein

the Auvergne region. She then contextualises and analyses the artistic movement,

characterisingthecontemporarypracticeasanewphenomenonoftheoraltradition,despite

recognising that “it isdifficult tomakeout theboundariesof thenewstyleof storytelling

modern society demands” (Patrini 2011: 101). Patrini also reflects on the figure of the

contemporarystoryteller,questioninghispractices,contextsandfunctions.Finally,sheturns

herthoughtstoperformance,analysingperformancesbyvariousstorytellersandtakinginto

14

account repertoire, use of scenic resources, the relationship between the storyteller and

publicandprosody.Herworkthusdrawsattentiontothecentralaspectofperformance:

Thecentralhypothesisofmyresearchwas thatperformance isa foundingelementof theoralformula.Itisdecisiveinhowefficientlytheoralstoryistransmitted,asthisiswhatallowsyoutograbthereceiveroftheoralmessage(Patrini2011:26).

IntheUnitedKingdom,ontheotherhand,SimonHeywoodpresentedtotheUniversity

ofSheffieldhisthesisStorytellingRevivalisminEnglandandWales:History,Performanceand

Interpretation (Heywood 2001). This work fits, according to the author, into the field of

Folklore Studies, as per the English-language name, while its aim is the study of the

phenomenonofthestorytellingrevivalinEnglandandWales,asthetitleimplies.

Inhisstudy,Heywooddefinesthestorytellingrevivalphenomenonasaprocess,which,

despitebeingdecentralised,isawareandprogrammatic,configuringanartisticmovement,or

asubculture,withintheanthropologicalmeaning.Herecognisesthekeyroleplayedbyso-

calledtraditionalnarrativesintheimaginationofthesemovements,whilearguingthattelling

wondertalestoadultaudiencesisa“novelty”ofthesecontemporarymovements.Theauthor

notes that, within the informal context between adults, and with the exception of epic

materialinverseandsong,repertoirespracticedintraditionalcontextsareshorterinnature,

suchaslifestories,incidents,anecdotes,orurbanlegends.Heywoodthusidentifiestheclear

purposeof thesemovementsof reintroducingwonder tales into contemporary culture, in

particular with respect to adults, in two different spheres: on the one hand, a group of

professionalsandsemi-professionals,whoworkinaccordancewithaculturaleconomy;on

theother,aninformalgroupofenthusiasts,organisedintointerestgroups.

In what is an essential contribution to understanding the phenomenon, the author

describeswhatheseesasthetwoguidinglinesofthesemovements:onethatpromotesthe

adaptation of narratives from cultures that are distant or in the past, with relation to

15

contemporarysocieties;otherthatadvocatestherevitalisationofanancestralartandofa

communitywayofbeingthathasdisappeared.Accordingtotheauthor,thecoexistenceof

thesediscoursescreatesablatantparadox,whichhesummarisesinthefollowingwords:“as

well as being essentially appropriative inmethod, storytellingmovements are apparently

reactionaryandnostalgicintoneandideology”(Heywood2001:4).

Thisishow,inaprocessofself-interpretationandself-representation,thetermrevival

entersthevocabularyofparticipantsandenthusiasts,conveyingtheideathatthispractice

represents the renaissanceof an art thathaspurportedlydisappeared. In this regard, the

authorrecognises“revivalism”asahistoricalprocess,thesocial,politicalandartisticdynamics

ofwhich tend to reject the immediatepast in favourof amythologised former time.This

“revivalism” thus encompasses other performing arts, such as music and dance, which

throughoutthe20thcenturyrevealedanewinterestforpopularandpastartisticexpressions.

Anditisinthiswaythattheterm“revivalism”isafundamentalconcepttounderstandingthe

storytellingmovementsinthemostvariedlocations.

Afterputting theBritishphenomenon intohistoricalcontext,Heywoodanalyses four

ongoingstorytellingperformanceeventsand,followingthemodelproposedbyDellHymes

(1974,1975,1996),focusesontheissuesofartisticdiscourses,ofrepertoiresandofreception,

whilealsoanalysingconversationalsituationsbetweenpractitionersandenthusiasts,inorder

torecognisesharedideas,convictionsandunderstandings.Hebrieflyaddressestheworkof

thestoryteller,focusingonperformingtechniques,inadditiontomusicalaccompanimentand

singing.However,theexaminationhereislessdetailed,favouringtheeventattheexpenseof

the poetic aspects of the performance. In the same sense, its study is limited to a very

particular event model, which, despite being well established in contemporary oral

storytelling circles,merely represents onemore of the proposals of this new discipline: a

16

sharedsession,withahostintroducingthesuccessivestorytellers.

Also from theUnited Kingdom,The Contemporary Storyteller in Context: A Study of

Storytelling inModernSociety isadoctoral thesisbyPatrickRyan (2003) submitted to the

UniversityofGlamorgan.Asinthepreviouscase,theauthorishimselfastoryteller,withUK

andUSbackgroundsashisreference.Withoutspendingtoomuchtimeputtingthings into

context,oronahistoricaldescription,Ryaninitiallyquestionstheartisticdiscoursesofthese

movements,highlightingthefactthattheyareessentiallyfoundedon“romantic”ideas,while

alsorecognisingtheneedforatheoryandforacriticallanguage.

Structuringhisthoughtonthebasisoftheideaof“text”,theauthorfocusesonvarious

mattersofrepertoire,andinparticularonthecognitiveandpsychologicalprocessesofpassing

onandenjoyingstories,aswellasontheirinfluenceonthestorytellingperformance.Healso

explorestherepertoiregenrescommonlypresentintheworkofstorytellers,questioningtheir

oral nature and analysing the influence of literature and film, among others. Here he

recognises three sources or genres: personal narratives, literary and traditional texts, and

thosehereferstoas“truetraditionalandfolknarratives”(Ryan2003:94).Whenanalysing

these“texts”,healsotouchesontheimportanceofparatextualityintheactofperforming

andhighlightsmetanarrativeaspects.Ryanalsoexplorestheideaofanidentityoftheartist,

centraltoamodelinwhichtheperformer,althoughidentifyingwiththeroleofstoryteller,

doesnotrepresentacharacter,ratherhimorherself.Accordingtotheauthor,ifthenarrator

fulfils this rolewhile telling stories, he/she alsodoesoutside the context of performance,

insomuch as he/she identifies with a socially recognisable figure: the storyteller. He thus

analysesthemotivations,discoursesandpracticesofstorytellersaroundthis“mega-identity”,

aswelltheirconstructionprocesses.

17

TakingthemethodologyproposedbyTamarAlexanderandMichalGovrin(1983),Ryan

assessesthethreestrandsmakingupstorytellingperformance:thetheatrical,theoratorical

andtheliterary.Thesestrandsmanifestthemselvesinmodesorstyles,onthebasisoftheuse

ofvoice,gestureandtothekindofrelationshipwiththeaudience.Accordingtotheauthor,

thesemodesare,primarily,theconsequenceofthepositionoftheperformerwithrelationto

thenarrative,andcanbecombined:thestorytellermode,inwhichtheperformeraddresses

himself/herselfdirectlytotheaudience;thesynopticmode,inwhichindirectspeechissimply

used; theproximatemode, inwhich theperformerbecomes so involved in the story that

he/sheiscompelledtomimicactionsandcharacters,andisabletousedirectspeech;andthe

character mode, in which the character or the characters of the story are performed.

However,despiterecognisingthecentralityofthe issuesofdistancebetweenthenarrator

and the narrative being represented, Ryan presents these modes as watertight forms,

questioninggivenoptionsonthebasisofpersonalunderstanding.

Theauthoralsodedicatesachaptertomattersofreception,takingontheroleofactive

observer. Inthisregard,herejectsasemioticreadingand instead looksfor instrumentsto

analysethementalprocessesofparticipantsduringtheexperienceoflisteningtostories:

Genuinestorytelling,inessence,existssolelyamonginteractionsofteller,listener,textandspace,with interaction leading to a qualitative transformation involving all participants’ cognition.Transformation, that is, an altered mental state such as liminality, flow and/or storytellingexperience,isrequiredifstorytellingistrulyanartform(Ryan2003:150).

Finally,Ryanturnstoquestionsofperformingandnarrativespace.Ontheonehandhe

focusesontheconcretespacesofthevenuesinwhichperformancestakeplace,inaddition

totheirorganisationandusebytheperformer,takingintoaccountaspectsofproxemics.On

theotherhand,heturnshisattentiontotextualandparatextualmeansofrepresentation,

andinparticularthecognitiveprocessesofstorytellersandlisteners.

18

Ryan’sreflectiononthediscoursesandromanticideasassociatedwiththestorytelling

revivalmovements,aswellashisprogressionintheanalysisofperformanceaspects,despite

presentingaparticularapproach,revealakeencriticalawarenessandarethusabreathof

fresh air. Unfortunately, at times the author presents a discourse clearly influenced by

convictions of aesthetic grounds, while establishing very subjective criteria of legitimacy,

identifyingwhat,forhim,isorisnot“true”inthesepractices,ascanbeseeninthequote

above.

Further south, in Europe, another thesis on this subject is El Renacimiento de la

NarraciónOralenItaliayEspaña(1985-2005)byMarinaSanfilippo(2007),submittedtothe

Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia in 2005, in the Department of Spanish

LiteratureandTheoryofLiterature,publishingittwoyearslater.Startingwithaquestionnaire

distributed to Spanish and Italian professionals, the author compiles an inventory and a

historyofthepracticeofstorytellingthroughouttwodecades.Firstandforemost,sheseeks

to address important issues, such as the controversial relationship between storytelling

performanceandthetheatreor,also,thedifferencesbetweenthecontemporarydiscipline

and what the so-called traditional practices would be. To this end she presents an

understandingoforalityasaphenomenonseparatetowriting,whichbringsoralstorytelling

closertootherperformingarts.Theauthorconcludesthat:

Oral storytelling is an art form that presents many elements that are also manifested incontemporary theatre, similarly to many scenic manifestation of popular culture, which 20thcenturyfigureshaverecoveredandreinstatedinculttheatre(Sanfilippo2007:67).

In this regard, she seems to see storytelling performance as a new theatrical form,

drawingpartlyontheexampleoftheItalianphenomenonofteatrodinarrazioneandthus

gettingclosertoMichaelWilson’sperspective.Sanfilippoalsogivesusabriefyetinformed

historicalcontextualisation,focusingonEuropeandLatinAmerica,beforethendescribingthe

19

phenomenoninSpain,elaboratingonsomeofitsleadingfigures,itsvenuesandevents.Here

sheidentifiestheimportanceoftwofactorsessentialtoitsdevelopmentintheearly1990s:

theworkdonebyGuadalajaraPublicLibraryandthetrainingactivitiescarriedoutbyFrancisco

GarzónCéspedes.Shealsoexplores,using thequestionnaires, the trainingbackgroundsof

storytellers, levels of commitment, whether they belong, or not, to an association of

professionals,thevenuesandtheaudiencestowhomtheyperform,therelationshipwiththe

repertoire, as well as other questions to dowith professionalization, while also including

considerationsonthelimitsandspecificcharacteristicsofstorytellingperformance.

WithregardtoItaly,theauthorputsthearrivalofthestorytellingrevivalintothecontext

ofthetheatricalrealm,accompanyingthedevelopmentoftheteatrodinarrazione,asalready

mentioned.Shethusstructuresherresearchintoleadingfiguresofthismovement,suchas

Marco Baliani, Marco Paolini and Ascanio Celestini, while focusing on some of their

performances, highlighting the political and social discourse present in thework of these

artists.

In a final chapter, the author turns her attention, primarily, to the figure of the

storyteller, expounding on their specific technical characteristics and observing the

representationsof“traditional storytellers”present in theworkof folklorists,before then,

usingthequestionnaires,focusingontheprofessionalsituationofcontemporarystorytellers.

Shethendevotesherenergiestoquestionsofrepertoireandcategorisestwodifferenttype

ofsource–traditionalandliterary–,recognisingthespecificconsequencesoftheseinthe

performance. With respect to the so-called traditional sources, she analyses, using the

questionnaires,theartist’srelationshipwiththeirsource,thecriteriabehindselectingastory,

aswellastheirgeographicalorigin.Whenitcomestoliterarysources,shecommentsonthe

20

processesof“oralisation”ofthetext,focusingonissuesrelatedtocopyright.Ingeneral,she

scrutinisesthecreativeprocessesusinganalysisofinterviewstothisend.

Sanfilippo’sworkisafundamentaldocumentforunderstandingthestorytellingrevival

movementinSpain.Itisathoroughandinformedstudy,whichsuggestsoptionsforreflection.

Unfortunately, as the author admits herself, it is quite unbalanced in its portrayal of the

situationsofSpainandItaly,giventhatshededicatesapproximatelytwenty-fivepagestothe

Spanish caseand fifty to the Italian. Similarly, the latter isportrayed in greaterdetail and

structured according to artists to whom the author dedicates some attention. Now, the

specific phenomenon of teatro di narrazione presents traditions, practices and contexts,

which, from my point of view, weaken how it fits into a study into storytelling revival

movements.ThisisastructuringoptionofSanfilippo’sthesisandseemsnottobesufficiently

argueddespitebeingexplicit:

Thepathsofthisrevivalhave,fromtheoutset,differentcharacteristicsinItalyandinSpain,aswillbeseenlater,andthisalsoimpliesthatthestudiesonthesubjectdon’thavethesameproportioninthetwocountries.InItaly,storytellingisapracticeperformedbytheatreartists,andis,accordingtosomecritics,anauthentictheatricalgenrewithincontemporaryItaliantheatre(Sanfilippo2007:19).

Theconsequenceofthisoptionisanapparentdisconnectionbetweenthestudyofthe

SpanishsituationandtheItalianone,presentingdifferentcontextsandpractices,whichthe

authorseemsnottobeabletomakecommunicate.Thelinguisticdistances,thedifferenceof

repertoires,typesofeventsandartisticbackgrounds,inadditiontotheincommunicabilityof

schedulingnetworksputintodoubt,attheendoftheday,ajointstudyontwophenomena,

whichseemmutuallyexclusive.

Morerecently,fromthefieldofsociology,Anne-SophieHaeringerpresentedherthesis

AcclimaterleContesousnoslatitudes:uneSociologiePragmatiqueduRenouveauduConte

(Haeringer2011)attheUniversityofLyon.Tobeginwiththeworkfocusesonthetaleinits

21

“bibliographic” state, reviewing the different approaches to studying so-called traditional

narratives, fromVladimirPropptoLévi-Strauss,whilealsohighlighting itspertinenceasan

ethnologicalobject.Theauthorthenpavesthewayforanalysingtherenouveauducontein

Franceasaprocessof“acclimatisation”ofthistextualmaterial,asperthetitleofthethesis.

Inthecontextof theFrenchphenomenon,theauthorrecognises, inwhat isahighly

valuablecontribution,twodifferentattitudespresentinthestorytellingrevivalmovement:

oneetnologisante[ethnologizing]strand,correspondingtoarevivalistandutilitarianrationale

of oral storytelling practices, and one esthétisante [aestheticizing] strand, which seeks to

affirm the artistic nature of these contemporary practices. She then begins her analysis,

approachingoralstorytellingasaninstrumentof“proximity”inthecontextofasocialproject

of the Forêt des Contes en Vocance, dedicated essentially to integrating immigrant

communities.Inthisfirstcasestudy,theeffectivenessofstoriesandoftheactofstorytelling

inworkwiththecommunityareunderconsideration.

Allof theseelements togethermake theForestofTales inVocance,andmoreparticularlyoralstorytelling,anexcellentinstrumentforpublicauthoritiesconcernedabouttheadministrationoftheir territories, worried about seeing relations between their inhabitants declining, exile andbreakingwithidentity,insecurity,isolationorruralexodus(Haeringer2011:239).

Inhersecondcasestudy,theworkofstorytellerJeanPocherot,theauthorexploresa

creativeprocessemanatingfromarepertoiremadeupof“graphic”texts,analysingtheway

in which writing and the spoken word, seemingly paradoxical, are combined in a new

“acclimatisation”.ShealsodescribesandanalysesheretheeventknownasLaNuitdesContes,

fosteredbythisstorytellerandbytheAteliersdelaRueRaisin.

Theauthorthenturnsherattentiontooralstorytellingasanartisticexpression.Forthis

sheusesthecaseofLabooftheMaisonduConteofChavilly-Larue.RunbyAbbiPatrix,atthe

timeofHaeringer’sstudy,theLaboisaspacebringingtogetherstorytellersinajointcreative

22

process,providinganinstitutionalframeworkas“artists”.Thusinthiscaseoralstorytellingis

nolongerseenasaninstrument,norasameansbywhichatraditionalstoryisupdated,rather

artàpartentière,consequentlyliftingthepracticetothestatusofartform.

Finally, Haeringer analyses the institutionalisation process of contemporary oral

storytellingthroughastructureworkingtowardsitsdisseminationandpromotion,seekingits

legitimisationbeforepublicauthorities.Inthisregard,hercasestudyisMondoral,aseriesof

activities by the French Ministry of Culture conceived by three creation and scheduling

structures: the Maison du Conte of Chavilly-Larue, the Conservatoire Contemporain de

LittératureOraleinVendômeandtheCentredesArtsduRécitinIsère.

Anne-Sophie Haeringer’s work is thorough, tackling issues of repertoires, artistic

discourse,creativeprocesses,while,giventhesociologicalnatureoftheapproach,makinga

detailedanalysisofthecontextsandconditionsforthedevelopmentoforalstorytelling in

France.Inthisregard,someaspectsofhertheorycanbeeasilyappliedintheanalysisofother

geographies,raisingquestionsandproposingpertinentanalysismethodologies.Inthesame

way,therecognitionofethnologizingandaestheticizingattitudesandmotivationswithinthe

storytelling revivalmovements, differentiating “applied”practice from the “art” form, is a

modelfundamentalforanystudyonthesubject.

Now, ifweturnourattentionpreciselytotheapplicationsoforalstorytelling, inthis

case, pedagogical ones, the number of academic works on this phenomenon increases

exponentially.Intheareaofteaching,specifically,wefindworkssuchas:Storytellinginthe

Classroom:TheoreticalandEmpiricalPerspectivesRelevanttotheDevelopmentofLiteracy,by

Jean Ferguson Dunning (1999), from the University of London; Storytelling as a Teaching

StrategyintheEnglishLanguageClassroominIceland,byPatienceAdjahoeKarlsson(2012),

from the University of Iceland; or Storytelling Engagement in the Classroom: Observable

23

Behavioural Cues of Children’s Story Experiences, by Julie Mundy-Taylor (2013), from the

UniversityofNewcastle;tonameafewexamples.Naturally,despitetheinteresttheyaroused,

thespecificitiesoftheseworks,theirgoals,methodologiesandconclusionsdidnotinformthis

shortreportandcouldwellbeaddressedatafuturedate.

To conclude, with respect to academic works, we should note the geographical

delimitationsoftheirsubjects,possiblythenaturalconsequenceofaneedformethodological

restriction.However, this “delimitation”,may often be presented as “limitation” because,

essentially, they do not take into account the diversity of repertoires, the ways they are

performed and the multiplicity of contexts this phenomenon presents, hindering the

transpositionofconceptsandmethodologies.Itshouldalsobenotedthattheyfitintodiverse

study areas, presenting different approaches andmethodologies and that,maybe for this

reason,andwiththeexceptionoftheBritishworks,arenotmutuallyinforming.MariaPatrini’s

thesisfallswithinanthropologystudies,attheÉcoledesHautesÉtudesenSciencesSociales,

andwaswrittenundertheguidanceofNicoleBelmont,aleadingfigureinthestudyoforal

tradition.SimonHeywoodandPatrickRyanalsostartfromverydifferentapproaches.Forits

part,MarinaSanfilippo’sresearchfallsunderthescopeofadepartmentofSpanishliterature

andtheoryofliterature.AsfortheworkofAnne-SophieHaeringer,carriedoutattheFaculty

ofAnthropologyandSociologyoftheUniversityofLyon,thisisastudythatisopenlypartof

theschoolofFrenchpragmaticsociology.Thisishow,actually,withtheexceptionofPatrick

Ryan,whooftenreferstoSimonHeywood’sthesis,theotherworksarenotinterrelated.In

Anne-SophieHaeringer’sthesis,eventhoughMariaPatrini’sworkappearsinthebibliography,

itsinfluencegoesunnoticed.Foritspart,MarinaSanfilipporeferstononeoftheothertheses.

Thisdiversityreflectstheinterestthatthephenomenonarousesindifferentdisciplines,

revealingitstrans-disciplinarypotential.However,thisdiversityexpressesfirstandforemost

24

thetheoreticalabandonmentofthesepractices.Aconsequenceofthisisanabsenceofshared

communication,conceptsandanalysismodels,which,madeworsebythelinguisticdiversity

andbytheconcisegeographicaldelimitationofthephenomenastudied,hindersanydialogue.

CollectionsandSeminarMinutes

In the meantime, throughout the developing storytelling revival, to some extent

everywhere,collectionsonthesubjecthaveappeared,withvaryingacademiccontribution.

Some of theseworks reveal a trans-disciplinary effort, bringing together in a single work

contributionsoriginatingfromdifferentdisciplines.ThisisthecaseofWhoSays?Essayson

Pivotal Issues inContemporaryStorytelling,editedbyCarolL.BirchandMelissaA.Heckler

(1996). This is a collection that, according to the editors, brings together articles by

“storytellers, folklorists, anthropologists, and theorists in the fields of literature,

communication,educationandtheperformingarts”(BirchandHeckler1996:9).Thiswork

represents the effort to promote a systematic and trans-disciplinary reflection on

contemporary oral storytelling, focusing on questions of repertoire, of the relationship

betweencontemporarypracticeandoraltradition,aswellasonperformanceaspects. It is

worthnoting the contributionbyBarreToelkenwith thearticle “The Icebergsof Folktale:

Misconception,Misuse,Abuse”(BirchandHeckler1996:33-63),adetachedandcriticalview

oftheprejudiceanddiscourseonoralstorytelling,whichstandsoutfromtherestofthetexts.

Anothercollectionwithtrans-disciplinaryintentionsisDimeCómoCuentas...Narradores

Folklóricos y Narradores Urbanos Profesionales, coordinated by María Inés Palleiro and

FernandoFischman(2009).Withamorepronouncedacademicdimension,theworkfocuses

ontherelationshipbetweencontemporarypracticeandoraltraditioninSouthAmerica.The

contributions, essentially from the two coordinators, seek a definition of what they call

25

narraciónoralescénica[scenicoralnarration]andfocusasmuchonquestionsofperformance

asrepertoire.Inthisregard,theyanalysetheprocessesof“acclimatisation”,toreturntothe

termofAnne-SophieHaeringer,withinthecontextoftheactivityof,intheirwords,“urban

andprofessionalstorytellers”.

In another sense, some works compile contributions by storytellers themselves,

proposingreflectionsonthepractice,accountsofpersonalbackgrounds,witnessaccountsof

thesituationofthecountryoroftheregioninwhichtheywork.ThisisthecaseofBrazilian

publications, such asContadores de Histórias: Um Exercício paraMuitas Vozes, by Benita

Prieto(2011),andAArtedeEncantar:OContadorContemporâneoeseusOlhares,organised

byFabianoMoraesandLeniceGomes(2012).

BackinFrance,influentialeventsgiverisetothepublicationofminutes.Thefirst,the

conferenceheldattheMuséeNationaldesArtsetTraditionsPopulairesin1989,resultedin

thepublicationofLeRenouveauduConte–TheRevivalofStorytellingunderthedirectionof

GenevièveCalame-Griaule(2001).Itpredominantlyreliesonthecontributionofstorytellers

toreflectonthenatureoftherenouveauducontestorytellingrevivalmovement,whilealso

pursuing an international image of the phenomenon, and featuring the participation of

internationalartists.Thecontributionsalso focusonquestionsof repertoire,on the social

functions of the practice of oral storytelling, aswell as on the activity of artists and their

differentapproaches.Thesecondevent,PourquoiFaut-ilRaconterdesHistoires?,organised

attheThéâtreduRond-Pointin2004,sawitsminutespublishedintwovolumes,underthe

directionofBrunodeSalle,MichelJolivet,HenriTouatiandFrancisCransac(2005and2006),

andreliedessentiallyoncontributionsfromartists.

26

Periodicals

Ifwewere to focus solely on the European context, therewould be fewmagazines

dedicatedtothesubject.IntheUK,thereareatleasttwo:Facts&Fiction1andStoryline,from

theSocietyforStorytelling2,theeditorofwhichis,todate,SimonHeywood.InFrance,oneof

themostwidely circulatedmagazines is thequarterly LaGrandeOreille3. In Catalonia the

magazine Tantágora4, is published weekly in digital format. Also in Spain, AEDA, the

associationofprofessionalsalreadymentioned,publishesthemagazineElAedo5online.Itis

hardtotracktheinfluenceofthesepublications,butwecanassumethattheirdistribution

does not go beyond the specific context of their artistic movements and their linguistic

barriers.

Conclusionandfurtherbibliography

Finally, I feel bound tomentioningmyown thesis, entitledNarração oral: umaarte

performativaandpresentedtotheUniversidadedoAlgarve in2016intheareaofCulture,

Communication andArts. This reference also serves to allude to other titles that I see as

essentialinatheoreticalbibliographydedicatedtostorytellingperformance.

Isoughttoprovideinthisthesisaframeworkforthestudyofstorytellingperformance

withinthecontextofartisticstudies,especiallytheperformingarts.Addressingthepractices

of these artists, and focusedon the poetic aspects, the primary goal of the thesiswas to

contributetoanontologyandtoanepistemologyofcontemporaryoralstorytelling.

1http://www.petecastle.co.uk/fandf/enter.htm(viewedonApril20,2018).2http://www.sfs.org.uk/storylines(viewedonMarch15,2016).3http://www.lagrandeoreille.com/(viewedonApril20,2018).4http://tantagora.net/category/4-edicio/revistes/(viewedonMarch15,2016).5http://narracionoral.es/index.php/es/biblioteca/revista-el-aedo(viewedonApril20,2016).

27

Inadditiontothetitlesnotedthroughoutthisreport,thebibliographicalresearchupon

whichmyresearchwasbasedhasaclearlytrans-disciplinarycharacter.Tosomeextentthisis

due to a perspective that underlies the ontological arguments of contemporary oral

storytellingintwoessentialaspects:thefirst,thefactthatthisisaformofexpressionthat

arises inperformance,alongside, therefore,practicessuchasdance,circusor theatre; the

second,presentingadiscoursefocusedonthevoiceofanextradiegeticnarrator,thushaving

verbal discourse as the main representation strategy. Taking these two arguments into

account,someseminalcontributionsnaturallycamefromTheatreandPerformanceStudies

throughauthorssuchasPeterBrook(1977),BertoltBrecht(1978,1994),PeggyPhelan(1993),

Robert Abirached (1994), Peter Szondi (2001), Richard Schechner (2003, 2006), Philip

Auslander (2003), Erika Fischer-Lichte (2005, 2014), Hans-Thies Lehmann (2006), among

others.6 However, if theatre and performance theory provides analysis concepts and

instruments, or if it enables reflection on the role of narration or of the narrator in the

performing arts, it is Narratology that provides the essential means to think of the

representationstrategiesfocusedontheverbaldiscourseofastoryteller.Thecontributions

ofnarrativetheorythusseemfundamental,suchastheworksofGérardGenette(1996,1980,

1986),SeymorChatman(1978),MonikaFludernik(1996,2009),amongothers.7

Ontheotherhand,asthisisanartisticmovementthatseeksmuchofitsrepertoirein

folktales,acomparativeapproachwouldfindessentialtoreviewtheinternationalcatalogue

ofHans-JorgUther(2004),aswellasthemanynationalcatalogues.8Inthesamesense,also,

studiesonso-calledtraditionalnarratives,intheirmanyperspectivesandsubjectareas–from

the field of literature to folklorist studies, or from anthropology to psychoanalytical

6SeeBibliography.7SeeBibliography.8Idem.

28

approaches –, can contribute in the analysis of storytelling performance. A thorough

presentationisnotpossibleinthisreport,butIcannamesomeoftheauthorsandtheworks

perusedduringmyresearch:AlanDundes(1965),JosephCampbell(1968),JackZipes(1979),

BengtHolbek(1987),MarinaWarner(1995),Marie-LouiseVonFranz(1995),IsabelCardigos

(1996),NicoleBelmont(1999),BrunoBettelheim(2010),RuthB.Bottigheimer(1986),Juan

JoséFerrer2013),amongothers.9

Othertheoriesbringtotheforetheartisticaspectsoforality,suchastheseminalworks

ofRomanJakobsonandPëtrBogatyrëv (1982)orAlbertLord (1960),or in thewidespread

workofWalterOng(2002),perspectivesthat,amongothers,underpinperformance-oriented

approaches.ContributionsoffolkloristssuchasRichardBauman(1984,1986),RuthFinnegan

(1977, 1988, 1992), Linda Dégh (1989; 1995), Paul Zumthor (1990) and Calame-Griaule,

Geneviève(1977),amongothers10thusseemfundamentaltome.

On our way to a conclusion, it should be noted that the theoretical bibliography

presented here has obvious limitations that should be stated for the record. Taking into

accountthetitlesarisingfromthespecificcontextofstorytellingrevivalmovements,andto

which I firstpaidattention in this report, it shouldbenoted that thedisciplinarydiversity

prevents a mobility of content through research networks and specialist publications.

Secondly,ifthegeographicaldiversityofthephenomenonestablishesaninterestingrangeof

contexts, it also hinders, for reasons to dowith distribution networks, knowledge of and

accesstoparticulartitles.Finally,andnolessimportant,wemustacknowledgethelinguistic

constraintssignificantlylimitingtheterritoryofthisresearch:thelanguagesIwasabletofocus

9Idem.10Idem.

29

onwerePortuguese,Spanish,FrenchandEnglish.Inshort,itwouldbeuptoothers,Ihope,to

bringtothisworkcontributionsthatareabsentforthereasonsoutlined.

Inanyevent,Ibelievethelackoftheoreticalproductionintheareaoforalstorytelling

asacontemporaryphenomenonandartisticpracticeiscleartosee.Thedisciplinarydiversity

ofthisbibliographynotonlyreflectsacross-disciplinarynature,butaboveallelse,anabsence

ofsharedallegiance,alackoftheoreticaledifice,ofspacewithinacademia,ofconceptsand

specificmethodologies.

Indeed,thestudyoforalperformanceascontemporaryartisticpracticeisstillrelegated

tothesidelines,anabandonmentthatallowsittobeacceptedonemomentinthecontextof

folklorestudies,thenextintheoryofliterature,andthenextinsociologyandanthropology,

andneverintheframeworkofperformingarts,asIhavesoughttodointhecontextofmy

research.Ontheotherhand,theexistingreflectionis,ascanbeseen,normallylimitedtoa

concise territory, thushighlighting thespecificcharacteristicsof itscontexts,practicesand

agents. In this regard, the geographical diversity of the phenomenon, the absence of a

common critical language and, finally, the linguistic variety, hinder the transposition of

conceptsandmodelsofanalysisintoothersituations.Itshouldalsobenotedthatmuchof

thistheoryhasbeenproducedbytheartiststhemselves,whichinitselfdoesn’trepresenta

problem, but reflects the situation of marginalisation of these practices. With very few

exceptions,suchasthoseofAnne-SophieHaeringer(2011),academicinterestfortheartistic

practiceoforalstorytellingincontemporarysocietieshasyettogobeyondthecirclesofits

practitionersandenthusiasts.

Inthisregard,Ibelieveweneedtoacknowledgetheurgentneedforaninclusivetheory

that allows us to capture the diversity of the phenomenon and of concepts that enable

30

communicationbetweenthesedifferentsituations.Indeed,thishasbeenoneoftheessential

questionswhenreflectingonthesubject:

Oneofthemostpivotalissuesinstorytellingtodayishowtorespectdifferentmodelsindevelopingacriticallanguageforapproachingandassessingcontemporarystoryoccasionswithwidelydiverseaudiences,tellers,andtypesofmaterial(BircheHeckler1996:9).

Adecade laterMarinaSanfilippoalsoacknowledgesthe lackof theoreticalworks,as

wellastheneedtodrawondiversedisciplines:

throughoutmyresearchIwillusetheresourcesofferedbyliterarycriticism(initsdualnarrativeand dramatic aspects), linguistics, communication theory and rhetoric, folklore and ethnology,sociology,etc.,inanefforttodelimitanobjectofstudysuchasartisticorliteraryoralstorytelling,whichfewscholarshaveapproached(Sanfilippo2007:16).

PatrickRyan,forhispart,inacknowledgingthislack,suggestssomeofthereasonsfor

it:

Thelackofaworkable,criticallanguageincontemporarystorytellingarisespartlybecauseinthepastculturalcriticsignoredstorytelling,ortookitanditsmeaningforgranted.Nolanguagewasestablishedtoquantifyandqualifyitsdevelopment,neitherwasitshistoryconsistentlyconsideredorportrayed.Perhapsthiswasbecauseofitsubiquitousnature,orbecauserarereportsmostlydescribeitastheactivityofwomen,children,andtheelderly:beinganactivityofthemarginalized,storytellingwasconsideredunworthyofseriousstudy(Ryan2003:1).

Inthisquote,Ryanacknowledgesthetwomainobstaclestothelegitimisationoforal

storytelling,notonlyasanartisticdiscipline,butalsoasanobjectofstudy:ontheonehand,

theubiquityoftheactoftellingstoriesrevealsittothescopeofeverydaylifeandpresentsit

asanon-specialistpractice;ontheother,representationproducedbyanurbanandliterate

culture, partly inherited from romantic discourses, in preserving prejudice relating to the

means andagentsof transmissionoforal heritage, delay its legitimisationas anobjectof

study.

Inthisrespect,andregardlessofitspossiblecauses,thetheoreticalshortfallwithinthe

scope of contemporary oral storytelling practices makes essential the construction of a

commonandall-encompassingtheoreticaledifice,withanalysismodelsandacriticallanguage

31

ableto,ontheonehand,consideritsspecificcharacteristicswithinperformingartsand,on

theother,takeonboarditsdiversityofcontexts,agentsandwaysitcanbedone.

LuísCorreiaCarmeloFaro,20thMarch2018

ThisprojecthasbeenfundedwiththesupportoftheEuropeanCommission.Thispublicationreflectstheviewonlyoftheauthor,andtheCommissioncannotbeheldresponsibleforanyusewhichmaybemadeoftheinformationcontainedtherein.

32

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Instructionmanualsandtrainingresources

Baker,Augusta,&EllinGreen.1977.Storytelling:ArtandTechnique.NewYork&London:R.K.Bowker.

Bryant, Sara Cone. 1905. How to Tell Stories to Children. Boston & New York: Houghton MifflinCompany.

Bryant, Sara Cone. 1911. Comment Raconter des Histoires à nos Enfants et quelques HistoiresRacontées.Trans.EliséeEscande.Paris:EditionsNathan.

Burrel,Arthur.1926.AGuidetoStorytelling.London:GryphonBooks.

Campanari,José.2013.ElAnfitrión,elCocineroyelArtedeContarHistoriasdeVivaVoz.ColecciónenTeoría.Guadalajara:PalabrasdeCandil.

Cather,KatherineDunlap.1918.EducatingbyStory-Telling:ShowingtheValueofStory-TellingasanEducationalToolfortheuseofallWorkerswithChildren.NewYork:WorldBookCompany.

Cather,KatherineDunlap.1921.StoryTelling forTeachersofBeginnersandPrimaryChildren.NewYork:TheCaxtonPress.

Cather, Katherine Dunlap. 1963. El Cuento en la Educación. Tradução de Maria Teresa Freyre deAndradeeEliseoDiego.Havana:BibliotecaNacionalJoséMartí.

Colwell,Eileen.1980.Storytelling.London,Sydney&Torono:TheBodleyHead.

Cowles,JuliaDarrow.1914.TheArtofStory-Telling.Chicago:A.C.McClurg&Co.

Etchabarne,DoraPastorizade.2008.ElArtedeNarrar:UnOficioOlvidado.BuenosAires:EditorialGuadalupe,[1978].

Fortún,Elena.1991.Puesseñor…CómoDebeContarseelCuentoyCuentosparaSerContados.PalmadeMaiorca:JoséJ.deOlañeta.

Fortún,Elena.2008.ElArtedeContarCuentosalosNiños.ColecciónNarrativa,2.Sevilha:EspueladePlata,[1947].

Green,Ellin.1996.Storytelling:ArtandTechnique.WestportandLondon:LibrariesUnlimited.

Hollingsworth, Sue & Ashley Ramsden. 2013. The Storyteller’s Way: Sourcebook for InspiredStorytelling.Gloucestershire:HawthornePress.

Livo, Norman e Rietz, Sandra. 1986. Storytelling: Process and Practice. Santa Barbara: LibrariesUnlimited.

MacDonald,MargaretRead.1982.TheStoryteller´sSourceBook:ASubject,Title,andMotifIndextoFolkloreCollectionsforChildren.Detroit:Gale.

MacDonald,MargaretRead.1985.TwentyTellableTales.NewYork:H.W.Wilson.

MacDonald,MargaretRead.1993.TheStoryteller´sStart-UpBook.LittleRock:AugustHouse.

Machado,Regina.2004.Acordais–FundamentosTeórico-poéticosdaArtedeContarHistórias.BarraFunda:EditoraDCL.

Mateo,Pepito.2005.ElNarradorOralyelImaginario.ColecciónenTeoría.Guadalajara:PalabrasdeCandil.

Mateo,Pepito.2017.Descontesàrégler-Desréglesàconter.Nimes:AtelierBaie.

Ortiz,Estrella.2009.ContarconlosCuentos.ColecciónenTeoría.Guadalajara:PalabrasdeCandil.

33

Ortiz,Estrella.2014.ContarconlaPoesía.ColecciónenTeoría.Guadalajara:PalabrasdeCandil.

Palleiro,MaríaInés&FernandoFischman(dir.).2009.DimeCómoCuentas...NarradoresFolklóricosyNarradoresUrbanosProfesionales.BuenosAires:MiñoyDávila.

Patrini,Maria.2002.LesConteursseRacontent.Genève:Slatkine.

Pellowski,Anne.1984.TheStoryVine:ASourceBookofUnusualandEasy-to-TellStoriesfromaroundtheWorld.NewYork:Macmillan.

Pellowski, Anne. 1987.The Family StorytellingHandbook:How toUse Stories, Anecdotes, Rhymes,Handkerchiefs,Paper,andOtherObjectstoEnrichYourFamilyTraditions.NewYork:Macmillan.

Pellowski,Anne.1995.TheStorytellingHandbook:AYoungPeople´sCollectionofUnusualTalesandHelpfulHintsonHowtoTellThem.NewYork:SimonandSchusterBooksforYoungReaders.

Regroupement du Conte au Québec. 2017. Référentiel de Compétences du Conteur. Montréal:RegroupementduConteauQuébec.

Ross,RaymondRoyal.1972.Storyteller.LittleRock:AugustHouse.

Sawyer,Ruth.1976.TheWayoftheStoryteller.NewYork:PenguinBooks[1942].

Shedlock,Marie.1915.TheArtoftheStoryteller.NewYork:D.Appelton&Company.

Tahan,Malba.1957.AArtedeLereContarHistórias.RiodeJaneiro:Conquista.

Wendt,Selene.2013.TheArtofStorytelling.Milano:SkiraEditore.

Wyche, Richard Thomas. 1910. Some Great Stories and How to Tell Them. New York: Newson &Company.

Theoreticalworks,CollectionsandSeminarMinutes

Alexander, Tamar, &Michal Govrin. 1989. “Story-Telling as a Performing Art”. Assapa: Studies inTheatre,C:1-34.

Andersen,Lene.2011.“ContemporaryStorytellersandTraditionalFolkNarrativesinDenmark”.Fabula,52:43-57.

Birch,CarolL.,&MelissaA.Heckler(eds.).1996.WhoSays?EssaysonPivotalIssuesinContemporaryStorytelling.LittleRock:AugustHouse.

Calame-Griaule,Geneviève(dir.).2001.LeRenouveauduConte:TheStorytellingRevival.Paris:CNRSÉditions.

CollectifLitorale.(dir.)2014.L’ArtduConteenDixLeçons.Montréal:PlanèteRebelle.

Görög-Karady, Veronika. 1990. “The New Professional Storyteller in France”. In Storytelling inContemporarySocieties,eds.RohrichLutzeSabineWienker-Piepho,173-183.Tubingen:GunterNarrVerlag.

Haeringer,Anne-Sophie.2011.AcclimaterleContesousnosLatitudes:UneSociologiePragmatiqueduRenouveauduConte.UnpublishedPhdThesis,UniversityofLyon.

Haggarty,Ben.1996.SeektheVoiceoftheCritic.London:DaylightPress/SocietyforStorytelling.

Haggarty,Ben.2004.MemoriesandBreath:ProfessionalStorytellinginEnglandandWales.S.l.:CentrefortheResearchandDevelopmentofTraditionalStorytelling.

Heywood, Simon. 2001. Storytelling Revivalism in England and Wales: History, Performance andInterpretation.UnpublishedPhdThesis,UniversityofSheffield.

34

Jolivet,Michel(ed.)1995.LeConteurEn-Jeu:ActesduColloquedes14et15Décembre1994.Chevilly-Larue:LaMaisonduConte/CentreCultureldeChevilly-Larue.

Karlsson, Patience Adjahoe. 2012. Storytelling as a Teaching Strategy in the English LanguageClassroominIceland.UnpublishedPhdThesis,UniversityofIsland.

MacManus,Seumas.1912.ARenaissanceinStorytelling.Publications,110.NewYork:PlaygroundandRecreationAssociationofAmerica.

Morais,Fabiano,&LeniceGomes(org.).2012.AArtedeEncantar:OContadorContemporâneoeseusOlhares.SãoPaulo:CortezEditora.

Mundy-Taylor,Julie.2013.StorytellingEngagementintheClassroom:ObservableBehavioralCuesofChildren´sStoryExperiences.UnpublishedPhdThesis,UniversityofNewcastle.

Norflok, Sherry & Jane Stenson. 2017. Engaging Community Through Storytelling: Library andCommunityProgramming.SantaBarbara:ABC-CLIO.

Pellowski,Anne.1990.TheWorldofStorytelling.NewYork:TheH.W.WilsonCompany.

Prieto,Benita.2011.ContadoresdeHistórias:UmExercícioparaMuitasVozes.RiodeJaneiro:PrietoProduçõesArtísticas.

Ryan,Patrick.2003.TheContemporaryStorytellerinContext:AStudyofStorytellinginModernSociety.UnpublishedPhdThesis,UniversityofGlamorgan.

Sanfilippo,Marina.2007.ElRenacimientodelaNarraciónOralenItaliayEspaña(1985-2005).TesisDoctoralesCumLaude,43.Madrid:FundaciónUniversitariaEspañola.

Sobol, Joseph Daniel. 1994. Jonesborough Days: The National Storytelling Festival and theContemporaryStorytellingRevivalMovementinAmerica.UnpublishedPhdThesis,UniversityofNorthwestern.

Sobol, Joseph Daniel. 1999. The Storytellers’ Journey: An American Revival. Urbana & Chicago:UniversityofIllinoisPress.

Vidal,NicolásBuenaventura.2010.PalabradeCuentero.ColecciónenTeoría.Guadalajara:PalabrasdeCandil.

Wilson,Michael.2006.StorytellingandTheatre:ContemporaryStorytellersandTheirArt.Theatre&PerformancePractices.Hampshire:PalagraveMacmillan.

Wischner,ClaudiaMarch.1991.TheStorytellingExperience:HowSelectedContemporaryStorytellersPerceivetheirArt.UnpublishedPhdThesis,UniversityofNewYork.

FolkTales,FairyTalesandOralTradition

Bauman,Richard.1984.VerbalArtasPerformance.ProspectHeights:WavelandPress.

Bauman, Richard. 1986. Story, Performance, and Event: Contextual Studies of Oral Narrative.CambridgeStudiesinOralandLiterateCulture,10.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Belmont,Nicole.1999.PoétiqueduConte:EssaisurleContedeTraditionOrale.Paris:Gallimard.

Ben-Amos,Dan.1975.SweetWords:StorytellingEventsinBenin.Philadelphia:ISHI.

Bettelheim,Bruno.2010.TheUsesofEnchantment:theMeaningandImportanceofFairyTales.NewYork:RandomHouseInc.

Boggs,RalphS.1930.IndexofSpanishFloktales:AClassificationandBibliography.FFComunications,

35

90.Helsinki:AcademiaScientiarumFennica.

Bottigheimer,RuthB.(ed.)1986.FairyTalesandSociety:Illusion,AllusionandParadigm.Philadelfia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.

Brunvand,JanHarold.2006.AmericanFolklore:AnEncyclopedia.London&NewYork:Routledge.

Calame-Griaule, Geneviève. 1977. “Pour une étude des gestes narratifs”. In Langage et CulturesAfricaines: Essaisd´Ethnolinguistique, editadoporGenevièveCalame-Griaule, 303-359.Paris:FrançoisMaspéro.

Camarena,Julio,eMaximeChevalier.1995.CatálogoTipológicodelCuentoFolklóricoEspañol:CuentosMaravillosos.Madrid:Gredos.

Campbell,Joseph.1968.TheHerowithaThousandFaces.NewJersey:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Cardigos, Isabel. 1996. In and Out of Enchantment: Boold Symbolism and Gender in PortugueseFairytales.FFCommunications,260.Helsinki:AcademiaScientiarumFennica.

Cardigos,Isabel.2006.CatalogueofPortugueseFolktales.FFCommunications,291.Helsinki:AcademiaScientiarumFennica.

Dégh,Linda.1989.FolktalesandSociety:Story-tellinginaHungarianPeasantCommunity.Trans.EmilyM.Schossberger.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

Delarue, Paul& Ténèze,Marie-Louise. 1997. Le Conte Populaire Français: Catalogue Raisonné desVersionsdeFranceetdesPaysdeLangueFrançaised´Outre-mer.Paris:MaisoneuveetLarose.

Dundes,Alan.(ed.)1965.TheStudyofFolklore.EnglewoodCliffs:PrenticeHall.

Dundes, Alan. 1964.TheMorphology ofNorthAmerican Indian Folktales. FF Communication, 195.Helsinki:AcademiaScientiarumFennica.

Dundes,Alan.1980.InterpretingFolklore.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

Falassi, Allesandro.1980. Folklore by the Fireside: Text and Context of the Tuscan Veglia. London:ScholarPress.

Ferrer,JuanJoséPrat.2013.HistoriadelCuentoTradicional.Urueña:FundaciónJoaquínDíaz.

Finnegan,Ruth.1977.OralPoetry:ItsNature,SignificanceandSocialContext.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Finnegan,Ruth.1988.LiteracyandOrality.Oxford:BlackwellPublishers.

Finnegan,Ruth.1992.OralTraditionsandtheVerbalArts:AGuidetoResearchPractices.London&NewYork:Routledge.

Finnegan,Ruth.2003.“Oralityandliteracy:epicheroesofhumandestiniy?”InternationalJournalofLearning,10:1551-1560.

Haase, Donald. 2007a. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Folktales & Fairy Tales. Vol. I. Westport:GreenwoodPress.

Haase, Donald. 2007b. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Folktales & Fairy Tales. Vol. II. Westport:GreenwoodPress.

Holbek, Bengt. 1987. Interpretation of Fairytales. Danish Folklore in a European Perspective. FFComunnications239.Helsinki:AcademiaScientiarumFennica.

Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Pennsylvania:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.

Hymes,Dell.1975.“BreakthroughintoPerformance”.InFolklore:PerformanceandCommunication,

36

eds.D.Ben-AmoseK.Goldstein,11-74.TheHague:Mouton.

Hymes,Dell.1996.Ethnography,Linguistics,NarrativeInequality:TowardanUnderstandingofVoice.London:Taylor&Francis.

Jakobson,Roman&PetrBogatyrëv.1982.“FolkloreasaSpecialFormofCreativity”. InThePragueSchool: Selected Writings, 1929-1946, eds. Peter Steiner, 32-46. Trans. Manfred Jacobson.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.

Jakobson,Roman.1985.VerbalArt,verbalSign,VerbalTime.EdiçãodeKrystynaPomorskaeStephenRudy.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Jakobson,Roman.1990.OnLanguage.Eds.LindaR.WagheMoniqueMonville-Burston.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Kwenzi-Mikala, JéromeT.1993.“LaGestualitéet les Interactionsdans laNarrationd’uneEpopée :L’ExempledeMumbwanaga”.Pholia,8:109-120.

Lima, Francisco Assis de Sousa. 2005. Conto Popular e Comunidade Narrativa. Recife: FundaçãoJoaquimNabuco/EditoraMassango.

Lord,AlbertB.1960.TheSingerofTales.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Meireles,MariaTeresa.2005.APartilhadaPalavranosContosTradicionais.Lisboa:Apenas.

Ong,WalterJ.2002.OralityandLiteracy.London&NewYork:Routledge.

Propp,Vladimir.2003.MorfologiadoConto.Trans.JaimeFerreiraandVítorOliveira.Lisboa:Vega.

Sándor, Isteván. 1967. “Dramaturgy of Tale-Telling”. Acta Ethnographica Academiae ScientiarumHungaricae,XVI,3-4:304-338.

Uther, Hans-Jorg. 2004. The Types of International Folktales. A Classification and Bibliography.VolumesI,IIeII.FFCommunications,284-286.Helsinki:AcademiaScientiarumFennica.

VonFranz,Marie-Louise.1995.L’interprétationdesContesdeFées.Paris:AlbinMichel.

Warner,Marina.1995.FromtheBeasttotheBlonde:OnFairyTalesandtheirTellers.NewYork:Ferrar,Straus&Giroux.

Warner,Marina.2014.OnceUponaTime:AShortHistoryof FairyTale.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Zipes, Jack. 1979. Breaking the Magic Spell: Radical Theories of Folk and Fairy Tales. London:Heinemann.

Zipes,Jack.1983.FairyTalesandtheArtofSubversion:TheClassicalGenreforChildrenandtheProcessofCivilization.London:Heinemann,andNewYork:WildmanPress.

Zipes, Jack. 1995, Creative Storytelling: Building community, changing lives. New York & London:Routledge.

Zumthor,Paul.1990.OralPoetry:AnIntroduction.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

TheatreandPerformanceStudies

Abirached,Robert.1994.LaCriseduPersonnagedansleThéâtreModerne.Paris:Gallimard.

Auslander,Philip(ed.).2003.Performance:CriticalConceptsinLiteraryandCulturalStudies.VolumesI,II,IIeVI.London&NewYork:Routledge.

Bennet,Susan.1997.TheatreAudiences:ATheoryofProductionandReception.London&NewYork:Routledge.

37

Borowski, Mateusz, & Malgorzata Sugiera. 2010.Worlds in Words: Storytelling in ContemporaryTheatreandPlaywriting.NewcastleuponTyne:CambridgeScholarsPublishing.

Brecht,Bertolt.1978.EstudossobreTeatro.Trans.FiamaPaisBrandão.RiodeJaneiro:NovaFronteira.

Brecht,Bertolt.1994.BrechtonTheatre:TheDevelopmentofanAesthetic.Ed.JohnWillet.NewYork:Hill&Wang.

Brook,Peter.1968.TheEmptySpace.London:PenguinBooks.

Coelho,RuiPina.2008."Semcorpo,semproblemas:NarradoreseContadoresdehistórias”.SinaisdeCena,10:18-21.

Counsel,Colin,eLaurieWolf.2001.PerformanceAnalysis:AnIntroductoryCoursebook.London&NewYork:Routledge.

Dunning, JeanFerguson.1999.Storytelling intheClassroom:TheoreticalandEmpiricalPerspectivesRelevanttotheDevelopmentofLiteracy.UnpublishedPhdThesis,UniveristyofLondon.

Egan, Kieran. 1989. Teaching as Story Telling: an Approach to Teaching and Curriculum in theElementarySchool.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

Elam,Keir.2002.TheSemioticsofTheatreandDrama.London:Routledge.

Fischer-Lichte, Erika. 2005. Theatre, Sacrifice, Ritual: Exploring Forms of Political Theatre. London:Routledge.

Fischer-Lichte, Erika. 2014. The Routledge Introduction to Theatre and Performance Studies. Eds.MinouArjomand&RomanaMosse.Trans.MinouArjomand.London:Routledge.

Fisher,WalterR.1987.HumanCommunicationasNarration:TowardaPhilosophyofReason,Value,andAction.Columbia:UniversityofSouthCarolinaPress.

Kershaw,Baz&HelenNicholson.2011.ResearchMethodsinTheatreandPerformance.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

Lehmann,Hans-Thies.2006.PostdramaticTheatre.TraduçãodeKaren Jürs-Munby.London&NewYork:Routledge.

Phelan,Peggy.1993.Unmarked:ThePoliticsofPerformance.London&NewYork:Routledge.

Ryngaert,Jean-PierreeSermon,Julie.2006.LaPersonnageThéâtralContemporain:Décomposition,Recomposition.Montreuil:ÉditionsThèâtrales.

Schechner,Richard.2003.PerformanceTheory.London&NewYork:Routledge.

Schechner,Richard.2006.PerformanceStudies:AnIntroduction.London&NewYork:Routledge.

Szondi,Peter.2001.TeoriadoDramaModerno(1880-1950).TraduçãodeLuizSérgioRepa.SãoPaulo:Cosac/NaifyEdições.

Turner,Victor.1986.TheAnthropologyofPerfomance.NewYork:PerformingArtsJournalPress.

Turner,Victor.1982.FromRitualtoTheatre.NewYork:PerformingArtsJournalPress.

HumanSciences,TheoryofNarrative,LiteratureandArt

Benjamin,Walter.1992.SobreArte,Técnica,LinguagemePolítica.TraduçãodeMariaAméliaCruzetal.Lisboa:RelógioD’Água.

Chatman, Seymour. 1978. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca &London:CornellUniversityPress.

38

Czarniawska,Barbara.2004.Narratives inSocialScienceResearch. IntroducingQualitativeMethodsSeries.London:SagePublications.

Dragas, Areti. 2014. The Return of the Storyteller in Contemporary Fiction. London & New York:BloomsburyPublishing.

Fludernik,Monica.1996.Towardsa“Natural”Narratology.London&NewYork:Routledge.

Fludernik,Monica.2009.AnIntroductiontoNarratology.London&NewYork:Routledge.

Genette,Gérard.1966.“FrontièresduRécit”.Communications,8:152-163.

Genette,Gérard.1980.NarrativeDiscourse:AnEssayinMethod.Ithaca&NewYork:CornellUniversityPress.

Genette,Gérard.1986.IntroduçãoaoArquitexto.Lisboa:Vega.

Gerrig,Richard.1993.ExperiencingNarrativeWorlds:OnthePsychologicalActivitiesofReading.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

Goffman,Erving.1959.ThePresentationofSelfinEverydayLife.Edinburgh:SocialSciencesResearchCentre/UniversityofEdinburgh.

Goffman,Erving.1974.FrameAnalysis:AnEssayontheOrganizationofExperience.London:Harper&Row.

Polkinghorne,DonanldE.1987.NarrativeKnowingandtheHumanSciences.NewYork:SunyPress.

Raine, Sarah. 2013. “The Narrative Turn: Interdisciplinary Methods and Perspectives”. StudentAnthropologist,3,3:64-80.