What's in a form? That which we call a story by any other form...

"The storyteller takes what he tells from experience--his own or that reported by others. And he in turn makes it the experience of those who are listening to his tale. The novelist has isolated himself. The birthplace of the novel is the solitary individual, who is no longer able to express himself by giving examples of his most important concerns, is himself uncounseled, and cannot counsel others." -Walter Benjamin

I suppose my hackles go up because I have grown up on the novel. One of my earliest "book memories" is of meeting the March family and sharing the girls' trials and triumphs in Little Women, and plunging into a good book is one of my favorite pleasures. But it seems, to me, that Benjamin would turn this pleasure into a guilty pleasure. That we readers are somehow cheating ourselves, fooling ourselves by reading the novel.

I can admit that there are differences between the novel and storytelling. I can admit that the author-novel-reader set up does not have the intimacy of the storyteller-story-listener model. But I would not say that only stories come from personal or related experience. Many novels are (at least in some small part) autobiographical, inspired by people, events or experiences in the author's life. And the author of a novel oftentimes writes about the experience of others, just as the storyteller oftentimes passes on stories that he or she first heard from another. The author of a novel, however, also writes the stories of imagined characters. I cannot recall from the article whether a storyteller creates fictional tales, but I would guess that (according to Benjamin) they do not. I would also defend the novel by saying that it too, can take the experience of the characters and "in turn make it the experience of those who are [reading the] tale." Isn't that part of what makes a novel enjoyable, engrossing to the reader? My favorite books are the ones where I feel as though I am right alongside of the protagonist, when their agonies cause me pain, and their joys send my spirits soaring.

I disagree that the author is "no longer able to express himself by giving examples of his most important concerns." Does it make a difference whether the author vocalizes his concerns by setting down his exact experience or whether the author relates his experience through fictional characters and events? I do not think this makes a great difference. Perhaps it could be argued that this makes the storyteller braver than the author of a novel, for the storyteller is willing to lay their personal story bare before an audience while the author hides behind the veil of fiction. But a storyteller also shares stories that are not their own when they relate stories second or third or fourth hand. I have trouble seeing such a stark difference between the author and the storyteller.

I also disagree (quite forcefully) with the idea that the novelist "cannot counsel others." If the story/novel leads the listener/reader to some truth or understanding, what difference does the form make? If a work, for example, leads the consumer to a better understanding of-- let's be flippant--the meaning of life, what difference does it make if the consumer found that understanding in a poem, a novel, a short story, an epic or a oral story? Should we be concerned with the form or the results?

I do agree that in letting oral tradition die we are losing a crucial form of communication, of intimacy. However, I do not agree with the harsh criticism that Benjamin levels against the novel.