Saturday, July 29, 2006

Storytelling as Connection-Making

Storytelling is about making connections. That is, a narration process is in fact a series of endless decision making processes, each of which concerning about this question, "Which are the two story segments to be bridged?" This question should be answered according to a huge amount of criteria: it has to be smooth in terms of the appearance, it has to make sense in terms of causality, it has to be consistent with what the audience know and what they don't know yet, ... etc. Nevertheless, whatever kind of media format is used (e.g., text, audio, video, and so on), the nature of the activity in which the storyteller is engaged is the same. It's all about making decisions for the connections.

But the thing is that, the granularity of both the story segments and the connections between them varies tremendously across different media types. In textual storytelling activities, the narration goes only within the text domain, where abstraction or abbreviation can be easily made (since text expresses *semantics* but no *senses*), so the segments' granularity can be large. In other words, the storyteller can leave the details blank, and the audience can fill them in by themselves using their own imagination. For example, the sentence "The man in a black suit and a hat slowly walked in, and stepped on the old, wooden floor" can be shortened as "The man in a black suit and a hat walked in," or even as simply as "The man came in." Even though information will be lost when abstraction or abbreviation is made, we often do this because we can focus more on the flow or evolvement of the story. After all, it is too bothersome if we have to detail everything in the stories.

On the other hand, if we consider the other extreme, using video as a media type for storytelling requires heavily detailed information, because video provides both visual and audio senses. Video makers need to handle - at every single moment within the video artifact - how it looks and how it sounds. As a result, the granularity of the stories' building blocks and the connections between them becomes much finer, and the criteria involved in the decision become much more as well (e.g. the correlation between the spoken words and the shown image, whether the video or audio is carrying the story plot, how to juxtapose back and forth between two related scenes along the same background audio, etc). Therefore, for instance, a building block in this problem domain might be a 0.5 sec video, or a 2 sec audio.

So what I'm trying to say right here is, if we really want to deal with the problem of video-based storytelling, then we will really need to look at this making-decision-for-connecting-these-fine-granule problem. Otherwise, the task will by no means different from simply dealing with textual stories.

But how are we gonna use commonsense computing or any AI techniques to do it? Since the most advanced techniques right now are all functioning in the text domain, one way of eperiment that we might try to do is to chop the materials into very fine segments, split the video and audio parts, and pose detailed annotations to all these granular building blocks. I understand that it might look pretty stupid cause no one would ever do think kind of work in the real world for practical usages. But ironically meanwhile there's something worth investigating here since nobody's ever done this kind of thing before, and there's no way we can tell by now how computer would be able to make use of this kind of materials to benefit the process of video-based storytelling.

The other direction that I may go is to take the advantage of the experience that I have with videos and work on something that is relatively easier - weblogs. Blog is a kind of textual story. It is organized in successions, so it's time-aware - just like the story *progression* in video footages. One recent post may share related mindsets with other previous posts, so referring to them can be analogous to the process of juxtaposing semantically related footages all together as well. One of today's blogging software's mayjor defects is, in my personal opinion, that the viewing activity can only follow one axis, which is the chronology of the posts. There's no sense of story progression in terms of other story elements such as emotion, topics, questions, characters, and so forth. Using commonsene computing technology, we may be able to come up with a novel *storied navigation* theme in the world of blogs.

5 Comments:

At 6:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

由於我正在重新思考我論文中的故事理論 作最後的修正
因此看了一下學長的文章
覺得”故事連結”這個想法很有趣
因此也說一下我論文中”故事連結”的想法

由於我的論文中是由使用者自由選擇想聽的故事
因此我進一步思考使用者的行為

在我論文中透過”故事交談”的觀念 創造故事劇情回應的方式
使故事角色產生直接的互動 形成共同創造故事的情況
結果也使得兩個故事角色被串連在一起
兩個故事被串連在一起

因此倘若彼此的故事中還有其他的故事角色
而人們對其他的故事角色感興趣(對其角色性格描述或其相關故事情節所吸引)
又會進一步去找其他故事角色的故事
觀看故事 或對其產生故事交談
結果會產生無限串聯的情形

使得故事呈現如同後現代文學:
假設A的故事 裡面有5個角色
則產生5條路徑
假設選擇1號角色 尋找1號角色的故事 發現1的故事有4個角色
又產生4條路徑

即使故事只有一個角色 也可透過故事交談使故事產生連結

結果發現讓使用者自由選擇想聽的故事
會讓故事發生彼此串聯的現象
因此我的故事連結 應該算是透過故事內容連結吧
透過已經存在的關連性(在同一個故事中的故事角色,或是透過故事交談產生連結的故事角色)
再往外連結
這種”已經存在的關連性”
跟學長”common sense”的想法
似乎有些相似

由於和我的研究領域相關
因此發表一下淺見 與學長交流一下
學長如果有什麼想法請不吝給予指教^__^
畢竟國內好像都沒有人研究storytelling XD
目前想這些故事關聯性頭腦都快打結了

 
At 10:25 AM, Blogger Edward Shen 沈育德 said...

哈囉

um
如果就我個人的觀點來看的話
你講的一點都沒錯
每個故事的小片段都可以因為人物 地點 物品
乃至於氣氛 想法 疑問 等各種故事的元素而被建立連結
利用這些連結的不同排列組合
可以建立出不同的storyline (故事線)
或者也可以說是不同的narrative (敘述/鋪陳)
我想我們對這點應該有共識吧?

然而
雖然所有可能組合出來的故事有無限多種
實際上對人來講合理且好看的組合其實並不多
所以真正值得探究也困難的問題便包括
什麼叫做smooth的transition?
什麼叫做讓人會覺得好看的narrative?
或者用簡單一點的話來講
當A後面接了B之後 應該接C比較好還是D比較好?
為什麼?
這些東西應該要像爵士樂的和聲進行一樣
雖然看似隨意 卻不是亂來的
怎樣的東西才smooth
一切都是有既定遊戲規則的

另外
A,B,C,D這樣的story components
應該要多大?
以video為例
一個component應該要是一秒兩秒這麼長
還是一分鐘兩分鐘那麼長?
(我這篇在講的就是 我覺得不同媒體的basic components應該有不同的粗細程度)
又 這些粗細程度的不同會怎樣去影響前面提到的兩個問題?

諸如此類的問題
我想現在好像沒有太清楚的答案
這些答案大概都只蘊藏在偉大的導演或小說家的血脈裡面吧 哈哈
起碼據我所知是這樣
怎樣把這些criteria做出整理 讓電腦能夠加以利用
可能還是一條漫長的路

anyway 我想
不同的媒體
時間的概念會有很顯著的不同
所以我們將不同的故事片段做連結的這個動作
背地裡也暗示著
其實我們正在利用這些不同媒體的時間特性
因此在考慮這個問題的時候如果不將這些媒體本身的特性考慮進去
對我來說不是make sense的做法
Glorianna講過無數次
sequencing這件事情 重點在於time
故事怎麼發展 怎麼交代
都跟不同的運用時間的手法有關
我想我很同意
這應該是十分重要的思考方向

你覺得呢

 
At 11:07 AM, Blogger 梁容輝 said...

I like the granularity examples you described. Your observation about storytelling is very sharp.
I think, especially in textual storytelling, the granularity can't be isolated from semiotics of the whole story. Moreover, in this consumming age, product brands in a story can be symbols and in a sense, revealing much details. Comparing: "He drove a Mercedez", "His Porsch is coming", "He drove", etc., surely telling you totally different story.

 
At 4:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 4:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

我覺得學長說的”時間運用”這點很棒
時間重組 讓每個人彷彿是故事的導演
後現代文學裡有一套專門的訓練
訓練作者如何切割文章段落 使其無論如何重組都不會失去藝術價值
這些故事片段可能分開看沒有藝術價值 組在一起卻相當驚人

不過除了重組還不夠
需要有藝術天份創造適合重組的故事片段
才能產生好作品XD

這些故事片段都是經過精心設計的
受訓練的人本身就是作家
是經過一套繁複的過程(藝術家的邏輯思考)產生的

藝術這點也很有趣
跟我論文一開始發想的概念urban prepositive art museum很像
讓藝術家把引發靈感的片段(城市中的某個場景 某段話 某個人)記錄下來
如此可以讓大眾知道其後來為什麼形成這樣的作品 而不是只看到成果
透過部落格互動讓藝術家來教導大眾什麼是藝術
只是後來不知道為什麼演變成說故事了XD

如何把大眾所創造的片斷(非藝術)組成藝術
每個人的認知模式不同 如何形成大家都覺得好看的作品ex.曠世巨著
恐怕如學長說的是無解

經過和學長的討論 學長的把現在故事最大的問題描述的精闢洞澈
使我的思考又更進一步了
學長這個意見很棒^__^
剛好解決了我一直想不到論文”檢討研究”要寫什麼的問題

還有老師和學長都提到的”極簡”思考也很有趣
在當時代的大環境下
所有的事物都逐漸偏向極簡的思考(衣物 家具等)
而引發大規模極簡的背後誘因為何
實在是一個耐人玩味
引人深省的問題

 

Post a Comment

<< Home