Or, how to say exactly nothing for three minutes, and make it sound like you know what you're talking about.
Note how she starts by invoking the traditional presence of the story, as though to say that we've not listened to stories because they're interesting or enlightening, but merely because they are stories; that being a story is sufficient, not the quality of that story. Then she begins to hammer how stories are "powerful," which is a watchword for those who want power, co-opted with the word "transformation," a word she proceeds to repeat three times in the next eight seconds: at 0:21, 0:24 and 0:28. She also repeats "hard-wired" twice between 0:20 and 0:30, pressing that you have no choice but to accept what she's saying because, damn, it's true through the repetition of the words. She uses "transformation" again at 0:35. Thereafter she launches into an argument that because stories have been around so long, YOUR story can be also, that you need to find a way to give YOUR story the resilence of other stories... as though your story compares with Gilgamesh or Beowulf or any of the stories that have actually survived more than the five minutes of your telling.
She says "great story" at 1:01, then again at 1:05, because once is not enough; this is followed by her arguing that your body chemistry physically changes when you hear a story, followed by the words "power of a great story" (1:15) being how we root for a "hero" (1:25) followed by "transforming" (1:26), followed by "changed by the process" (1:29). She says change again at 1:33 and then transformed again at (1:38), by the "power" (1:39) of story.
The third part employs the words "authentic," "transparent," "personal"... stressing how "real" a story makes you as a person. Between 1:55 and 2:01 she mocks people who aren't properly engaged, literally then a metaphor to explain how ants form connections that build loyalty, "not only to you" (2:21) but also "to the brand" (2:23). It's a bit clumsy, she loses her way a bit, but that's the message. Turn people into ants and make them obey you and your brand, because "you get so much more done"... that is, power again, translated as "emotional connections." (2:29) "and using story to make those connections make it even more powerful (2:33), strengthening you as a leader (power again). She then ends this with a statement that when she's with people who "get me" makes her "superhappy." Yeah.
It's propaganda. It's hammering specific words, specific sentiments, employing a nostalgic tool (storytelling) to seek power, control and personal gratification through the motivation of other people for your own interests. This is precisely what the WOTC does every time it writes anything about the use of "story" in their splatbooks and on their website.
Note how she starts by invoking the traditional presence of the story, as though to say that we've not listened to stories because they're interesting or enlightening, but merely because they are stories; that being a story is sufficient, not the quality of that story. Then she begins to hammer how stories are "powerful," which is a watchword for those who want power, co-opted with the word "transformation," a word she proceeds to repeat three times in the next eight seconds: at 0:21, 0:24 and 0:28. She also repeats "hard-wired" twice between 0:20 and 0:30, pressing that you have no choice but to accept what she's saying because, damn, it's true through the repetition of the words. She uses "transformation" again at 0:35. Thereafter she launches into an argument that because stories have been around so long, YOUR story can be also, that you need to find a way to give YOUR story the resilence of other stories... as though your story compares with Gilgamesh or Beowulf or any of the stories that have actually survived more than the five minutes of your telling.
She says "great story" at 1:01, then again at 1:05, because once is not enough; this is followed by her arguing that your body chemistry physically changes when you hear a story, followed by the words "power of a great story" (1:15) being how we root for a "hero" (1:25) followed by "transforming" (1:26), followed by "changed by the process" (1:29). She says change again at 1:33 and then transformed again at (1:38), by the "power" (1:39) of story.
The third part employs the words "authentic," "transparent," "personal"... stressing how "real" a story makes you as a person. Between 1:55 and 2:01 she mocks people who aren't properly engaged, literally then a metaphor to explain how ants form connections that build loyalty, "not only to you" (2:21) but also "to the brand" (2:23). It's a bit clumsy, she loses her way a bit, but that's the message. Turn people into ants and make them obey you and your brand, because "you get so much more done"... that is, power again, translated as "emotional connections." (2:29) "and using story to make those connections make it even more powerful (2:33), strengthening you as a leader (power again). She then ends this with a statement that when she's with people who "get me" makes her "superhappy." Yeah.
It's propaganda. It's hammering specific words, specific sentiments, employing a nostalgic tool (storytelling) to seek power, control and personal gratification through the motivation of other people for your own interests. This is precisely what the WOTC does every time it writes anything about the use of "story" in their splatbooks and on their website.
I don't have the time or patience to sit through this entire video. I stopped it a the 1:02 mark.
ReplyDeleteI am feeling angry at the moment. It's not you. In fact, I know EXACTLY what is making me angry, but I'm not sure exactly WHY it's upsetting me so much. I need to ruminate a bit.
[sorry, just thought I'd share]
There is so much of this content out there, and it all says the same thing over and over.
Delete