What is a "Book" now?

[barryem]

I'm not sure comparing King Arthur and today's action stars is very useful. We have something today they didn't have then: a mass audience. We have STARS! that everyone sees, often at the same time and that are written up and spoken about internationally.

In those days a traveling story teller had a small audience at best and everyone was exposed to a lot of different ones, meaning a lot of different versions of each story and there was no real reason to expect to ever see that story teller or hear that version again. Maybe they would. Maybe not.

It's entirely possible that what was written down eventually was one of the least popular spoken versions, maybe the most recent one the writer had heard.

A really good example of this is the New Testament. It was finally assembled into a single canon by Athanasius in 367. He selected 27 books out of the many that were available and they were the ones he thought most important. His list was pretty controversial.

Until about 300 CE the Gnostics were by far the Christian majority. By the time Athanasius assembled his canon if there had been a worldwide vote among Christians it would probably have gotten few votes. But over the centuries it's proponents became the majority and, as they say, the winners get to tell the story.

Books today have a much different relationship to culture and society than they did in the days of the wandering minstrels and story tellers. Our authors don't really resemble them and I doubt that we resemble their audience.

That's okay though. Books are still fun to read and audiobooks are still fun to listen to and most mornings here in this retirement home we gather in the community room and tell stories, often about our past and often about the legends that we grew up with. It's all fun.

Barry

[crich70]

Originally Posted by barryem

I'm not sure comparing King Arthur and today's action stars is very useful. We have something today they didn't have then: a mass audience. We have STARS! that everyone sees, often at the same time and that are written up and spoken about internationally.

In those days a traveling story teller had a small audience at best and everyone was exposed to a lot of different ones, meaning a lot of different versions of each story and there was no real reason to expect to ever see that story teller or hear that version again. Maybe they would. Maybe not.

It's entirely possible that what was written down eventually was one of the least popular spoken versions, maybe the most recent one the writer had heard.

A really good example of this is the New Testament. It was finally assembled into a single canon by Athanasius in 367. He selected 27 books out of the many that were available and they were the ones he thought most important. His list was pretty controversial.

Until about 300 CE the Gnostics were by far the Christian majority. By the time Athanasius assembled his canon if there had been a worldwide vote among Christians it would probably have gotten few votes. But over the centuries it's proponents became the majority and, as they say, the winners get to tell the story.

Books today have a much different relationship to culture and society than they did in the days of the wandering minstrels and story tellers. Our authors don't really resemble them and I doubt that we resemble their audience.

That's okay though. Books are still fun to read and audiobooks are still fun to listen to and most mornings here in this retirement home we gather in the community room and tell stories, often about our past and often about the legends that we grew up with. It's all fun.

Barry

Actually Constantine was the one who organized that council (325 ad) and Athanasius was just an attendee I understand. The canon of the text wasn't even on the agenda for that council. My point about Arthur and Robin Hood was that they were the characters that the groups (Rich and Poor) told stories about or heard the traveling Storyteller tell stories about. Granted the audiences were smaller than in a movie theater today but that was part of their entertainment. The stories did get told over and over before being written down certainly. Gnosticism began in the 2nd century if not later so I have trouble believing that it was the dominant idea that you think it was. Anyway I don't want to turn this into a politics/religion thread by accident. Many ancient stories were told first via oral tradition before being written down. Storytelling is a very ancient thing. Narration in stories is very old too. The Greeks had a chorus that would comment on the story being portrayed in a play for example. Now days we read them in book format but back then everything was oral as they were performed.

[barryem]

I wasn't making a religious comment at all. I'm not the least bit religious. I was talking about what might happen when stories change format. Actually though, my main point was more about the nature of the audience so I guess the thing about the Bible was a bit off-center.

Yes stories sometimes are written down. But imagine a situation where a story told in different ways by a lot of different people, is heard by someone who writes it down. Which version did he write down? Was it the most commonly told version? That's the most probable but how can we know? Perhaps he heard a variation that he liked that inspired him to put it into writing. We just don't know.

In any case I think it's likely that stories told by lots of storytellers in lots of ways to lots of small groups have a different effect on culture than a single version of a story being told to practically everyone, and that was really my point.

They heard stories back then from different people, told in different ways, and they surely believed those stories contained truth on some level but how could they know where truth ended and story began?

Today we all hear the same story at the same time: Bill Cosby drugged and raped women. We all hear it. We all wonder about it. Very few doubt that it's true. We're changed by that in different ways than the ancients were changed by the many and various versions of stories about their heroes.

Another, more bookish difference probably comes from the fact that today we have so many stories; so many novels and TV shows and movies. We encounter them and we know not to believe them but we can't help but be changed by them. That's the power of stories. But these stories move us in every imaginable direction.

How can we compare that to the same few stories being told and retold in various ways as truth. Almost as history. It's just not the same thing. Yes, one grew out of the other just like a butterfly grew out of a cocoon. But a butterfly isn't much like a cocoon.

Barry

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by barryem

I wasn't making a religious comment at all. I'm not the least bit religious. I was talking about what might happen when stories change format. Actually though, my main point was more about the nature of the audience so I guess the thing about the Bible was a bit off-center.

Yes stories sometimes are written down. But imagine a situation where a story told in different ways by a lot of different people, is heard by someone who writes it down. Which version did he write down? Was it the most commonly told version? That's the most probable but how can we know? Perhaps he heard a variation that he liked that inspired him to put it into writing. We just don't know.

In any case I think it's likely that stories told by lots of storytellers in lots of ways to lots of small groups have a different effect on culture than a single version of a story being told to practically everyone, and that was really my point.

They heard stories back then from different people, told in different ways, and they surely believed those stories contained truth on some level but how could they know where truth ended and story began?

Today we all hear the same story at the same time: Bill Cosby drugged and raped women. We all hear it. We all wonder about it. Very few doubt that it's true. We're changed by that in different ways than the ancients were changed by the many and various versions of stories about their heroes.

Another, more bookish difference probably comes from the fact that today we have so many stories; so many novels and TV shows and movies. We encounter them and we know not to believe them but we can't help but be changed by them. That's the power of stories. But these stories move us in every imaginable direction.

How can we compare that to the same few stories being told and retold in various ways as truth. Almost as history. It's just not the same thing. Yes, one grew out of the other just like a butterfly grew out of a cocoon. But a butterfly isn't much like a cocoon.

Barry

Aesop comes to mind.
Oh and on TV and movies can we say 60's, 70's and 80's redone.