Graham's point about my rather sloppy use of the word
"professional" in this context is well made and well taken. You're absolutely
right, of course, in that we're talking about performance rather than professionalism, as
such. Many apologies for any confusion! However, professionalism isn't totally unlinked
with the issue, since it is a matter of economics (if nothing else) that means that
professional storytellers work mainly as performance storytellers. I would also prefer to
look at it as a continuum rather than as two strictly-defined types of performance and
non-performance tellers (although your distinction is extremely useful). This is
partly because I think it's all performance of a fashion, but also I think that even
within the categories there are varying degrees of intensity and even overlap.
I should also point out that I think I've failed to make my intentions clear as regards
the end of paragraph five of my last posting. It certainly wasn't my intention to suggest
that those low-key performers were any less skillful in terms of their verbal artistry. In
fact, as I said earlier, in my experience often the opposite is true! I also wouldn't
necessarily want to suggest that low-key performers were casual in their style (which
might imply sloppiness) but rather informal which may be a considered communicative
stance. What I think I was trying to suggest is that as you move up that continuum and the
performative intensity increases, then the way that language is used also changes and it
could be that one way that it changes is that it becomes less vernacular and increasingly
acquires many of the features of literary language. I'm not saying that one is
intrinsically better than the other - just different!