Referring to Pat's latest response - No 22 - I would be interested to know why storytellers having a clearer view of what they are doing would alienate an audience.
Michael Harvey makes reference to "traditional bearers" and, as Pat points out, in some parts of Ireland and Scotland the oral culture is still valued. This is a context that few of us face in our storytelling. We tell in public and semi-private gatherings and what we do is tell stories.
Now the term storytelling is used quite widely and many people apply it to what they do. But the term "traditional" is also used alongside the term storytelling. So if people are going to use the term "traditional storytelling" to apply to part or whole of what they do, either that means something or it doesn't.
Raising this question is not intended to apply to all storytelling but to make it more clear to all of us, what that term could mean. Storytelling provides a platform for all sorts of spoken activity. Folk clubs never existed in America in quite the same way as they did in the UK but if they declined because they were too specific, I think one of the reasons for their decline in this county was the opposite. They were a platform for all sorts of stuff.
Pat appeals for us to keep the context general and I have no problem with that but you cannot be general if you are going to use a term like traditional. This is why I want it be specific. Is it possible to make something called traditional storytelling work in every context or are there some contexts in which it couldn't happen because these specific elements cannot happen?
I am interested in keeping responses short so I will finish here.