Tuesday, October 07, 2014

Short Stories

Here’s a piece of research that might be more interesting than Ebbinghaus: students who read only summaries of chapters recalled more information than those who read entire chapters. Not 60%. Not 80%. More. Imagine someone approaching you and suggesting that a one day training course could be reduced to a five minute video - and people would remember more? Where does it end? Can we reduce the 5 minute video to a 20 second video and improve learning still further?

Last night I attended an event hosted by RADA discussing their experience of reducing Hamlet to a one-hour performance, and parallels with simplification challenges in business. Full productions of Hamlet can run to 4 hours, so this represents something like a 75% reduction - not entirely dissimilar to the situation which we sometimes face in learning.

How would you do it? How would you reduce an experience that lasts 4 hours to one that lasts only one?

One question you might ask is ‘what’s your objective?’ Do you want people to retain the same quality of experience, or merely recall the same experience? What is the difference between the experience they have and the experience they remember? A lot, it turns out. In this TED talk  Kahnemann points out that what people experience and what they remember experiencing are two very different things. They tend to remember emotional peaks and the closing episode experience (e.g. anything surprising that happened during a meeting and how it ended). All the rest ends up on the cutting room floor.

So how about this as a starter for ten: you interview people exiting the four hour version of Hamlet and find out what they recall. Based on this, you reduce the play.  It might now last only ten minutes but people recall the same things – though as an experience it would seem fragmentary (not unlike some Hollywood movies I’ve seen recently). When I put this suggestion to the publisher sitting next to me, he remarked that people often buy a book not to read it, but to have it - and that ten minutes might not feel long enough for people to be able to say at dinner parties ‘we saw a production of Hamlet’. Part of the value of an experience is the role it plays in the story of our lives.

And now we come full circle: there is something quintessential about the storytelling nature of humans, but the format of those stories is changing. In this video Casey Neistat explains why Snapchat is killing Facebook  - it’s because it allows users to tell stories about themselves. Very short stories. And sitting there, watching the one hour version of Hamlet, it still seemed long.

I’m reminded of Milan Kundera’s assertion that whilst we like to think that somewhere in our brains we store every day of our lives – we do not. Instead we store only a few blurry snapshots – like scattered polaroids. And the rest we make up. We are constantly storifying our lives. But the cornerstones of these stories, the fabric of our lives, are these memorable moments: going to football matches as a child, the first day at school, our first date. Could we make our get-togethers a little more like this, I wonder?

4 comments:

  1. Thanks Nick for explaining something I have thought for a long time. Part of my "story" I guess. Now to put this in action you will need a cast iron cod piece.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm late to every party, particularly late to Netflix, but when I eventually arrived I discovered a 26 hour long-form story, one amongst many. Famously launched as one 13 episode package, the end of every hour of House of Cards segues into another. What’s going on here is the polar opposite to Snapchat - it’s a fantasy with complex, seemingly unending plotting. It relies on projection - it is not your story, it could never be your story. Its cultural form is ‘flow’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(television) - something Raymond Williams claimed 40 years ago was the defining characteristic of broadcasting. In the era of Snapchat, Twitter etc and the general fragmentation of media, it’s interesting to see flow re-assert itself as a way of making people watch. In that respect House of Cards is the same as Sky’s Super Sunday. The experience is a calming soporific flow. Whether people need this or not they are drawn to consume it. When I’m watching House of Cards I have a feeling of greed - I realise I’m consuming a finite resource and I behave like it’s scarce by consuming as much as I can. My other overwhelming feeling is passivity. These are primitive comforts. Story-telling is changing, but disconcertingly its getting longer as well as shorter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I had noticed the same - that we fret about the distractability of kids in class (attention spans etc.) but that movies are in many cases getting longer - and we are binge-watching as you describe (or that they play 8hrs of video games straight). But I think the synthesis is this: these are experience-design. i.e. they are designed to be experienced not remembered. The feeling is one of absorption rather than narrative. Maybe I'm being a little too extreme - but looking at some of these longer Hollywood productions they are 'visual feasts' - a string of dramatic occurrences - a blizzard of CGI and action. They like to flip from one character to the next - a device allowing episodes to skip all the dull bits and rather - Facebook like - trip from one artificial high to another. I'm a bit troubled by this: that there can be a difference between an absorbing experience and a memorable experience. Makes me question what we mean by 'engagement'.

      Delete
  3. Raymond Williams was suggesting that individual programmes, individual works of art, were part of and sort of subordinate to the general flow of TV - that the experience was 'the flow'. This is certainly my experience of Sky Sports - it’s an unending flow of live action - infinitely the same. It’s a synthesis of passivity, stupidity and enjoyment. With football ‘liveness' is all important - any recorded game can be fast-forwarded at any point and usually is. Liveness is a quality that is immediately old. It paradoxically diminishes the memorable even while it promises that there will be something memorable. I watch football mildly entranced - certainly entranced enough to be unable to pay attention to any discussion or even requests which are longer than a single sentence, but very little is memorable - there’s always more coming. This trance-like state is a sign of being absorbed. Having said this, there are somethings which interrupt the footie flow and are actually memorable. These are the great works which make all the rest meaningful - which make the story worthwhile. (Of course there are games that are the Premier League equivalent of Warhol’s Empire https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sSsWj2HWk0) You’re right, the term ‘engagement' hides a lot.

    ReplyDelete