Non-Linear Storytelling: when part of the story is the whole story.
As we go forward building deeper and more meaningful 360 VR projects, the question of what type of storytelling we work in will become more important. If we are going to build deep and rich stories-as-experiences, we will need to consider building experiences where a user is able to leave the headset with a sense of having had a rich experience without actually needing to give them the full experience.
It’s a strange idea, but hang with me.
The linear narrative story telling format dominates our understanding of storytelling. Humans create, share and expect: linear narratives. Stories with clear beginnings, middles, and ends.
Nearly all of our creative media is organised in a similar fashion: we open, we expose, we build the story, we introduce tension or crisis of some point, we have a resolution, and we finish. Done.
People enjoy this kind of storytelling, and it’s easy to see why- it’s simple. These types of stories are ones that we simply sit back and let flow. I would perhaps argue that the escapist satisfaction of cinema is directly related to the fact that in real life we are endlessly presented with choices which preclude an infinite number of alternative outcomes.
But Virtual Reality and 360 Video are not Cinema, and we expect something more from it. There are plenty of 360 Videos that leave the viewer thinking, “that would have been better flat” because the effort, and expectation, when putting on the VR headset is that we are going to get something more than what we get from sitting on the couch in front of the TV.
In my opinion, 360 VR experiences are currently presented with a fundamental conundrum related to the traditional linear narrative flow. The linear narrative, linear thinking is fully entrenched in our social consciousness. We retell stories giving attention to trying to retell them accurately. People dislike when key details are excluded or endings are changed. Linear Narrative is the narrative structure of our society.
This is because we live and experience life in a sort of linear narrative. We are born, we live, we die. We are simultaneously aware of the infinite number of choices before us, yet also painfully conscious of the way in which every choice precludes permanently every other possible outcome. The result of this eternal human conflict are two powerful human emotions: nostalgia and regret. The human experience is defined by these two emotions and are the result of the confluence of two forces: time and agency.
Agency ensures that we are both aware of our ability to make the decisions that change our lives, and time forces our hand (for not choosing is a choice in and of itself). The result is that we are constantly confronted with an infinite number of choices and experiences both obvious and invisible which shape the outcomes of our lives. The joy and tragedy of course is that we are aware of this. Our lives are the cumulative result of what we have chosen to experience and that which we have not.
Yet, no life is presented with any fewer choices than any other. As each life we might live is an infinite subset of an infinite set of choices. Regardless how small our infinite subset might be in comparison to the total set of infinite possibilities- we aren’t left with any less of a life when considered in total. Just as we might regret not sailing the Riviera or being super rich- it’s not possible to be those things and something else (like poor not sailing) at the same time. A choice always precludes the alternatives.
Thus it’s so interesting that our primary storytelling format is artificially constrained in a bizarre way by the same forces that constrain us. If two people were to watch the same movie in New York and in LA they would both expect to see the same film. It of course seems logical: the idea of Bambi ending differently depending on where you watch it is silly.
But in fact, it’s not really so silly after all. TV networks censor movies for content and run time. Some countries impose “good taste” requirements that can go so far as to change the content of a film dramatically. I remember watching Nymphomania in a theatre thinking it rather tame, only to find out after the screening that the version which was screened was not in fact, the directors original version. I liked the movie, but what good parts did I miss?!?!?!?
There are many other ways in which the stories which we interpret as linear narratives go through subtle, often transparent, changes. Movies frequently get changed by studios before release, scenes get dropped, rearranged, or otherwise altered. The most recent Star Wars: Rogue One had extensive reshoots which apparently fundamentally changed the movies end.
In other cases studios deliberately create alternate endings for films that end up as special features on DVD releases down the road. Sometimes it’s to throw off movie gossip reporters for a highly anticipated release, other times it’s simply to fit the whim of the director.
While I personally would very much like to be able to watch the “other version” of Rogue One (and probably pay to do so), having not seen it doesn’t reduce my enjoyment of the version of the film I did see. Carefully done editing for films (for example, when R rated movies are edited to be safe for viewing on an airplane entertainment system) generally does not significantly alter a viewers ability to enjoy the final result. Indeed the viewer will rarely if ever appreciate or understand the content of an experience they are missing.
So how does this relate to 360VR?
The point I am trying to get at is- as we move forward in creating virtual reality experiences and 360 film, we don’t need to be limited by the linear narrative model. We can, and should, seek to create immersive experiences where viewers only ever experience a small subset of possibilities of the whole. If we are creating “virtual reality” maybe we should adopt the fundamental nature of our “reality”: that our experience is shaped and informed by having only one unique experience, out of a much larger possible subset. Users will drift towards a linear narrative, but it will be a linear narrative of their own choosing, and quite possibility it will exclude all other possible narratives.
Our job as Non-Linear Storytellers will be creating rich, full, experiences that can be enjoyed fully through only a small subset of possibilities. I think we should be creating experiences where the viewer always comes away feeling as though “they did it”, even if the content of their experience is fundamentally very different from someone else’s. Perhaps this might be as simple as a 360 Racing Video where different viewers are positioned inside of different cars, or as complicated as a Mr. Nobody style script about love where different viewers fall in love and marry different individuals.
And if we don’t?
The alternative is to create experiences which I think will ring hollow for users in the long run. It might be exciting initially for users to roll back their decisions, but it might also bore them. I truly believe our sense of regret and nostalgia are powerful subconscious emotions that inform our decision making. We are excited for the outcome of our choices, but regretful for being able to choose only one.
By giving users/viewers the ability to experince everything we risk the “cheat code” phenomenon of video games, where the ability to have unlimited lives or unlimited amounts of gold eventually (after an initial thrill) ruins the enjoyment of a game. Life is so fantastic precisely because at some point we die. Get rid of the scarcity of experience, and we will probably be left with boring, uncreative, and unchallenging content. It is most certainly not a recipe for creative challenge.
