Scott Sanders

At the most basic level, a storyteller has two apparatus at their disposal, character and setting. All good stories cleverly use these fundamental tools to comment, inform, and entertain. Since the beginnings of this ancient art form nearly all stories have fallen into a specific mold. They rely heavily on obvious aspects of these tools, specifically the character, its facial expressions, its vocalizations, and accepted gestures. This is for good reason, because these are the iterations of character that most closely imitate life, and accordingly most easily communicate.

This is also not to say that more subtle occurrences of character and setting are misused in the art of storytelling. To the contrary, on many occasions they have been employed with great success in a supporting position throughout literature, the theatre, film, and animation, but how would the experience change their influence were more significant? What if the sometimes overshadowed properties of setting, and the subtle motivations and reactions inherent in character were emphasized, and the more noticeable tools of dialogue and action were diminished or removed. Are the more unnoticed
elements of storytelling just as descriptive as the obvious?

Can a leading character’s communication with an audience be enhanced through an amplified use of the subtle elements of character and setting? And can empathy, or a sympathetic understanding between character and audience, be created? This final question is the discerning test of any visual storytelling, and it is what will be explored in the following research.