Now, this post can get so philosophical it can loose contact so I’m going step by step with my arguments.
The simple thought would be – if story is X storytelling is telling X. Along this line of thought we could say that cinema is screening X, theater acting X, screenplay writing – writing X for screening X. You get the idea. If nothing happens between X and its forms of expression so all we need is X really. The rest could be tools / techniques / skills / talents / platforms / mediums. Many actually call storytelling a tool.
Cinema, theater, screenplay writing, literature – those are arts. No body calls them tools. So it’s either they are tools too or it might be that storytelling is art too. I say storytelling is art too and therefor different than story.
Just to make sure we are on the same page let’s define story. This is the moment we’ll usually refer to Merriam-Webster. Here is the definition for story and in arts definition 3b is the closest: “the intrigue or plot of a narrative or dramatic work”. Art is also defined (just select noun) and I say definition 4a brings us close: “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced”.
What about storytelling? Nada, so help me God. There is a definition for storyteller though “a teller of stories: as a : a relater of anecdotes b : a reciter of tales (as in a children’s library) c : liar, fibber d : a writer of stories”. How brilliant. Back to teller of X.
So before I continue, what say you – does something happen between X and the telling of X? an addition to the experience maybe? something tiny? just a bit? what is your personal experience?