Such Tweet Sorrow - how can we stop it from ever happening again?

(Or, what can

we learn from it)

Convened by Hannah Nicklin

Participants included: Dan Bye, Jake Orr, Pat Ashe, Dan Baker, Aliki Chapple, Jenifer Tan,
Miriam Zendle, Timothy Bird, Simon Bedford, Paul Whitlock and others.

Session 3, 4.30-6pm at the 'Craig' space.

The session began with an attempt to isolate what, if anything, people found problematic
about Such Tweet Sorrow (STS). It was suggested that the dialogue wasn't open enough
for the medium it was in - that it paid lip service to Twitter as a form. Pat Ashe highlighted
the problems with using Twitter solely as a base and ignoring the wider potential
storytelling value of new media - and in fact the reality of how real people use this media,
they don't broadcast, the inhabit a universe built of fragments shared of their lives/data. A
link was drawn to Jake's previous session about 'cool' and theatre, and that STS seemed a
facile attempt to make Shakespeare palatable for a younger audience; fundamentally
missing the fact that the average age of a twitter user is mid 30s - facebook being a much
younger audience*. Dan Baker wondered what was left in STS of Shakespeare, after the
removal of the language.

It was also considered by Hannah Nicklin that there was something deeply troubling about
not just product placement, but active product endorsement as part of the drama -
insidious and manipulative at worst, story-universe-maligning at best. It was agreed by the
group that there was a key problem in the casting of traditional actors - not actors with
devising experience, or, indeed writers - in the roles, considering how the majority of the
input was the writing of a character, not the performance (in a traditional sense**) of it.

Hannah asked whether, though, considering the small but vociferously defensive fan base,
it could be suggested that there was potential snobbery on our part in the way we received
the piece, but it was dismissed as formally fundamentally flawed - a devaluation of the
twitter form.

Jake Orr highlighted the glimmers of interest that the rare forays onto other platforms -
videos of a fight, and images - evoked suggested how it could have evolved into a more
fulfilled and realistic experience.

On the question of the work's actual accessibility to young people it was suggested that
STS seemed poorly researched in how people use twitter, the kind of people who use
twitter, and young people the,selves. There wasn't enough reciprocity and the characters
were parodic.

Dan Bye suggested that despite this, it was interesting that such a large established
company should recognise the importance of something like twitter, but that the problem
came in not letting go of their old perceptions of how an artistic process or performance
should be affected by those not 'in control'.

The conversation then sashayed into discussion on institutions and their use of Twitter,
and how they work best when control (from old ideas about brand control) is relinquished,
Jake talked about Little Angel's feed, and his work on that. Hannah wondered if their
willingness to 'get' social media might have something to do with a being a children's
theatre - are they less used to expecting to be always in control?
It was then emphasised that it's important to highlight that the idea of STS was laudable.

Hannah then asked for 'solutions' to the potential problems presented by STS - more
widely perhaps, of theatrical storytelling online.

Aliki's idea was the bringing of twitter text back into the live - a love improv of actors in
front of an audience, tweeted directions by 'writers' from a screen***

Miriam put forward the expansion of other mediums' universes online - like the BBC
Sherlock's blogs for Holmes and Watson. Hannah also pointed towards Hide and Seek's
involvement with the recent Sherlock movie, and the ARG**** that they developed out of
that across blogs and sites.

It was also suggested that more simply a story should spread into a universe - not create a
single stream.

Dan Bye mentioned an interesting collaboration between himself and Dan Rebellato with
Pilot Theatre coming up - R&Ding the potential of twitter theatre/writing/storytelling.

It was agreed that it's very easy to underestimate people's urge to find out more, of 'digital
native' generation's tendency to play with things to see what they do, and that reward is
what they need to get meaningful interaction, not guidance.

Aliki talked about Star Voyage - a SciFi twitter story over several characters which she
discovered slowly after one character followed her (likely following a simple search for
'SciFi')

The discussion then tentatively moved toward the question of what is theatre. Aliki felt that
it should be about bodies in space, whereas Hannah felt it should be more about story
experienced or expressed thorough a body (navigated via instructions in a headset?). Dan
Bye was less concerned with the question, than just making things. And talked about
wanting online drama to leave real world residues - events that trickle into real life', and
also the need that a piece needs to have not been possible in another genre/form/medium.

Hannah asked what successful cross-platform story-driven experiences the group could
suggest, Tim Etchell's SMS performance, and Ivy from Blast theory were highlighted as
two really successful examples, primarily because they pervaded your day-to-day life in
meaningful ways. Ivy in particular because of the very powerful level of interaction. A piece
by Unlimited was also mentioned, as well as the performance group who staged a hanging
on Chatroulette (although massive ethical difficulties lie therein).

It was pointed to how easy it is to feel you know people online, as the conversation moved
towards the ability of online performance to interrogate the gaps between 'real' and 'fake'.
That the idea of 'authenticity' is a bit of a cultural obsession. Recently Catfish, and The
Trip have skated this question or 'real'.

The discussion drew to a close with Jake's assertion that he was ready to praise STS, not
for it's content, but for it's readiness to address the form. There is a fundamental question
about how it was conceived - as audience development, as a youth project, or as an
experiment - because if an experiment, it can be a success in relative failure.
Finally the remaining participants touched on how theatres themselves tweet - and about
the problems encountered in larger or more traditional institutions/buildings by the need to
control brand 'image', and the possible mistaking of conversation for marketing.

Thanks to all who participated!

And to you, for reading this far.

@hannahnicklin ;)

*for want of a better word?

**is a traditional sense the thing to apply here?
***Andy Field's Movey House is perhaps an interesting thing to look at further to this?
**** Alternate Reality Game, but did they call it this?

Really, the fact that we could have an almost 2 hour conversation about it is worth in itself.