You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Public opinion has it that every story-teller is automatically a story-writer. Frequently, raconteurs are accosted by listeners: “You should write that story.” There are three specific reasons for denying the identity: two are of practical nature, one is theoretical in scope. The empirical fact is to be recorded that writers suffering from writer's block, do not lose their ability of story-telling when in animated company. To be precise: this applies to those writers who are also reconteurs in not inhibited periods. It is well known that writers are often shy and reticent, even at times of full productivity.
Thus, story-telling and story-writing seems not to be carved out of the same wood: not every writer is a raconteur.
The second practical reason, contradicting the identity of raconteur and writer, is another simple empirical fact that not every raconteur is a writer. (1) Some raconteurs never even think of writing, at least consciously. If they try writing, they fail.
The third—this time theoretical—reason relates to the basic unconscious conflict to be solved in writing and storytelling, respectively. Both types of conflicts are completely different. Writing and story-telling may coincide in one and the same person; both are not interconnected.
Analysis of raconteurs convinced me that they labor under the following repressed conflict: the rejected child (in reality rejected or in his imagination) is not taken seriously; that supercilious attitude of parents is later masochistically elaborated, leading to a secondary exhibitionistic defense—to be at any costs the center of attention, thus spiting the parents. Hence, the combination of verbal and mimetic fiestas is exhibitionistically put in operation—before spectators and