It’s important to know clearly that storytelling isn’t a “neutral transmission” of written words by other person, not even a data referring, doing the transmission of these with the same aseptic precision of the barcodes..
Often we heard talking about dispassion, impartiality, how the narrator opinion about what’s telling should be erased, in the name of a kind of “transmitted data purity”.
So it happens -at the same, or rather too much often- to watch storytelling or whole shows built with the target of saying to the spectator what is right to think about what it’s happening or saying because the Author’s intention -obviously, according to the critics, or to the common opinion- is this one, surely not that one.
I firmly think that, during a storytelling, it's important for the spectator to know the opinion of the narrator. An instinctive opinion, surely not any elaborated theory. I like it, I don’t like it, it get me angry, it get me laughing, it’s silly, it’s fantastic, it's touching, these are part of the things which make living the narration in the same way for the narrator as for the audience: it isn’t any previous classifying as nice, unpleasant, annoying, comic, silly, magnificent, touching.
The relationship with the text, at this point, radically changes. There’s a space for the telling person in the center of the narration, not only simply on the stage middle. The archetype that’s having its root in any story have so a bridge which gives to it the chance of reaching the spectator, if the storyteller have the consciousness and the skill of the languages which -both daily and unconsciously - we use in our interactions.