Urgent: The Written Version of This Article Is Categorically Inferior to the Oral One

EDITOR'S NOTE: Our folklore correspondent Elspeth Loreweaver has submitted the following article under protest. She maintains that the written form constitutes 'a fundamental betrayal of the material' and has asked that we print a disclaimer acknowledging that the oral version, delivered over a 35-minute phone call, was 'significantly funnier, more nuanced, and contained at least four digressions that really tied the whole thing together.' The article concerns a dispute at the annual Meeting of Oral Tradition Practitioners, where members debated whether the organization should have a website. Ms. Loreweaver's notes, which she insists are 'not the story, just a skeleton of the story, and a poor skeleton at that,' indicate the following sequence of events: A motion was raised to create a website. Fourteen members objected on principle. Three members attempted to explain what a website is. The explanation took two hours because it was conducted orally and each speaker felt compelled to 'provide the necessary contextual background,' which in one case extended back to the invention of papyrus. The motion was defeated 31-2, with the two supporters being members under 40 who were later asked to justify their presence at the meeting. Ms. Loreweaver has asked us to convey that the story, as told aloud, included 'a devastating impression of the chairman, a callback to a joke from the 2019 meeting that absolutely killed, and a moment of genuine pathos about the dying art of the spoken word that would have made you cry.' None of these elements survive in written form, a fact Ms. Loreweaver considers 'proof of her entire thesis.' Readers who wish to experience the superior version are invited to call Ms. Loreweaver directly. She has set aside Tuesday evenings for this purpose.