I agree. I didn't mean to imply that Yankees don't like a good yarn, too. After all, they gave us Sleepy Hollow and Casey at the Bat among other tales.
(Though, that Connecticut licence plate that says "The Story-Hatin' State doesn't help matters any.)
I guess I meant more about the pace, point, style, and manner of story telling. The south has always seemed to have a different, more reverential social place for storytellers in my stereotypes. Like your example of food, all societies have religion and priests, too, but some areas, like Iran, clearly hold them in a different regard than, say, California. I guess I was asking about degrees, not absolutes.
And the way a story is told is key, too. I was more-or-less wondering aloud if the Chicago crowds clapped and laughed precisely because the method was one they understood, whereas a Texas crowd may get confused because it is not a method of 'story-telling' they are used to. In other words, is the Chicago crowd properly conditioned via culture or exposure to improv to not find it weird when the improvisers word associate with a suggestion? Would I get the same quasi-weird vibe I've occasionally picked up from a Texas crowd in Chicago? If not, why not? What is the difference?
Granted, the world is quickly shrinking and these perceived differences (and they are just perceived) blur with time and exposure. But as someone who loves and watches a lot of Asian cinema, they have some story-telling techniques that are essentially foreign to Western story-telling and can confuse the hell out of you if you aren't at least slightly familiar with the culture and the way they prefer to take in and process information. (I'm using culutre and geography as differentiators, but I'm maybe what I'm really curious about the science and psychology of reaching an audience, any audience).
Also, I could be way off. I'd be willing to buy that premise, too.
I was just thinking at 60 words a minute and my experiences with our cousins in the North are somewhat limited. I knew a lot of Minnesotans, but they didn't care about much of anything besides fishing and showing off the fact that they could wear short-sleeves in the 40's while us Tennessee natives bundled up under 14 layers of jackets and coats. I've also known a few New Jerseyites and with some notable exceptions they seemed much more direct than the equivalent southerner. ("Dude, you are wicked fat!" as opposed to "You, sir, look like a Christmas pig that was let loose in the corn barn the day after Thanksgiving.")
As for Tight, they were just an example I tossed out because I know they are at the least Chicago influenced and have some training in that style. I've seen some homemade videos of some SCTV stuff and clips on websites and read a good bit about it, but I'm not so sure I've ever seen any troupe do an "actual" Harold. Of course, if some of the books are to be believed (I don't),
everything is nothing more than an adapted Harold anyway. I would love to see one, though. I've always found it curious that it is held up in so many books, but never done here.
I think we totally agree on the underlying concept of thematic improv, we just approach the packaging a little differently is all. And that is precisely what is going to make Austin rock.
I love improv, too and I love these discussions. I consider other takes on the issue a blessing and an oppotunity for growth.
I concur that we should drink copious amounts of alcohol and discuss this and many other improv issues further.