As a preamble to the development of a storytelling aesthetic, a study analyzed written reports of recent storytelling events to investigate the claim that little theoretical and critical language regarding storytelling is currently in use. Ninety-six reviews of storytelling performances by 11 different storytellers were examined. Sixty were classified as feature articles, 36 as reviews, and none as criticism. Ten basic categories of comments emerged: (1) negative comments; (2) generic positive comments about performers or performances; (3) general positive comments involving the storyteller's effect on an audience; (4) general positive comments involving the persona of the teller; (5) general positive comments involving comparison; (6) general positive comments involving story content or construction; (7) general positive comments regarding story delivery; (8) specific positive comments regarding story content or construction; (9) specific positive comments regarding story delivery; and (10) specific positive comments involving a performer's style. Analysis showed that only 60 of a total of 237 judgmental comments were valuable for revealing terminology useful for establishing a critical storytelling lexicon. From those comments 40 terms emerged, 20 of which were purely nominal in nature and 32 of which were borrowed from other arts. Thus, the study found that the majority of the comments, though relevant to the art of storytelling, were too vague and imprecise to be of value in serving as a basis for developing a critical language for the art. Moreover, it was clear that reviewers of storytelling performances had little conscious conception of the uniqueness of the art. Nonetheless, some judgmental comments did reveal concepts, more frequently implicitly than explicitly, which might serve as a starting point for developing a storytelling aesthetic. (Contains 3 tables of data and 10 figures.) (SR)