Founded and hosted by David Nadelburg, the Mortified Podcast uncovers the embarrassing, funny, and captivating tales of our childhood and adolescence, memories that we simply forgot or purposely buried. Adult men and women join the podcast through submitting audio recordings of their own diary entries, written letters, poems, or other media, reading these wise words of their younger selves almost verbatim. Various recordings are then pieced together under a common theme for each episode, pieced together by David in the same awkward manner that the stories are told, inviting millions of listeners to ride the rollercoaster of youth once again, second-hand embarrassment and all.
After running through advertisements, upbeat music suddenly floods your ears, followed by the age-old words “Dear Diary”. To capture the nature of the podcast, The Mortified Podcast’s intro continues with different voices each mentioning either a year, a grade in school, “February 14th”, or the cringe-worthy phrases “why did she break up with me” or “mom, don’t read that!”. Each shout carried a wide range of tones and sincere emotion behind them, allowing the audience to feel the raw honesty behind the upcoming stories, as well as encouraging listeners to recall their own memories. The intro served its purpose as a hook – the awkward atmosphere is instantly set, and the humor of the podcast peeks through. However, the comedy of the rest of the podcast becomes variable, as it is left up to the guests themselves, or rather the guests’ younger selves.
In Episode 168: Roughin It, three stories are pieced together under the common theme of outdoor adventures, though for some reason, the first story is told more in a narrative format while the others were written entries read aloud almost verbatim. Perhaps the first story is told in a different format to capture the audience’s attention more quickly, as it was shorter and more entertaining; nonetheless, the two distinct styles of storytelling offered a good comparison of how narrative podcasts can be structured, even within one episode. Immediately after the introduction ends, a new voice begins, “When I was thirteen…”, pushing the audience right in to the first story about a teenager’s stomach-turning time in a wilderness camp. The story was read in a straightforward storytelling manner – similar to a “these are the most memorable things that happened” type of story. David, the podcast’s single narrator (who acts like a moderator), interjects every couple sentences to offer more context and to break up the recording to make it more digestible, but still ensures Marina, the storyteller, is in the spotlight. David also adds some sarcasm in his comments, adding to Marina’s already funny recollection. Because the story is told like a summary, only the most funny and interesting parts of her outdoor horror story are shared, like the time she tried to “hypothetically break her ankle” to get out of a hike, keeping the podcast engaging and humorous.
In contrast with this first type of storytelling, the other two tales are shared through direct readings of a diary and a self-authored movie script, each of which David only briefly introduces and concludes to connect them together. Since he backs out of the show completely, the show takes a risk – if the stories are funny, the show as a result is also funny, but if they start to drag on, there is no way to save it. While the solo-reads offer a more personal connection to the author, simply reading kid-composed sentences directly from a piece of paper is bound to be both awkward and unfocused, resulting in a more uninteresting segment of the podcast. David makes up for his lack of presence with a fake studio audience (clapping and laughing), but these monotonous and almost ingenuine features overshadow the actual story and start to induce headaches. Additionally, both of the latter stories seemed to rely heavily on swear words for humor, which quickly lost its jest and became repetitive, along with the “Day 1, Day 2, Day 3,” and so on.
By including both storytelling methods, the compelling sections contrasted more sharply with the less enjoyable sections, emphasizing what the podcast did well – the introduction was seamlessly produced, with good music, appropriate words that matched the nature of the podcast, and memory-provoking emotion behind each shout. Also, with David’s voice mixing with Marina’s in the first recording, the podcast kept me engaged and more understanding of the story. Since Marina’s narrative was told in a more general summary, it seemed more relatable, as her descriptions were less scripted and more genuine from memory. Matching the ambience perfectly was the music throughout the entire podcast, which was attuned to accompany each story. On the other hand, while David connects the stories well with each other, the last two readings turned out to be less interesting with a single narrator and awkward language, as well as constant fake cheering and laughing. I am curious to see how the storytelling methods are varied in future episodes, and if the episode I chose was unusually slow paced. (Word Count: 839 words)
Megan, this is such an interesting pick for a podcast!
I found it interesting that you mention David Nadelburg’s presence in the podcast, or lack thereof. If the host is too involved in the retelling of the story, it feels disingenuous. However, like you said, if the host backs out of the story and replaces their input with canned laughter and unnecessary sound effect it results in the same disconnection. There is also the issue of continuity throughout podcast episodes. If Nadelburg continued to take a back seat in the storytelling, do you think this would impact the cohesiveness of the podcast as a whole? Nadelburg’s decisions on whether or not he should interrupt the story during certain parts is definitely something that should be analyzed in the next episodes you watch.
Adding onto that, it sounds as if your podcast let the stories speak for themselves and didn’t lead the audience to a certain conclusion or opinion. This was quite similar to the style my podcast, Noble Blood, chose to use. Rather than interjecting their personal thoughts, the hosts of both podcasts chose to stick strictly to the events that happened. I found it intriguing that you made a comment that if the story itself was entertaining, then the podcast would be as well, but if it dragged on longer than it needed to, then the episode would come off as dull or unexciting. I believe that each podcast’s decision to only tell the story that happened was meant to keep the attention on the main story and not distract listeners.
Your podcast’s choice of music and sound effects are also a good point to note. I could clearly tell that it was meant to be an entertaining episode that didn’t have many sad or gloomy undertones. The music helped set the tone of the podcast immensely, and although it was a tone completely opposite of the one set in Noble Blood, its effectiveness was very clear.
As a final thought, the podcast sounds like a good mix of entertainment and storytelling. I am also very curious what narrative choices Nadelburg chooses to keep, and what he uses on a case-by-case basis.