Stream of Conciousness

[FallenMorgan]

Do you like Stream of Conciousness narratives? It's how I write "Angel in Darkness."

In my opinion it's great for the person writing it. I get into the whole mindset of the narrorator, since basically the narrorator is me but more emo looking. Anyways, here's an example from Angel in Darkness Episode II:

Even though I didn't like curvy-ish women, I admit to having the urge to bang her – Tanya was curvy but not so overly curvy and short – she was short, just not as curvy as Kim, which was nice, but some curves are okay, I guess – Paris had curves, ya know. Basically, by curvy women I mean women with big hips and big breasts, neither of which I like.

I don't try to go back and edit all the time, which was the main reason why I messed up Angel In Darkness before I started rewriting it again. In the story I'll often go off into little tirades, and then have the next sentence or paragraph start with "Anyways -".

By the way "Kim" in there is obviously Kim Kardashian. She's only a minor character, really. And this is just a poll, not a critique of my story, even though, as the narrorator version of me would put it: "I don't give a fuck what anyone reading this thinks - just friggin read it."

 

[MagicaPractica]

Do you like Stream of Conciousness narratives? It's how I write "Angel in Darkness."

In my opinion it's great for the person writing it. I get into the whole mindset of the narrorator, since basically the narrorator is me but more emo looking. Anyways, here's an example from Angel in Darkness Episode II:

Even though I didn't like curvy-ish women, I admit to having the urge to bang her – Tanya was curvy but not so overly curvy and short – she was short, just not as curvy as Kim, which was nice, but some curves are okay, I guess – Paris had curves, ya know. Basically, by curvy women I mean women with big hips and big breasts, neither of which I like.

I don't try to go back and edit all the time, which was the main reason why I messed up Angel In Darkness before I started rewriting it again. In the story I'll often go off into little tirades, and then have the next sentence or paragraph start with "Anyways -".

By the way "Kim" in there is obviously Kim Kardashian. She's only a minor character, really. And this is just a poll, not a critique of my story, even though, as the narrorator version of me would put it: "I don't give a fuck what anyone reading this thinks - just friggin read it."

Well, if you don't care what anyone reading it thinks, why are you asking? Just advertising?

 

[FallenMorgan]

Well, if you don't care what anyone reading it thinks, why are you asking? Just advertising?

I was just using my story as an example, and saying that to enforce that this thread isn't a discussion about my story.

 

[tickledkitty]

I've only read Virginia Woolf, and honestly, I think it becomes tiresome after a while. It's almost too much to take in at once or something. Although that may have just been Virginia Woolf and not necessarily the the stream of consciousness style itself.

 

[FallenMorgan]

I've only read Virginia Woolf, and honestly, I think it becomes tiresome after a while. It's almost too much to take in at once or something. Although that may have just been Virginia Woolf and not necessarily the the stream of consciousness style itself.

I suggest reading "The Catcher in the Rye" or something. It's not like I go off on a too big tirade. It's more like the narrorator is an actual person telling the story, with a personality and whatnot. Other stories just seem to have the narrorator as some kind of voice of god with no relative sign that the narrorator is a human.

 

[MagicaPractica]

I was just using my story as an example, and saying that to enforce that this thread isn't a discussion about my story.

Well, I think Guy Noir monologues from Garrison Keillor might be an example as well and I can say I really like that. They're very tight and funny. I did not like Catcher in the Rye at all.

 

[tickledkitty]

I suggest reading "The Catcher in the Rye" or something. It's not like I go off on a too big tirade. It's more like the narrorator is an actual person telling the story, with a personality and whatnot. Other stories just seem to have the narrorator as some kind of voice of god with no relative sign that the narrorator is a human.

I've read "Catcher" too and loved it. I forgot about that.

 

[tickledkitty]

I did not like Catcher in the Rye at all.

You didn't? I don't think I've ever heard anybody say that before. It's one of those books that people hold dear to their hearts. What didn't you like about it?

 

[MagicaPractica]

You didn't? I don't think I've ever heard anybody say that before. It's one of those books that people hold dear to their hearts. What didn't you like about it?

I found Holden rather obnoxious and without much of any redeeming qualities. I read it as a teenager. I might have a different opinion if I went back and read it now but it would take a lot of energy to drum up the enthusiasm to do so because I really hated it back then. I've found people pretty well split fifty-fifty on whether they liked it.

I think I like stream of conciousness as well as any other form if it's well done. There's nothing about it that turns me off but I don't look for it either.

 

[FallenMorgan]

I've read "Catcher" too and loved it. I forgot about that.

The book greatly influenced my writing. Before that, my story was "I did this, she did that, I did that" and whatnot.

 

[tickledkitty]

The book greatly influenced my writing. Before that, my story was "I did this, she did that, I did that" and whatnot.

I can see that. It really gets inside your head and kind of stays there. It touched me deeply, but I've never had the right words to explain why or how.

 

[Vermilion]

I like stream of consciousness poems. I think they work amazingly well. I think it can be overload in prose...

The few poems I have written in SoC have been the ones I was most proud of.

x
V

 

[neonlyte]

I like stream of consciousness poems. I think they work amazingly well. I think it can be overload in prose...

The few poems I have written in SoC have been the ones I was most proud of.

x
V

I largely agree. You almost have to try to read the prose like a poem to make any sense of it... if done properly. I don't think the example, first post, is particularly good. Too many 'qualifiers' to thought. It's an incredibly difficult style to pull off, but not one to shy away from. If I attempt it at all, I try to get a 'breathless' edge to it.

 

[Liar]

The thing about stream of conciousness narrative is that it's very tricky to do right. And the label "stream of conciousness" is a deceptive one for any writer. Because it implicated that "Hey, I just write down my stream of concoiusness and abracadabra, stream of conciousness magic!" And to be frank...no. It takes careful prose-crafting, and if you don't think actively through the process, the result is most likely a sloppy mess.

One of my favourite authors, Norweigan humorist Erlend Loe, is stream of conciousness defined. His prose is a jitter of thoughts, loops of reasoning and seemingly erratic ideas shooshing by, repeating in the most pecualir of places and then, all of a sudden, making perfect sense all along. Because it does...it all comes together.

I read an interview with him in a Swedish newspaper this summer, where they asked about how he created his very peculiar style of writing. Was it straight from a chaotic mind and out onto paper? Does he really think like that?

"Hell no," he replied. "I make flowcharts. Hundreds of them. One for the book, one for each chapter, sometimes one for every paragraph. Some long sentences gets their own too."

So much for artistic "flow". Writing is 10% idea and 90% crafting, it seems.

 

[gauchecritic]

I have this comment:

i felt like you were relating a story to your buds at the pub and i was fortuneate enough to be able to over hear

on this story Thunder Follows Lightning.

I'm not certain that it qualifies as 'stream of consciousness' but it's probably the closest I've come so far in that I tend to add notes and loads of parentheses when writing but this story (as far as I recall) has them all in the narrative rather than asides. Inevitably this meant lots of phrases like 'where was I?' or 'Do you know what?' If you can't be arsed to follow the link here's a short example:

Here's another actual picture that I've seen for myself many times. A crowded room, maybe a pub or bar, a thronged shopping mall or even once a milling queue of football supporters going into a match. All the people busily engaged, shopping, drinking, talking, walking, and going about their ordinary business. Then heads turn. Conversation stutters to a halt. Drinks stop halfway to lips. Strides are broken and people stare. Only for the barest fraction of a second. But it's there. It's noticeable. Something moving through the crowd. Something that demands attention and almost instantly dismisses it. That something is Storm.

But I didn't (can't) write it all at once. I always edit on the fly.
Maybe this isn't an example of stream of consciousness (I'm not entirely certain what that means anyway) but I tend to write in that fashion anyway and edit it into 'story form' as I go.
If, as I suspect (please enlighten me) stream of consciousness is the blurring of author/narrator/protagonist then that's always how I write first person and it's the edit which makes the difference.

To answer the question, I don't mind really one way or the other.

 

[neonlyte]

I have this comment:
on this story Thunder Follows Lightning.

I'm not certain that it qualifies as 'stream of consciousness' but it's probably the closest I've come so far in that I tend to add notes and loads of parentheses when writing but this story (as far as I recall) has them all in the narrative rather than asides. Inevitably this meant lots of phrases like 'where was I?' or 'Do you know what?' If you can't be arsed to follow the link here's a short example:


But I didn't (can't) write it all at once. I always edit on the fly.
Maybe this isn't an example of stream of consciousness (I'm not entirely certain what that means anyway) but I tend to write in that fashion anyway and edit it into 'story form' as I go.
If, as I suspect (please enlighten me) stream of consciousness is the blurring of author/narrator/protagonist then that's always how I write first person and it's the edit which makes the difference.

To answer the question, I don't mind really one way or the other.

Stream of conciousness to me menas writing verbatum what comes into ones head. Not sure anyone can do that. Not in a story context... particularly where one needs to switch between screen and keyboard as one types.

If I look out the window, I see: people passing, cars, hear a guy singing folk sons, the noise of wheels on tarmac, pidgeons flying, the bar guys calling, flys in and out of the window, sparrows pecking at the road, a girl with nice tits and I wonder what the wife is doing, how EL's votes are going, if I should comment yet again on fieryjens thread - or will she think I'm a pervert. And why am i not editing?

Most streams of conciousness concentrate on a theme, conciousness doesn't work like that. It flits and consequentlyis nonsense. Immitating SofC is a huge skill barely lended to prose form... no one can type that fast or that accurately and the second you think about what you are doing...

 

[FallenMorgan]

Stream of conciousness to me menas writing verbatum what comes into ones head. Not sure anyone can do that. Not in a story context... particularly where one needs to switch between screen and keyboard as one types.

If I look out the window, I see: people passing, cars, hear a guy singing folk sons, the noise of wheels on tarmac, pidgeons flying, the bar guys calling, flys in and out of the window, sparrows pecking at the road, a girl with nice tits and I wonder what the wife is doing, how EL's votes are going, if I should comment yet again on fieryjens thread - or will she think I'm a pervert. And why am i not editing?

Most streams of conciousness concentrate on a theme, conciousness doesn't work like that. It flits and consequentlyis nonsense. Immitating SofC is a huge skill barely lended to prose form... no one can type that fast or that accurately and the second you think about what you are doing...

You don't necessarily explain everything, how my writing is, along with most others like it, are just like they're written by someone who dosn't have a dictionary right next to them to find every fancy word or something. It's hard to explain, really.

 

[Vermilion]

Stream of consciousness has nothing to do with 'fancy words'. For a start: some of us know 'fancy' words without having to resort to a dictionary...
Stream of consciousness, to my mind, works best as prose when it is not *true* stream of consciousness, but something designed to appear as if it was stream of consciousness. SoC, as a literary device is poetic, even when used in prose. SoC should make you feel as if you are seeing deep inside someone's mind and should stir emotions in you.

"Even though I didn't like curvy-ish women, I admit to having the urge to bang her – Tanya was curvy but not so overly curvy and short – she was short, just not as curvy as Kim, which was nice, but some curves are okay, I guess – Paris had curves, ya know. Basically, by curvy women I mean women with big hips and big breasts, neither of which I like."

is not SoC. It's babbling...

If this was SoC then why is there a justification in there?? "Basically, by curvy women I mean women with big hips and big breasts, neither of which I like" Why is he explaining what he means by curvy? This is SoC... right? Inside someone's thoughts, right? Why would he need to explain to himself what he means by 'curvy'? Surely he would know.

 

[FallenMorgan]

Stream of consciousness has nothing to do with 'fancy words'. For a start: some of us know 'fancy' words without having to resort to a dictionary...
Stream of consciousness, to my mind, works best as prose when it is not *true* stream of consciousness, but something designed to appear as if it was stream of consciousness. SoC, as a literary device is poetic, even when used in prose. SoC should make you feel as if you are seeing deep inside someone's mind and should stir emotions in you.

"Even though I didn't like curvy-ish women, I admit to having the urge to bang her – Tanya was curvy but not so overly curvy and short – she was short, just not as curvy as Kim, which was nice, but some curves are okay, I guess – Paris had curves, ya know. Basically, by curvy women I mean women with big hips and big breasts, neither of which I like."

is not SoC. It's babbling...

If this was SoC then why is there a justification in there?? "Basically, by curvy women I mean women with big hips and big breasts, neither of which I like" Why is he explaining what he means by curvy? This is SoC... right? Inside someone's thoughts, right? Why would he need to explain to himself what he means by 'curvy'? Surely he would know.

The 'narrorator' is basically just writing it down because 'he' feels like it, it's nothing like a diary entry or something.