Stream of Conciousness is an inherently flawed concept

[Jtolj]

Which is perhaps the reason why 70%(guess) of people don't respond to it. Why? Because the mind is so complex that randomly written thoughts can't do it justice. The mind exists on many levels and much of which is experienced is felt and not vocalized, even within. Therefore, it is virtually without possibility for language to capture what it is to stream in thought as would truly be seen as true streaming of thought.

Hence, stream of conciouness, then just comes off as purely unfocused and choppy. If you want to do streaming, you can't do it with books. It has to be music or movies. I dunno, I just feel like it is impossible to have words truly capture the mind, so for many people you get all this repulsive crap.

Words can't capture the style of the mind, just the substance, and when you try to capture the style, it rarely seems to turn out right, unless you used in only a certain part of the book.

Now, I'm sure it does work for some people but not the majority (guess), and I just can't stand it as a writing style.

[ShoutGrace]

Sometimes I wish Faulkner had written The Sound and the Fury classically, but then I take a second and realize how beautifully and richly the story is unfolded as is . . . "stream of consciousness" requires the reader to work in order to appreciate and understand the story, and that is what most people don't like about it.

[ShoutGrace]

Which is perhaps the reason why 70%(guess) of people don't respond to it.

Ah, I just saw this. If true, it helps give an insight into how great "stream of consciousness" is. The "average" reader won't take the time or put forth the effort neccessary to understand writers like Faulkner and Joyce.

Doesn't the fact that the masses don't fully appreciate "stream of consciousness" give an indication as to it's qualities?

Is that indicator leaning towards "stream of consciousness" as "repulsive crap"? Not in my opinion.

[Nick Rubashov]

I would consider Richard Wright's Native Son to be stream of consciousness novel, or at least parts of it. Wright is able to send a powerful message through showing the internal workings of Bigger Thomas' mind. While I agree stream of consciousness can be very hard to read and understand, I also believe that the unfocused and choppy sense that stream of consciousness can create is how the human mind sometimes operates . In situations like the one Bigger Thomas gets himself into, the mind does not work on a very straightforward and simple level, nothing is very clear or easily understandable. Stream of consciousness is able to show how people think in high stress situations.

The only book I've ever read by Faulkner is As I Lay Dying, and I hated it the first time through. It was confusing, I didn't really understand the main points, and I thought the use of stream of consciousness was an incredibly stupid way to write an entire novel. It took a very serious second read-through to appreciate the technique of stream of conciousness and what it can accomplish. It's definitely a workout to read a complete novel that is in stream of consciousness, but I also think it's definitely worth it.

[Mark F.]

"A Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Man" by Joyce and "Light In August" by Faulkner are among the ten best novels I've ever read. They're not as easy to read as some junk like Dan Brown or Stephen King, but I like to think that people who read these masterpieces don't read them for the same reasons.

I guess that if you consider reading a passive activity and that novels should just be about plot you won't like "stream of conciousness" novels. On the other hand if you like thinking about what you're reading and trying to understand how the mind works you should give those books another chance as they are very rewarding.

[PeterL]

Which is perhaps the reason why 70%(guess) of people don't respond to it. Why? Because the mind is so complex that randomly written thoughts can't do it justice. The mind exists on many levels and much of which is experienced is felt and not vocalized, even within. Therefore, it is virtually without possibility for language to capture what it is to stream in thought as would truly be seen as true streaming of thought.

You mixed very different ideas in this paragraph. One point of which I agree with you is that the mind does many things that are never vocalized. No one knows what system the brain uses for encoding data for internal processing. It is known that language is processed in Broca's Region before being sent on to the Left Frontal Lobe for processing, and the signals are sent back to Broca's Region before being expressed. We don't know what goes on in the Frontal Lobe, but everything that goes through Broca's Region is in language or comprehensible images. But there is no difference in the processing of emotions or various sensory impressions and language. The brain handles everything in essentially the same way. In cases where a physical response is required, the brain will order the necessary physical actions, whether those activities are skeletal motions or immune system responses; or, if they are emotional responses, the brain will order the neurotransmitters and hormones that are called for. "Stream of consciousness" writing doesn't pretend to express the mental activities are are not put into language at some point. Keep in mind that "consciousness" implies conscious awareness, so an increase in blood pressure is not part of the "stream of consciousness", as one example.


Hence, stream of conciouness, then just comes off as purely unfocused and choppy. If you want to do streaming, you can't do it with books. It has to be music or movies. I dunno, I just feel like it is impossible to have words truly capture the mind, so for many people you get all this repulsive crap.

Words can't capture the style of the mind, just the substance, and when you try to capture the style, it rarely seems to turn out right, unless you used in only a certain part of the book.

Now, I'm sure it does work for some people but not the majority (guess), and I just can't stand it as a writing style.

I don't think that stream of consciousness is a "flawed concept", but I think that it has been used poorly in some novels. Someone else mentioned that it doesn't make sense for a complete book to be in stream of consciousness, and I almost agree with that, but Ulysses is excellent as a whole (but you don;t like it). I strongly disagree with you about music and movies doing stream of consciousness better; I think that those media do a much worse job at expressing thoughts.

[Zippy]

I think when done well, stream of consciousness works well at capturing the nature of a character's thoughts. You only have to look at the end of To Have and Have Not to see that it works.

However, having said that, I think it's a case of less is more. The more it's used in a narrative the less effective it is - the writer risks sacrificing clarity for style.

I agree that it cannot totally encapsulate the thought processes, but then it's a sad and frustrating fact that no work of literature, however good, can fully encapsulate real life. The one's that come close we call 'masterpieces', but still they're a long way from total reality.

Zippy.

[Jtolj]

Ah, I just saw this. If true, it helps give an insight into how great "stream of consciousness" is. The "average" reader won't take the time or put forth the effort neccessary to understand writers like Faulkner and Joyce.

Doesn't the fact that the masses don't fully appreciate "stream of consciousness" give an indication as to it's qualities?

Is that indicator leaning towards "stream of consciousness" as "repulsive crap"? Not in my opinion.
No, because people are supposed to understand books. If they do not get it to the detriment of their enjoyment, it is the author's fault. Any literary businessman, may tell you that a book's quality is based on the fact that it could be enjoyed.

[PeterL]

No, because people are supposed to understand books. If they do not get it to the detriment of their enjoyment, it is the author's fault. Any literary businessman, may tell you that a book's quality is based on the fact that it could be enjoyed.

Most readers can understand most "stream of consciousness". Ulysses is still in print, so it continues to sell, and all of Faulkner's novels are still in print. Clearly publishers think that they can make money off those books. Either here or on another thread, someone pointed out that the purpose of writing is to communicate, and that if a book can not be understood, it is questionable whether that book is "writing". For that reason I sometimes question whether Finnegans Wake is writing, but Finnegans Wake is not "stream of consciousness".. There are people who spend decades trying to figure out what it means.

[cuppajoe_9]

No, because people are supposed to understand books. If they do not get it to the detriment of their enjoyment, it is the author's fault. Any literary businessman, may tell you that a book's quality is based on the fact that it could be enjoyed.

I, personally, like having to work a little bit to figure out the meaning of a work of literature.

[Mark F.]

I, personally, like having to work a little bit to figure out the meaning of a work of literature.

I agree. It's a way of keeping the reader involved in what he's reading.

[Woland]

Well lets just all write in omnipotent viewpoint, that'll be fun. Variety is a good thing.

[ShoutGrace]

No, because people are supposed to understand books. If they do not get it to the detriment of their enjoyment, it is the author's fault. Any literary businessman, may tell you that a book's quality is based on the fact that it could be enjoyed.

No, actually, it's the readers fault. Anybody who wants to understand The Sound and the Fury can, they just need to take the time and effort to do it.

We could all read Nora Roberts, but some of us decline to have our literature handed to us so shabbily and easily - I'd rather work hard to understand a great work than easily grasp some other.


I, personally, like having to work a little bit to figure out the meaning of a work of literature.


I agree. It's a way of keeping the reader involved in what he's reading.


And after you're done, the story is more impressive and the accomplishment means more to you than it otherwise would have.

[ennison]

Well stream of consciousness is a literary technique and no doubt can be flawed to the point of being worthless. All techniques can go wrong. 'Pure' stream of consciosness would be very boring and/or confusing. The control of dialogue in a novel carries the same kind of difficulty. Dialogue just written as we actually speak would be very confusing and dull. The creative process has to work on these raw materials and turn them to the writer's purpose.Some experimental novelists have tried to present raw dialogue but the reader usually feels that she's getting no where fast - a sure recipe for the majority of readers to ditch the text. Some writers present 'realistic' dialogue in their novels but have in fact invested tremendous amounts of creativity to do so - Gaddis for example. I agree that the impulses of the brain are not all capable of being vocalised. Language however is one of our defining characteristics and most of us most of the time 'think' in words. The bilingual individual is in an interesting and enviable situation here.

[F.Emerald]

I think, when done so tactfully, stream of consciousness can be the most beautiful form of writing there can be. I agree with ShoutGrace in that stream of consciousness isn't popular with the masses because it is so condensed, and you actually have to work and think in order to fully capture and appreciate it. I think everybody at least agrees it is definitely not 'repulsive crap.'