/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19342316]

Stream of consciousness is a meme and I'm not having it anymore. I've read enough of it now to know there isn't anything to it, it's lazy and unpleasant to read and any faggot that tells me I just need to 'get used to it' can go suck my dick as well.

[Anonymous No.19342330]

pleb

[Anonymous No.19342337]

@19342330
Fag

[Anonymous No.19342414]

Good Image
https://youtu.be/d3RdaXHiDfk

[Anonymous No.19342497]

>>19342414
ty <3

https://youtu.be/nfVW6F4zNog

[Anonymous No.19342563]

>>19342316
I liked it in 'The Anatomy of Melancholy'. Usually pretty dreary though.

[Anonymous No.19342594]

Get used to it faggot

[Anonymous No.19342627]

>>19342316
It worked really well for the retard chapter in the sound and the fury.

[Anonymous No.19342809]

>>19342627
Too bad I won't be reading anymore Faulkner after As I Lay Dying

[Anonymous No.19342837]

>>19342316
My diary desu had been mostly stream of consciousness lately
What do I do

[Anonymous No.19342851]

>>19342563
>The Anatomy of Melancholy
That's not stream of consciousness. By any stretch of the imagination.

[Anonymous No.19342860]

>>19342316
Pleb. Not all soc is bad, but its very easy for an author to let it botch their story.
>>19342809
Seethe. It reads great in this and faulkner exploits most readers' main preconception about soc - that it is a tool for realism. Having a character like darl use it for telepathy is based.

[Anonymous No.19342877]

>>19342316
What do you expect of a literary technique which started as an imitation of music?

[Anonymous No.19342902]

>>19342877
It didn't. It was first used by Tolstoy in War and Peace to realistically capture the thoughts of Rostov as the battle of Austerlitz was drawing in iirc

[Anonymous No.19342926]

>>19342902
>It was first used by Tolstoy in War and Peace
Are you sure that counts as stream of consciousness? If it did I think I would have seen people credit it.

Even Tristram Shandy gets credited with inventing it, even if it had no influence on the later use of it which we now speak of.

[Anonymous No.19342966]

>>19342926
Well I mean from a technical standpoint it's got all key features of soc, though I think few people credit it per se, although that's probably because Tolstoy didn't really realise what he did with that, and people could tell it was stream of consciousness only in retrospect. Same with Dostoevsky who occasionally stirred his characters' monologues, inner ones as well. Joyce was the one who systemised and popularised it though, and he was a big fan of both Dostoyevsky and especially Tolstoy.

[Anonymous No.19343004]

>>19342966
Dujardin systemised it, Joyce popularised it. In a dedication to Dujardin's French edition of Ulysses he wrote 'to the discoverer of interior monologue, from the unrepentant thief!'.

[Anonymous No.19343021]

>>19343004
I guess, sorry, I haven't read Les Lauriers

[Anonymous No.19343087]

>>19343021
So I guess if you consider Tolstoy and Dostoevsky as having used stream of consciousness then the credit must go originally to Sterne, but the proper modern sense of it coming from Dujardin.

[Anonymous No.19343120]

>>19342316
wrong

[Anonymous No.19343134]

>>19343087
I don't think I would go as far as to attribute its inception to Sterne, because the figure of narrator in his works is still way too vague and mixes with the figure of author too densely for his lyrical digressions to be categorised as stream of consciousness, but I suppose by the looks of it Dujardin might have really be the first to have done it properly. Still I need to get to his novel to be sure.

[Anonymous No.19343177]

OP here, I looked into stream of conscience a little more and realised On the Road by Kerouac is SoC, which I quite like, so maybe not all of it is bad, oops. Faulkner is still trash though.

>>19342860
Cringe, stream of conscience + retard voice is intolerable. I don't know why making the reader stumble and struggle through a narrative is supposed to be skilful but it's just annoying.

>>19343120
Not really though anon, when I think of stream of conscience Pynchon doesn't really come to mind, don't know why you went for him over Joyce, Woolf and Faulkner but ok.

[Anonymous No.19343223]

>>19343177
>jezebelposter
>likes on the road
>doesn't know i'm talking about as i lay dying
>doesn't recognize pynchon soc
>shit talks an entire technique in literature and expects to be taken seriously
>>19342316
Unironically though, talking shit about stream of consciousness as a technique is like saying arpeggios are stupid. Obviously it can be used in so many great ways that to talk shit about faulkner doing it and say that it sucks as a whole is kind of hilarious because it shows how shallow your understanding of the technique is.
The camera eye sections of dos passos's usa trilogy, samuel beckett, bernhard, certain chapters in ulysses and portrait of the artist, some passages in pynchon (specifically early, pre-vineland pynchon), most woolf and faulkner's as i lay dying and every non-benjy soc section in the sound and the fury - these all read great and are very distinct from eachother stylistically.

[Anonymous No.19343283]

>>19343223
>>jezebelposter
Cutie poster
>>likes on the road
GigaChadYes.jpg
>>doesn't know i'm talking about as i lay dying
I was talking about Vardaman
>>doesn't recognize pynchon soc
Didn't deny it, it's like saying Shakespeare is known for writing sonnets over plays
>>shit talks an entire technique in literature and expects to be taken seriously
Yes.

And in response to your other post, you are a literal mouthbreathing monkey, just because canonical writers do a thing doesn't mean it's good, I bet if Joyce wrote Fifty Shades of Grey you would finger your pussy to it.

Consider urself btfo'd and don't be so rude next time x

[Anonymous No.19343467]

>>19343283
Carson Mccullers was a second rate, self proclaimed writer.

[Anonymous No.19343493]

>>19343467
Don't know what you're talking about. You should take meds!

[Anonymous No.19343861]

>>19342877
Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.19343898]

>>19343861
>t. not a knower

[Anonymous No.19344029]

>>19343898
>t. low iq

[Anonymous No.19344061]

>>19342316
The way we think is basically a stream of consciousness

[Anonymous No.19344075]

>>19344061
Is this a joke?