#1
Bosch for ild not good things meshing in the ring folds

Molding green in the bog songs
Calling from a great, long incandescence
Hold on to an infallible sense of great articulation, clear swift and with excessive wit
Vast in fields of prim, clear and terse divinity.
Never falter, never trip over the insurmountable, undressed flings of nature.
Don't get caught upon the wind, sprite of the east
Travelled far and amidst the thicket and bramble, dense with haze, and cool in the sun
Reveries of warm yellow, born from the moment, and destroyed in the senseless, indifferent, ungrudging, brash moment.
Never far away from a light notion, nor close to anything of the common, stone world.
Dreams as dense as sloth.
Fleeting like love
Grasping like envy
The girl in black and flitching weight is pulled to the singularity, but left afloat by stoicism and stubbornness
In a moment of imperfection and minimality, her love stings, assaults, and makes itself vulgar, clear
And genuine
Her lift with me, mutual and blinding
All to one
The reconnaissance left aside
Breathing slowly and faltering
Skipping beats
Crumbling under weight
Behemoth of wrath
Beast and wire of insecurity, pushing the prisoner back
Only to ripen and blossom, plot and grow in cerebral girth
Over take
Annex
Dismantle, devolve, erase improvement
And most importantly
Falter.
#2
I didn't like it. It's not really your fault, either. I just don't like this particular writing style. I feel it represents the overly intellectual side of introspection. Big words, long sentences, nights drinking and thinking too much, all fumbling around to explain simple truths.

This isn't exactly a description of your writing. Merely a description of what it reminds me of.
#5
This is absolutely nothing but a stream of consciousness, as the title says. The only feeling you can take from it is the feeling that you take at anything that uses words bigger than the ideas they're representing. If you want people to take a feeling away from it, it has to be understandable... comprehensible. This isn't, not because of the words used but because they're not going towards anywhere. You get a 'feeling' from poetry because you can connect with the situations or characters. This has no situation, no context, no characters; it's rambling on about nothing. Using Wittgenstein's example of a nonsense sentence that is accepted purely because it follows the rules of grammar, 'colourless green ideas sleep furiously' (second time I've used that today, damn); the fact that you're not talking about anything at all doesn't immediately jump out at you, but that's what it is.

If you want to play with language, do so. If you want to play at painting pictures, do so. If you want to post it up as a piece rather than just a personal game, it needs to have something else. If there's nothing to take away, there's no reason for it to exist. Apply whatever you learned writing this to an actual piece.
There's only one thing we can do to thwart the plot of these albino shape-shifting lizard BITCHES!
#6
^I think thats unfair. it exists beause someone put thought into it and because someone put thought into it it hides some sort of truth, no matter how miniscule. its like the class clown trying to make an analytical claim, sure he's wrong, but there is surely something to be gained from his folly. This piece had excellent sonics, and a few killer ideas. Some images ring out very clear.

the problems lie where he changes who he is addressing (the sprite of the east line not only came out of nowhere but actually conflicted against the rest) and where there is no clear subject anywhere in the line (creating fragment sentences which, in the context of these full sentences, really make absolutely no sense in a way that supersedes the rest.)

But the point is this is no less legitimate than other types of poetry, and in some ways it even seems more genuine.
#7
I'll rephrase that to make more sense; if nothing is put in (other than concentration on a literary exercise) and nothing is taken away, what exists more than a literary exercise?

The writer admits that it is basically 'literary picture painting' and 'playing with language' and I felt very much the same. I am saying that I actually did not take anything more than vague feeling from this because it had no direction; the feelings in the words weren't applied to anything and so they didn't apply to me. I could say 'carrot' and without any context it would mean very little because its meaning is defined by its use/context, even though the word 'carrot' has a meaning.

I am saying that there are things in this which show that it would be worth the writer writing something that did have something to it. This here can have however much 'truth' in it as you want, but it is still a language exercise and could do with not being one if it is to be aimed at a reader.

If this has personal emotional or whatever ties to the writer then I take back all I've said. How good this is depends on how good they think it is too (again as an overall 'piece' rather than having some good sonics).
There's only one thing we can do to thwart the plot of these albino shape-shifting lizard BITCHES!
#8
The way I approached this was to act as a catalyst for any given feeling. If it inspired hatred, disgust, interest, confusion, divinity, contempt, whether it reminded you of something in the past, or gave you a sense of frustration, or just made you think I'm a pretentious prick, or whatever, it's done its job.

I didn't filter it. It's whatever came to mind for me, and I tried not to stop typing. There are some things that I would never put in a structured work, but I also think there are some compelling lines, even if they don't make sense. It's pretty much as anti-didactic as it gets. There is no take-away, moral, lesson, or even premise, really. Admittedly, it did follow a linear progression of images in my head, but in my mind only. If you understand "where I'm going with this," I'd be very, very surprised.

Basically, I was just interested in hearing each person's reaction, whatever it might be.
#9
Basically you approached "stream of consciousness" the wrong way. You actually wrote in a stream of consciousness but poets write the stream of consciousness. Basically instead of doing what the stream of consciousness tells you to, tell the stream of consciousness what you want it to do.

In other words, stream of consciousness needs just as much brainstorming and constructing as does any other form of poetry.
#10
Quote by 21wickwing
Basically you approached "stream of consciousness" the wrong way. You actually wrote in a stream of consciousness but poets write the stream of consciousness. Basically instead of doing what the stream of consciousness tells you to, tell the stream of consciousness what you want it to do.

In other words, stream of consciousness needs just as much brainstorming and constructing as does any other form of poetry.


I'm sorry if this comes off as rude, but that is absolutely, 100% false. I'm not meaning to be offensive, but that is literally contradictory to what stream of consciousness means in modernist poetry, literature, art, psychology, or anything for that matter. Stream of consciousness is a style of writing, especially made popular by beat writers like Jack Kerouac, and many existentialist and modernist authors (Dostoevsky, James Joyce) in which non-censorship and free association without editing are key. If there were to be brainstorming and constructing, it would defeat the purpose of the "form," as it were.

According to Britannica Concise Encyclopaedia:

"Narrative technique in nondramatic fiction intended to render the flow of myriad impressions — visual, auditory, tactile, associative, and subliminal — that impinge on an individual consciousness. To represent the mind at work, a writer may incorporate snatches of thought and grammatical constructions that do not seem coherent because they are based on the free association of ideas and images. The term was first used by William James in The Principles of Psychology (1890). In the 20th century, writers attempting to capture the total flow of their characters' consciousness commonly used the techniques of interior monologue, which represents a sequence of thought and feeling. Novels in which stream of consciousness plays an important role include James Joyce's Ulysses (1922), William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury (1929), and Virginia Woolf's The Waves (1931)."
#11
Quote by Chaingarden
I'm sorry if this comes off as rude, but that is absolutely, 100% false. I'm not meaning to be offensive, but that is literally contradictory to what stream of consciousness means in modernist poetry, literature, art, psychology, or anything for that matter. Stream of consciousness is a style of writing, especially made popular by beat writers like Jack Kerouac, and many existentialist and modernist authors (Dostoevsky, James Joyce) in which non-censorship and free association without editing are key. If there were to be brainstorming and constructing, it would defeat the purpose of the "form," as it were.

According to Britannica Concise Encyclopaedia:

"Narrative technique in nondramatic fiction intended to render the flow of myriad impressions — visual, auditory, tactile, associative, and subliminal — that impinge on an individual consciousness. To represent the mind at work, a writer may incorporate snatches of thought and grammatical constructions that do not seem coherent because they are based on the free association of ideas and images. The term was first used by William James in The Principles of Psychology (1890). In the 20th century, writers attempting to capture the total flow of their characters' consciousness commonly used the techniques of interior monologue, which represents a sequence of thought and feeling. Novels in which stream of consciousness plays an important role include James Joyce's Ulysses (1922), William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury (1929), and Virginia Woolf's The Waves (1931)."


Just because the definition is a "random string of thoughts" does not mean they had a random string of thoughts while writing it. Professional authors write everything with a purpose. There is no doubt that authors like James Joyce would spend a bit of time on it and yes edit it. They write it to make is SEEM like a random string of thoughts when it really is very well constructed and most importantly reveals an underlying truth. That is why it is so tough to do. To make something SEEM random when it is really organized. Only an amateur would try to actually write in stream of consciousness without organizing it.
#12
Quote by 21wickwing
Just because the definition is a "random string of thoughts" does not mean they had a random string of thoughts while writing it. Professional authors write everything with a purpose. There is no doubt that authors like James Joyce would spend a bit of time on it and yes edit it. They write it to make is SEEM like a random string of thoughts when it really is very well constructed and most importantly reveals an underlying truth. That is why it is so tough to do. To make something SEEM random when it is really organized. Only an amateur would try to actually write in stream of consciousness without organizing it.


No, that lack of editing is what makes it what it is. It isn't a point of contention, it is a fact. That's what stream of consciousness writing is. That's akin to saying "well, improvisation is completely composed beforehand, they just make it seem like it wasn't." When James Joyce wrote Finnegan's Wake, he did not go back and edit it. At all. Period.

You're making a presumption that all professional writers have a distinct purpose and crux of their writing. That is not true.

I'd be a little more giving to the possibility you're bringing up, but I've taken a boatload of classes that are either completely about, or involve modernist works, many of which are stream of consciousness, so I'm pretty formally educated about this writing style. I'm also a psychology major, where stream of consciousness is used in a clinical setting (though its value is limited in this regard.)
#13
Quote by Chaingarden
No, that lack of editing is what makes it what it is. It isn't a point of contention, it is a fact. That's what stream of consciousness writing is. That's akin to saying "well, improvisation is completely composed beforehand, they just make it seem like it wasn't." When James Joyce wrote Finnegan's Wake, he did not go back and edit it. At all. Period.

You're making a presumption that all professional writers have a distinct purpose and crux of their writing. That is not true.

I'd be a little more giving to the possibility you're bringing up, but I've taken a boatload of classes that are either completely about, or involve modernist works, many of which are stream of consciousness, so I'm pretty formally educated about this writing style. I'm also a psychology major, where stream of consciousness is used in a clinical setting (though its value is limited in this regard.)


James Joyce didn't need to edit it... he would take whole days to write down a sentence. He focused so much on first drafts that it was so good and didn't require much editing. But I have read a many stream of consciousness poems and you are telling me that 7 page stories filled with symbolism and repetition and foreshadowing written in stream of consciousness form was not premeditated or edited. I have taken classes on poetry and creative writing and I can tell you that no professional writer believes that if he sits down and writes sporadic thoughts on a paper he will get anywhere with it. No its all organized even if it seems chaotic.
Last edited by 21wickwing at Nov 12, 2009,
#14
Quote by 21wickwing
James Joyce didn't need to edit it... he would take whole days to write down a sentence. He focused so much on first drafts that it was so good and didn't require much editing. But I have read a many stream of consciousness poems and you are telling me that 7 page stories filled with symbolism and repetition and foreshadowing written in stream of consciousness form was not premeditated or edited. I have taken classes on poetry and creative writing and I can tell you that no professional writer believes that if he sits down and writes sporadic thoughts on a paper he will get anywhere with it. No its all organized even if it seems chaotic.


Well, I don't mean Joyce's body of work as a whole, I don't think anyone would make that claim of The Dubliner's, and actually, perhaps even Finnegan's Wake would be a bad example, as there's evidence to suggest that he did indeed do some revision, which is a little futile, considering the entire work is composed of essentially neologisms. However, the definition of strict stream of consciousness authorship is contingent on free association, with connections being only cognitive, rather than appeasing to logic and structure. Sure, an author may go back and revisit and change it, but it is certainly not contingent on that, and to be frank, it is no longer a true stream of consciousness work in its essence. The entire idea is actually central to modernist work, and makes sense when put into historical context. These writings were occurring during the influence of Sigmund Freud and the advent of psychoanalysis, so free association was the poet's way of getting as close to the then-coveted sub/unconscious as possible. This is also during the time, of a post-war (WWI) world, in which the idea was meant to symbolize (ironically) a decay of order, and really, a new and revisited approach toward language, convention of writing/storytelling, and syntactical norms.

I'm not sure how else to put this. You're directly in opposition to a formal definition that's widely accepted in the world of poetry and literature. You may hold the opinion that an author of any worth should go back and revisit and edit their pieces, and that's fine, but the fact of the matter is, that definition when applied to free association and stream of consciousness poetry is incorrect. You obviously are free to believe whatever you please, and use whatever definition you want, just know that if you make assertions like that in educated literary circles, you'll have some dissent, to say the least.
#15
wow, there were alot of bold ideas and powerful words in this one, however, i don't know if i could fully grasp its meaning and structure. there were moments in this piece where a nice flow was developing, but suddenely was intruded upon by a missplaced word breaking the flow.

here are some lines that i thought worked well :
Quote by Chaingarden
... clear swift and with excessive wit ...
... Travelled far and amidst the thicket and bramble, dense with haze, and cool in the sun ...
... Reveries of warm yellow, born from the moment, and destroyed in the senseless, indifferent, ungrudging, brash moment ...
... In a moment of imperfection and minimality, her love stings, assaults, and makes itself vulgar, clear ...

sorry for my late response to your piece after you commented on mine, busy week.
"take your form
be my fear, be my hope
be the indication
if i'm right or wrong

take your most dreadful form
and let it be known"
he provided assurance
#16
Quote by gavincandance
wow, there were alot of bold ideas and powerful words in this one, however, i don't know if i could fully grasp its meaning and structure. there were moments in this piece where a nice flow was developing, but suddenely was intruded upon by a missplaced word breaking the flow.

here are some lines that i thought worked well :

sorry for my late response to your piece after you commented on mine, busy week.


Cool man, thanks for the response! I like hearing everyone's take.
#17
Are you telling me that Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye" was never edited or revised? You are saying that book everybody reads in high school written in stream of consciousness form is a first draft.

I do not know what psychology uses stream of consciousness for but poets do not live by strict definition. We are talking about the same writers that will deliberately use false grammar to make a point. Do you really think a poet would finish a work at least today and say oh well it is stream of consciousness I cannot edit this? James Joyce is not the best example because he only slightly edited any of his works. As I said he would spend so much time on the first draft that editing was slim in general. It seems to me like you are taking a psychology view of the definition rather than a poet's view.

All a writer cares about is if it reads like stream of consciousness and that takes alot of effort to do. Now sure all writers approach things differently. Joyce focused very much on the first draft while writers like Ayn Rand and Ernest Hemingway focus very much on the editing. But in general, if you are trying to write a good stream of consciousness, you WILL employ a meaning beneath it all and you WILL allude to other things like Shakespeare and the Bible and historical events and you WILL use symbolism and you WILL edit your diction. I am sure the best writers can think of all this in stream of consciousness but they will still revise what can be better. Writers focus on the best they can make a piece not the "true" definition of the piece.
#18
Quote by 21wickwing
Are you telling me that Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye" was never edited or revised? You are saying that book everybody reads in high school written in stream of consciousness form is a first draft.

I do not know what psychology uses stream of consciousness for but poets do not live by strict definition. We are talking about the same writers that will deliberately use false grammar to make a point. Do you really think a poet would finish a work at least today and say oh well it is stream of consciousness I cannot edit this? James Joyce is not the best example because he only slightly edited any of his works. As I said he would spend so much time on the first draft that editing was slim in general. It seems to me like you are taking a psychology view of the definition rather than a poet's view.

All a writer cares about is if it reads like stream of consciousness and that takes alot of effort to do. Now sure all writers approach things differently. Joyce focused very much on the first draft while writers like Ayn Rand and Ernest Hemingway focus very much on the editing. But in general, if you are trying to write a good stream of consciousness, you WILL employ a meaning beneath it all and you WILL allude to other things like Shakespeare and the Bible and historical events and you WILL use symbolism and you WILL edit your diction. I am sure the best writers can think of all this in stream of consciousness but they will still revise what can be better. Writers focus on the best they can make a piece not the "true" definition of the piece.


Catcher in the Rye is not a stream of consciousness work. Maybe disjointed at times. Not stream of consciousness.

Modernist authors had no interest in Shakespeare. In fact, they generally loathed his work.

They do not necessarily employ meaning beneath their work. I'm sorry, that is a false presupposition. T.S. Eliot asserted time and time again that "The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock" had no intrinsic meaning.

I suppose stream of consciousness authors could revise a work, but it would certainly only be to better represent whatever was occurring in their head at the time. I guarantee you it would have nothing to do with employing proper "lessons," or using metaphors, or traditional literary devices. It's absolutely non-didactic (without teaching quality). There is a reason the style was considered vastly divergent at its time.

I'm not sure how to continue this conversation. You're using a false definition of the style. You're appealing to logic rather than what the historical definition is. If you'd like to continue this, that's okay, but let's please continue in PM form, I'd rather this thread not be cluttered with argument and such.
#19
Quote by Chaingarden
Catcher in the Rye is not a stream of consciousness work. Maybe disjointed at times. Not stream of consciousness.

Modernist authors had no interest in Shakespeare. In fact, they generally loathed his work.

They do not necessarily employ meaning beneath their work. I'm sorry, that is a false presupposition. T.S. Eliot asserted time and time again that "The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock" had no intrinsic meaning.

I suppose stream of consciousness authors could revise a work, but it would certainly only be to better represent whatever was occurring in their head at the time. I guarantee you it would have nothing to do with employing proper "lessons," or using metaphors, or traditional literary devices. It's absolutely non-didactic (without teaching quality). There is a reason the style was considered vastly divergent at its time.

I'm not sure how to continue this conversation. You're using a false definition of the style. You're appealing to logic rather than what the historical definition is. If you'd like to continue this, that's okay, but let's please continue in PM form, I'd rather this thread not be cluttered with argument and such.


OK argument over but for the record... Prufrock was a very confusing piece but had a meaning about a sexually unsatisfied middle-aged man and in general the whole situation and how he tries to make a decision and the ultimate outcome of the general decision.