Talk:Stream of consciousness

Year of the Rat

I tried to find a source myself. The Kirkus Review has the following "Written in some sort of flash fiction/automatic writing style, the book is essentially one long rant punctuated by untranslated Latin phrases, footnotes nodding to sources ranging from F. Scott Fitzgerald to the Bible". No mention of stream of consciousness. Rwood128 (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

See also Cleaver [1]. Rwood128 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

In the interview [2] Richardson, says: "I wrote the way I speak in all my moods and intonations, sober and drunk (often in the same paragraph), like a “shapeshifter” sort of speak, but with sounds instead shapes—while, at the same time, I am also a composite of other people’s voices and feelings. I allowed them to happen to me, the voices, to create “a many-limbed lament,” as a friend once said, a polyphony of a person'. This sounds like a different kind of narrative technique from stream of consciousness, in fact Richardson names it "a polyphony of a person". The reference to shapes –"like a “shapeshifter” sort of speak, but with sounds instead shapes—while, at the same time"– suggests to me (I don't know the novel) that Richardson is using a kind of verbal collage. Please discuss before reverting again,Rwood128 (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You can use this last interview quotation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.0.138 (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I am author. I use stream of consciousness in "Year of the Rat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.0.138 (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration, but a neutral source is needed, and the quotation in question doesn't resolve the issue–'a “shapeshifter” sort of speak' isn't steam of consciousness. This may also fall under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

I'm trying to be helpful, but cannot find a good citation to support your claim. But perhaps I'm just being pigheaded? Does anyone else have an opinion? Rwood128 (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This issue is unimportant. Nevermind. And to just be clear, I am an associated of Mr. Richardson (Malaou), and I had HIM write that he is the author of this book in question, thinking it would help credibility, but he is NOT the author of this wiki page. Can you please remove the warning from his webpage? Sorry for the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.0.138 (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I find this very confusing, as you seem to indicate above that Marc Anthony Richardson is the editor Malaou. I have asked for help at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Early examples

Quotations are needed to substantiate these claims for early examples – and a fuller discussion, backed by scholarly sources. I will try and d/w. Rwood128 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him—that she is a sinner." This is a pretty feeble example of interior monologue/stream of consciousness, particularly if it is being described as a precursor to modernist novelists. Surely you could come up with better examples from the ancient world? What about this one from Ovid's Metamorphoses? Now that's an interior monologue. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Medea's words read, at least initially, like a speach and I had to go back and check. In Mandelbaum's translation her words are in quotation marks. I read this passage more as a dramatic monologue/soliloquy than interior monologue, but I am unsure of the difference. The biblical example is more obvious: "He said to himself" (King James version: "he spake within himself").

I suggest Harold the Sheep you add an example from classical literature, with commentary from a scholarly source. Rwood128 (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Obviousness (introducing it with the words "he said to himself") doesn't make it a good example of interior monologue, particularly in the context of an article on stream of consciousness. But I'll leave it in your capable hands. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

So no examples to prove your point Harold the Sheep? I find that sadly, disappointing. Rwood128 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I did give one example, but I don't think examples are needed in the section to which you have now moved this very poor illustration of interior monologue/stream of consciousness. My 'point' is that if you want an example you can probably find countless better ones than this one, which strikes me as bible studies spam, particularly given this editor's record in this regard. Harold the Sheep (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Without better early examples, I find the biblical addition acceptable. You need to explain why your example from Ovid is an interior monologue. Mandelbaum has 'she says: "Medea you are doomed to fail ...." '. Cannot this be read as the omniscient author quoting her thoughts? She "says" (said in your version) also makes it seem like a speech/soliloquy. Regarding bible studies spam, maybe the editor in question is simply over-enthusiastic – I've just reverted a sloppy edit by them <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soliloquy&type=revision&diff=926829533&oldid=925603195>.

Grammar

The reason why I did this is because the quote was not grammatically correct; but because it was a quote, it would be inaccurate to change the quote itself. Refer to the sic article. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 11:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I just felt that it is a trivial matter in this case. Rwood128 (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. In British English "which" is fine here. It is also less intrusive than a "sic" comment which will make most readers stop and wonder what is supposed to be wrong with the sentence. See [3] Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That would qualify if this subject was of British origin, but it isn't. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The subject is the literary term which is of British origin. In any event, no reader--British, American or otherwise--will be confused as to the meaning of "which" in the quoted sentence. But many will be confused by the inserttion of "sic". Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead and origin of term

Hello all.

I have rewritten the lead so that it is actually a summary of the article Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I have added a new section on the origin of the term and moved some existing text to this section. This should remove the confusion between the origin of the term and the origin of the literary technique.

Happy to discuss

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Definition and interior monologue

Hello all

I have cut the unsourced original research from this section. See: Wikipedia:No original research. I have combined the section with the former section on Interior Monologue which defines stream of consciousness and distinguishes it from interior monologue.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)