stream of consciousness, modernism and structure

[Sarah]

In the "your literature" thread I saw that grammar is an issue of what makes a good book. I dislike books that don't follow grammatical rules, have poor structure, usually flashback books have poor structure. This lack of grammatical conventions is apart of the 19th-20th Century movement modernism. The idea is to revolt against the concepts of what is accepted. The lack of "proper" grammar is usually referred to as "Stream of consciousness" mostly because fragments are largely used. I thought that since this seems to be a concern someone might be interested in why this lack of structure has become so common.

[darkina]

Personally I found some parts of Joyce's Ulysses (i actually have never read it all, just some parts at school) so irritating becasue of the lack of grammar and punctuation. This was explained to us as "the author wants to show the thoughts as they are in the brain", i remember some critics said it is like the charachthers were going around with the top of their head 'open' so that you can see the thoughts there. Well i'm not sure, but i think that when i think i dont use only the infinitive forms of verbs... Without being so picky, i think one of the things that influenced this style was the 'birth' and rising of psycanalisis in the early 20th century.

I think i have a lot of stuff about this, i will do a little research and post something more tomorrow, ok?

[Francy]

I don't think that lack of grammar and stream of consciousness are so strongly linked. I mean, you're right usually the are present toghether in a text, but it's true also in other cases.

Stream of consciousness was born by Virginia Woolf's definition of the Moments of Being. (there's a small essay this author wrote about it and I suggest you with it if you're interested in it) She wrote her moments of being, also in her bigger works, following the proper rules of proto-psycoanalisys ans grammar toghether.

As for the absence of grammar rules, it is obviously present in realistic novels, which take place in "lower classes". And also in the fragmentation of the world which was common in the European Literature of the '20s, I think of Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot or also Gertrude Stein! (or Djuna Barnes in prose) Ezra Pound with HD (Hilda Dolittle) wrote the manifesto of a new current in 1919 in which he declared that (among other things) the new way to represent the real essence of things was to realise that a unique prospective and "breathe" are impossible. The matter is much more complicated, but his fragmentation effected also grammar. If we think that one of the best poetic example in this sense is the Waste Land of T.S. Eliot, edited the same year of Ulysses (1922) we can have a better idea...

I'm sorry I wrote too much and I annyed you, but it's one of my favourite arguments...

[darkina]

I think Sarah was meaning exactly the kind of lack of grammar that we find in Joyce's stream of consciousness...or maybe that's how i interpreted the topic... Anyway surely there are many other cases, not only so called 'modernism' where the rules, especially grammar ones, are broken... A couple of questions to Francy, as i dont know much about any of the authors you mentioned:
1- is that Woolf's thing soem kind of 'experiment'? Did you mean she wrote just following her thoughts in a 'psycoanalitic' way, but despite this she was using correct grammar?
2- can't the realism of novels set in the lower classes, be a development of 19th century's realism/positivism? How you described it made me think of Zola...

So basically, the lack of grammar is not only stream of consciousness, and the stream of consciousness is not only lack of grammar... What Joyce made was to eliminate the role of the narrator as a 'filter': you no longer see the character with the eyes of the narrator, but you are in the first row! Much more than with the 'free indirect speech', which Joyce himslef used while he was till experimenting (the example we were given in school was 'Eveline' in Dubliners) as a lot of other authors did in the same period or slightly earlier (late 1800/early 1900)...i have many italians in mind, but also some french ones. A particular novel from this point of view is La Coscienza di Zeno by Italo Svevo (i'm not sure this novel has ever been translated in other languages...if not, wait a few years, let me become a translator and i'll do it! ). It is often compared to Ulysses because it was published in the same period (1923 if my memory doesnt fail) and the author and Joyce were friends (by the way, he's the one who said that Joyce's device let you see the thoughts of the character as if the skull was open...), but the way to let you get 'inside' of the character is totally different: it's a sort of autobiography written thorugh the memories of the protagonist, what is particular is that there is no chronological order but the memories only follow the logical order in which they coem to his mind (and this is the innovation).

As for the modernism, it is said that the need of breaking the rules comes from the particular feeling of insecurity of the man of the early 20th century, disoriented by all the changes the world was undergoing to, for example from the scientific poin of view, and obviously, after the 1st world war by all the changes it had brought in politics and also in the way of life. (insecurity...therefore the need to see directly in the character's mind? if i can say so, the character himslef is more 'true' and trustworthy of the narrator's view...)
From the point of view of the style, it might also be a reaction to the rules and the massive use of realism and 'positivism' of the previous century (some authors tried to be as realistic as possible also in the use of language, for example avoiding metaphors and stuff).
All this brought innovation in many fields, including painting (Picasso...), music (dodecaphonic music, though i dont know anything about it) and saw the birth of literary groups as the Italian futurists, who erased the use of grammar and punctuation (and even 'useless' words like adjectives and adverbs) creating poems that seemed 'lists' of concepts and sounds (through onomathopeic words): one of their myths was the speed... A language that resembles to the language of advertisements of nowadays. Some poets even used the words as parts of a drawing, to creat an art that is not only poetry but also something visual (i'm thinking about that poem about the rain of Apollinaire if i remember right...but i know there were examples in italy too)

Sorry about the length of this (aaargh it seems like a lesson! ), but if i dont talk and talk and talk about literature here, where am i meant to do it? Everybody esle will call a doctor and send me to the mads house! (well, free to do it).
All that i wrote is probably a bit simplifed and superficial, but it's based mainly on school's memory (though i checked the main facts not to say something totally uncorrect).... Fell free to correct me if you see i've said soemthing wrong!

[Francy]

Well, don't worry you're post wasn't too catedratic... you deserve a 30 with lauda!! I agree with all what you posted, and I admit that the topic is so wide that a whole course of 60 hours long isn't enough to discuss it all!!

You foucused onto the point I was aiming to, stream of consciunsess isn't lack of grammar and viceversa. As to Joyce, he used the device of lack of grammar because, as you said, he wanted to transcribe on the paper exactly what the character thinks, and he thought that when we think we aren't too much accurate about grammar of logical links. As to Svevo, he was obviously different. His character was talking with his psycanalist! I think that Joyce's use of grammar and language was peculiar, and probably also whithin himself not s connected with stream of consciousness!! I think of Finnegans Wake, here there's not main character and no consciousness, but still the language is a constant riddle!

As to your questions, Virginia Woolf was fighting for the rights of women to have an education and become writers or intelectuals exactly as men. She influenced Joyce a lot, a lot of critics think that without Virginia Woolf he would have never written anything and that he wrote like a woman, according to Woolf's standards. She devided the whole human existence into "moments f being" and "moments of non being". Our life is almost a complete "moment of non being" during which we go on without the knowledge to be alive and thinking or acting. We have some rare moments, which can last maybe a second and no more, called "moments of being" during which we have instantaneous illumination about a deep truth. Just like in Joyce's Dubliners at the end of the last whort story, Dead. The main character understands something, has an epiphany, an instantaneus knwoledge. That is a moment of being. This is accrding to Woolf connected to psyconanalysis, I'm semplifying it a lot!! But in her litarature she writes about this sudden epiphanies, showing what happens in that fraction of a second into her character's mind, while he/she has the illumination. It's a bit of a stream of consciusness, the father of that litarary device we can dare say. But it's written according to the best English grammar rules!

As to the second question, I think it is. We owe a lot to the realism of French in the late 1800. Also realism in language, and portraying of the real spoken language of real people... even if we don't have to forget Huck Finn and Twain's multi-lingual "Mississippi valley" which is USA!

[darkina]

Pensa che a scuola ero sempre preparatissima in lettrature ma nessun profe se n'è mai accorto..sai, quando non fai parte del gruppetto dei privilegiati...

Back to the topic... I have to say Franncy, that I had to read you first post several times before having a clue of what you were meaning...then, thinking and thinking, while i wrote a light turned on in my brain: stream of consciousness not always means lack of grammar and vinceversa...Now i get to know that this is exactly what you emant...Basically, I HAD AN EPIPHANY!

Thanks for the information about Virginia Woolf. I didn't know anything about that and it's very interesting! (I think i'll study some of her work this year at Uni). I totally agree with her...i undersatnd those 'moments of being!'. And i think this finally makes clearer to em what an epiphany really is... i was explained at school that it is a sudden revelation (the example, again, was 'Eveline', but it wasn't so clear i think) , but only now I fully understand the precise meaning of it.

[Francy]

Beh il gruppetto di privilegiato è di slit formato da una elite di bracheocefali senza intelligenza alcuna che sanno slo ripetere a memoria con la faccia da santerellini quello che c'è scritto sul libro e quello che ha detto il prof a lezione... per cui forse è un bene non fanre parte! L'importante è che la letteratura ti sia entrata dentro e abbia "cibato la tua anima", se quei pirla dei prof non se ne sono accorti cavoli loro!!

I'm very happy to have been useful to you! There's a little essay, some 3-4 pages, of Virginia Woolf called Moments of Being written on the topic and also a lot of her short stories. I have to admit that this discussion has been useful to me too, I never thought about some connection you mentioned between the stream of consciousness and other previous literary streams... my brain is thinking, and it's a great deal!!

[darkina]

Infatti! Anche se la mia media non era da secchiona, posso dire che quello che hostudiato mi ha effettivamente lasciato qualcosa (e molto!), cos che non si può dire di molte persone...

Good! Ths discussion has been interesting so far... It's great to exchange opinions, i love to talk about literature... And...miracle...maybe my brain is awakening from its long sleep!!!

[NulNuk]

lack of grammer, bad ,good grammer all that is nothing ,
if the messege of the writed was understood ,and if you like it
and it makes some thing for you ,that is more important ,
what is grammer ,no more than the lenguage of the academies ,
but the lenguage ,the lenguage belong to the ppl ,the ppl and the
writers ,they are those who use the lenguage ,if they understand them
self ,who is the academy to tell them thei`r lenguage is wronge ,
nothing ,the writers and the ppl ,they make the lenguage ,
the academy ,they only decide what part of the lenguage to accept
for their books ,a poem ,a book, a song they can`t be writed wrong
if the ppl understand the messege ,the grammer ,the grammer can
be manipulated ,and the academic lenguistics ,they need to adapt
their books to the lenguage of the ppl and the writers .
the grammer is not the one who makes the writing good or bad ,
it is the use of the words ,and the idea, and the beauty of the manipulated
sentens ,in a way that any one can understand, and like it ,
a writer is a word manipulator ,and a good writer is one who control
the words beyon any grammer ruls to expres hem self in a compriensive
way ,and all this in hes own unique way .

[Francy]

You're very right NulkNuk for sure! What we were discussing was in fact the way we personally appreciated the way some writers used the grammar. For example I personally like Joyce's alck of grammar, and Darkroom doesn't but it's a personal judgement. And also, we were trying to understand what the aim, the achievement the writer tried to reach distorting or destroying the grammar. They surely did it on purpose and we were discussing it, you know...

[darkina]

Right... Everybody chooses his form of expression, whose final aim is to be understood. Everybody has his personal style, but sometimes an author chooses to do something different, artificial, on purpose... And this is what is discussed.

[NulNuk]

Hmmmmmm....!!!!!! :0o ,change grammer is oke ,
change NulNuk name is not :0{ !!!!!!!!!!!

[Francy]

I'M SO SORRY!!! I apologise.... but I always mispell nicknames here, I think Proy and Saaropean already noticed it Sorry...