[stylist] Story development/strategy?

[Bridgit Pollpeter]

Stream-of-consciousness is actually a writing format that has a
structure and rules. People like me who write without using a formal
outline are not writing a stream-of-consciousness piece; we're just
following a more organic process different from a formal, structured
process employing tools like outlines.

Stream-of-consciousness writing really boomed in the 50s and 60s, though
it developed in the late 19th century as a way to turn away from
realism, and has become popular in recent years. It does follow a
structure and isn't just a writer writing things as they pop up in the
head. It is actually difficult to create pieces in a
stream-of-consciousness style. Today, it is often employed in personal
essays and memoirist pieces, but fiction writers and poets really
started the technique. Ginsberg is an example of a poet writing in a
stream-of-consciousness style.

It's a writing technique relying more on internal concerns with
characters; it's not the process a writer chooses to follow when
crafting a manuscript.

SOC still relies on themes and/or motifs and plots. It comes across as a
free association of sorts, but it's actually a technique that is highly
structured. SOC and internal dialogue are often considered one in the
same, but this isn't necessarily true. Again, it depends on if a writer
is employing the technique or not. If not, then internal dialogue isn't
SOC; it's just internal dialogue a writer feels is necessary and germane
to the story. It's often referred to as narrative voice or mode too.
When writing stream-of-consciousness, outlines are still helpful. It is
voice, tone and structure that are affected and not how a writer crafted
a story or what the process was. In fact, many practitioners of this
form employ tools like outlines.

It tends to focus on psychological and/or emotional aspects of
characters. Lyrical essays tend to be labeled stream-of-consciousness
essays too, but this isn't always the case. It just depends. Because SOC
pieces often don't use proper punctuation or adhere to traditional
methods of writing, lyrical essays, which follow similar structures, are
joined with SOC pieces.

Some popular writers who have and are employing stream-of-consciousness
:
Sylvia Plath
Anton Chekov
Michael Cunningham
T. S. Elliot
James Joyce
Faulkner
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Cormac McCarthy
Brett Easton
J. D. Salinger
Jack Kerouac

So SOC is not about the process and whether a writer uses outlines or
not; it's a literary technique having nothing to do with writing
strategies except when determining voice and style, all structural
issues, not about using outlines or "free association" writing as
opposed to paying attention to every detail. In fact, when using SOC,
it's vital to pay attention to every little detail to ensure the plot is
consistent and present for readers.

Sincerely,
Bridgit Kuenning-Pollpeter
Read my blog at:
http://blogs.livewellnebraska.com/author/bpollpeter/
 
"History is not what happened; history is what was written down."
The Expected One- Kathleen McGowan

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:53:26 -0800
From: Justin Oldham <j.oldham at gci.net>
To: Writer's Division Mailing List <stylist at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [stylist] Story development strategy?
Message-ID: <53F9B598A3814607A8F6241309291A44 at Justin2>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
	reply-type=response

Hello Brad:

I'm the author of a few large books, myself.  I do use an outline
process to 
avoid tangets.  It's my opinion that big stories contain big ideas,
and/or 
lots of chracters, and/or a long passage of time.  For this reason, an 
outline (no matter how crude) DOES serve a purpose.

Developing the "big" story is hard because you can get bogged down in
the 
little things.  This results in sub plots that don't need to be there.
I, 
personally, get better at this with each big book I write.  I overcome
this 
problem by employing a vicious brutal editor who has no mercy.

Being signed to a major publishing house doesn't confer greatness upon
any 
writer.  Nor does it guarantee editorial efficiency.  One reader's 
blubbering whiner is another reader's deep sensitive soul.  I will
hazard a 
guess that you expected more from this writer be-cause they had the big
time 
book deal.

I get the feeling that you are, in some small way, also taking issue
with 
the writer's method.  Making it up as you go along is called 
Stream-Of-Consciousness.  Its a very popular way of writing.  It is 
unstrucutred, to be sure.  Some people say its lazy or undisciplined. 
Others call it a higher form of art that shows us the soul of the
author. 
Its also the only way some people can tell their story.

It's been my experience that one in ten writers are what you'd call 
technicians.  They jot down their outlines and use very specific 
calibrations to mold their work.  I, personally, am a technican.  Every
word 
that goes on to one of my pages is plotted, schemed, and re-thoguht
before 
use.

I don't force this on any of the writers I mentor.  It all comes down to
how 
you are wired.  Story-telling dates back to the beginning of time.  Oral

traditions have carried over in to writing.  Stream of consciousness
doesn't 
work for me, but it does work for almost everybody else.

The one best piece of advice I can give on the matter is this.  Make a
note 
of what somebody did that you don't like and remember it.  Then, don't
do it 
in your own work.