Home For Fiction – Blog

This will probably be one of the weirdest posts I’ve ever written, but if we don’t try new things how can we challenge ourselves? Without the courage to lose sight of the shore, how can we discover new oceans? This post on whether stream of consciousness nonfiction can work is an example-in-itself.

I decided to give myself a challenge: start writing a post and see how much I can write in the span of thirty minutes. Can stream of consciousness nonfiction work? What will it look like? Is it worth it? Will I stop making silly, self-evident questions and instead proceed with the post itself?

I’ll document my progress as I go along, because I feel this will be the most useful (to you) part of the entire experiment.

Stream of Consciousness Nonfiction: A Paradoxical Kind of Writing

I got the idea for this at 9:50. I began writing a couple of minutes later. It’s now 9:58

Writing stream of consciousness nonfiction entails a certain paradox. Whereas stream of consciousness is all about not thinking too much about what you write (it’s supposed to be a semi-subconscious process), nonfiction is an inherently research-based kind of writing.

Usually, when I write posts for the blog, I am interested in a topic, I might research it a bit if I feel I need to (I usually write about topics I know intimately, so that’s hardly necessary), then I write. Still, I need to present facts, arguments, and a coherent movement from point A to point B.

Can this work in stream of consciousness nonfiction? So far, writing this post, I have felt no real problem being coherent (a quick look at the clock tells me it’s 10:01; it took me three minutes to put together these couple of paragraphs).

But about now I need to start presenting arguments that can be of some use. The first aspect I need to think of (the research question, if you like) is why stream of consciousness nonfiction writing might be something we care about. In which way can it be useful to use?

The Advantages of Stream of Consciousness Nonfiction

It’s 10:03 and I’m already well underway. I now need to start presenting some persuasive arguments. I’d also like some more coffee – and it just took me another thirty seconds to add a link to my coffee post (and write about it!)

Off the top of my head (well, it has to be; that’s what the whole post is about), I can see three benefits in writing stream of consciousness nonfiction:

• Speed. Obviously, not thinking about it too much means you write really, really fast. It’s 10:05 right now; I began writing not 15 minutes ago, and half the job is done already.
• Uniqueness. Nonfiction can often be dry, too descriptive and argumentative. Of course that also depends on the writer.
• I had a third idea revolving around my head, but had to stop for a moment to recall it. Affective Impact. In a certain sense, writing stream of consciousness nonfiction brings you closer to fictional processes, enhancing the affective impact of your text. I’m sure this way of writing I’ve decided to use (with commentary on the time elapsed and my thoughts about the whole thing) offers an additional level of engagement.

What about disadvantages? I’m sure we can find a few.

Disadvantages of Stream of Consciousness Nonfiction

The time is now 10:09. I have another 11 minutes left if I want to stay within my self-imposed 30 minutes deadline.

• It requires more spelling and editing work. I estimate about 10% of the time I’ve used so far has gone to correcting typos I’ve made while typing really rapidly. By the way, I advise against this. Write first, edit later. These two are separate processes. Do as I say, not as I do!
• It doesn’t allow you enough depth. Let’s face it, no matter how great I am (only my modesty eclipses my awesomeness – this silly self-sarcasm cost me in time; it’s now 10:12 and I’ve got 8 minutes left), I can’t write that well if I don’t stop and think about some things.
• This is a bit related to the above, but I’ll mention it separately (it makes for a nice symmetric list, to have 3 bullet points): Stream of consciousness nonfiction means that you can’t return later to the text, and think about some things anew. For better or for worse, this limits your affective response to it. It produces a more narrow experience, compared to revisiting a text later.
• OK, screw symmetry. Here’s another: Stream of consciousness inherently means an excessive burst of writing energy that lasts for a little while. A 1000-word post (quick stop to check my wordcount so far – and add the link – and it’s 801 words) is about the limit. You can’t really write anything longer than that in this way.

That’s All Folks

It’s 10:16, and I have 4 minutes to slap together a conclusion.

Conclusions are supposed to be about summarizing a post, reflecting on some of the topics, or offering food for thought to last beyond the confines of the text. I don’t have time – or interest – for any of these.

Moreover, stream of consciousness nonfiction writing is probably far less about facts and summaries anyway, and it’s about the experience itself – both for me, as the author, and you, as the reader. Trying to make sense of it in factual, objective terms, is probably doomed to fail.

It’s 10:17, and I have three minutes to add an image and schedule the post. I did it!

Note: Here’s a similar experiment with flash fiction.