Effective stream-of-consciousness narration is the product of verbal precision, not just of literal documentation. It is decidedly not a matter of unedited free-association.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Without needing to be theoretically instructed, consciousness quickly realizes that it is the site of variously contending discourses.
When you want to transcribe an idea truthfully from the page to the screen, it is not necessarily best to be particularly literal about it. It can be hard to convince people, specifically writers, of that.
Once we have learned to read, meaning of words can somehow register without consciousness.
I'm not one of those authors who claims to hear voices in my head or 'let the characters speak through me,' whatever that might mean.
Scientists attach great importance to the human capacity for spoken language. But we also have a parallel track of nonverbal communication, which may reveal more than our carefully chosen words, and sometimes be at odds with them.
Most conversations are simply monologues delivered in the presence of a witness.
We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.
I think that a lot of things are hard to read if you're not in the vocabulary flow of that particular discourse. I sometimes forget that even though the words I'm using are fairly ordinary words, the concepts around which they cluster, which are the long concepts of literary tradition, may not be familiar to an audience.
It's much easier to read the stories that have a lot of dialogue; of course, they flow much more easily into speech.
Objects let you tell a narrative that encompasses everybody. Texts don't.