Music in the words...

[fajrdrako]

I kept company with authors in whose writing I could hear the music in the words, in the novels of Joseph Conrad, Edward Gibbon’s history of the Roman Empire, the poems of Coleridge and Kipling. I’m still subject to the predisposition. - Lewis Lapham

When people ask me "Are you a science fiction fan?" or "Do you like mysteries?" I'm always at a bit of a loss, because the answer is always, "It depends on the science fiction," or, "It depends on the mystery." I'm so like Lapham: I read for the music of the words, or, just as much, for the music of the ideas. And that's difficult to explain on the fly.

Yeah, I'm a fan of some science fiction. Other SF, not necessarily. It isn't that genre doesn't matter - it's that it isn't what I go for. I can't think of any genre I wouldn't read. I was going to say "horror", but there are horror novels I've loved. It's all in the music. In how it's put together, whatever "it" might be.

For me, it wasn't Conrad (whom I found ponderous), Gibbon (whom I haven't read yet), or Coleridge. It was Milne and Byron and Dickens and Raymond Chandler. But it could be anyone - all those writers out there I've yet to read. All the ones I still read and love. Why Heinlein, but not Dan Simmons? Why Stan Lee and not Mark Waid?

It's just the way it is. Some people speak to me, others don't.

Comments

[ceruleancat]

When people ask me "Are you a science fiction fan?" or "Do you like mysteries?" I'm always at a bit of a loss
I always say just that - depends. Often not only of the specific author, but of specific pieces.

I don't think the defining term you're looking for is music of the words. Especially given that it isn't necessarily about the actual words, as you say. It's about the 'it'. And the 'it' can be different, not only between different people (as audience), but also between different authors or pieces for the same reader. I like Holmes differently in the stories and in Jeremy Brett's portrayal. And to a certain extent, I like (at least the first ep of) Cumberbatch's Holmes, again differently. Yes, they're different media, but that isn't the source of the difference. They have different 'its'.
For me, it wasn't Conrad (whom I found ponderous), Gibbon (whom I haven't read yet), or Coleridge. It was Milne and Byron and Dickens and Raymond Chandler.
And for me it's none of these. Although Coleridge used to be my favourite Romantic poet (not that I've looked much at poetry in the last 20 years - GOD, it's been 20 years since my BA!).
I don't know that I could name favourite authors in absolutes. Depends how one measures it, too. There's works I go back to repeatedly, but that doesn't mean I necessarily consider them my favourite. I wouldn't define Dorothy Sayers or Conan Doyle as favourite authors, although definitely favourite mystery writers. I love Good Omens and keep reareading it, but neither of the authors is my favourite. There's a possiblity Monte Cristo is still (or again) my favourite book, but I could never stand any of his other novels that I tried.
Which leads us neatly back to your final question (with the required change of authors, as I haven't even read any of those mentioned below):
Why Heinlein, but not Dan Simmons? Why Stan Lee and not Mark Waid?

[ceruleancat]

Posted this on mine too, wondering if someone happens to pass by with an opinion. Not likely, of course, given the resident tumbleweed.

[fajrdrako]

I hope it gathers responses!

[fajrdrako]

All interesting questions! You're right that the thing that makes the difference is elusive, but for me I think it is in the words themselves, or at least in the way they're put together. Except that the way they're put together, and the reasons for putting them together, matter too.

[ceruleancat]

Several things come to my mind in response:
a. For some things, yes, the words themselves, the sound pattern, the structure, all of that, can create love, when it evokes and reflects aspects of the content. That's part of why I love Adam's writing so much. Getting the language to convey not just in content, having form and content work together.
But that's rare. There's a lot of stuff I like that doesn't have that quality.
b. "The reasons for putting them together" can cover some of the illusive vibe I was referring to.
c. The language aspect is altered, if not entirely lost, when its a translation. Most of what I read until I was 15 was Hebrew and translated. And the translation standards are atrocious. I've learned to look beyond the words to the content, or the language would have stopped me from enjoying any work.
When I was 15, we were taught Oedipus and I couldn't follow the text and was bored. Then I went and looked for a translation to English, and discovered the text was not only readable, it was interesting and sometimes beautiful. Teacher was very annoyed that I insisted on using an Eng. translation rather than a Hebrew one in class. That's when I first became aware that Hebrew translations were blocking reading and I've stopped reading that almost entirely.
But possibly the basic reading habits are still there, read through the words to the content and the vibe, and only be aware of the language when it's particularly luscious.