So, in another forum, I've been playing games writing double dactyl rhymes and entire passages of anapaestic tetrameter. And I'm not going to pretend it has been anything other than bloody good fun as an experiment. It is a whole new dimension to writing that I hadn't considered and, when applied to prose, can make even the silliest nonsense sound good.

But...

Is it something limited to short works and poetry?

How aware are you of cadence when writing fiction?

How much do you think readers notice?

I'm very aware of it in an intuitive way - "This sentence sounds really awkward" - though more so when I read aloud (which is why I read aloud a lot). Having said that, I know that there are sentences which I later decide read aloud awkwardly, which really, really don't on the page. The brain-wiring for reading-aloud is quite different from the brain-wiring for reading to yourself...

I think readers vary in how much they notice but, as ever "Will the reader notice?" is too simple a way to put it. Very few will notice consciously, but many more will sense something - will be affected - even though they're not really conscious of it.

I'm slightly curious whether reading looking for rhythm affects the rhythm that is found.
While writing, I can feel the highs and lows and that has a strong effect on sentence length and structure. But, once it is done, and the cheesy rhymes have been redacted, I wonder whether it still shows _unless_ read out loud? And few people read large works aloud even if only because of tongue fatigue.

My feeling is that it does show, at least to some readers - I notice it.

Do you ever write fiction with a rhythm in mind at the outset?
If so, how do you sense when to vary it?

Do you ever write fiction with a rhythm in mind at the outset?

Not a rhythm for the whole thing, and not at the outset, but I put interesting bits in as I go along.

If so, how do you sense when to vary it?

I don't know. It must be an instinctive thing.

Do you ever write fiction with a rhythm in mind at the outset?

Usually I instinctively try for a pleasing rhythm of words, just for the ease of reading, but type of writing makes a difference i.e. if it's a modern, everyday sort of subject it doesn't always fit (or, at least, rhythm has to match patterns of speech)
I was most conscious of really needing rhythm when writing a tale set in Neolithic Orkney: being free to make up the way language was used made it much easier, as did a later one set in the 17th century.

It's really hard to resist the temptation to rhyme...
When I resist rhyming, it has a certain smoothness and flow that I like. When I don't, it has a certain cheesy cheapness to it that is... um... cheesy and cheap.
Will persevere with it for a while, even if just because it's the first time I've actually done any writing in too long.
G

I have to confess that I don't feel I entirely understand cadence (I had a vague idea, but looked it up and still not certain). I find poetry a bit of a closed book to me.

However, I do notice when a piece of prose has "a pleasing rhythm" or "a displeasing rhythm". I pay attention to that when editing.

I often find that the originally written sentence had a good rhythm naturally, but if it needs editing for other reasons then it can be hard to recapture a good rhythm.

I'm interested, Emma, that you say you think reading-aloud rhythm and rhythm in your head are different - especially since writers often read aloud their novels as a test (of whether the sentences sound good), when they are, of course, intended primarily for silent reading. Can you explain any more? Do you feel that mostly they're the same (if it sounds good aloud it usually sounds good in your head) and that it's only occasionally they diverge?

Deb

writers often read aloud their novels as a test (of whether the sentences sound good), when they are, of course, intended primarily for silent reading.

Glad you said this because silent reading is different. I think partly because it allows for more flexible 'breathing' (since it is not so necessary) but would like to hear more about it.

It's really hard to resist the temptation to rhyme

Sometimes internal rhymes occur in a sentence without me thinking about it.
But also I find I can concentrate hard on cadence, etc and more concentratedly produce it) when writing very short pieces, trying to confine myself to e.g. 100 words whereas I can't/don't do it for novel-length piece. I've likened it to drinking undiluted squash, but am not sure that's not an excuse for what might be laziness.

Can you explain any more? Do you feel that mostly they're the same (if it sounds good aloud it usually sounds good in your head) and that it's only occasionally they diverge?

I think on the whole it's merely a matter of - as Sandra says - how in reading aloud there are issues with breathing, say, or a sequence of consonants that are hard to get your tongue round, which simply aren't a problem for the reader-in-the-head.

So I'd say, if it works read aloud, it'll always, always work on the page, but not vice versa. That may mean refining it beyond what the average reader-on-the-page needs, but you can't be sure what they do need. BUT, having said that, reading aloud is still the best way to make sure it does work.

The thing is, it's not just physically - are there enough places to breathe? - that reading-aloud is more demanding of the prose. In order to know how to say things aloud, your brain has to understand their meaning - because that is what controls the way you say it. (Otherwise we'd all sound like Stephen Hawking). So having to read something aloud is like getting someone else, who doesn't know what you're trying to say, to read it. Your brain will alert you if it's trying to understand what you've written, and it can't. It's the mental, cognitive equivalent of your tongue falling over a difficult-to-pronounce sequence of words.

Reading-in-the-head is a skill humans have only developed in the last 300 years or so. Until the 17th century no one read silently.

Edited by EmmaD at 09:53:00 on 19 July 2013

Until the 17th century no one read silently.

Truly? I never knew that!! Thank you.

I often find that the originally written sentence had a good rhythm naturally, but if it needs editing for other reasons then it can be hard to recapture a good rhythm

Yes, I find that too. Sometimes when I get stories critiqued here, someone will say that a word or phrase is unnecessary and I should cut it. Very often, he or she is right, but the sentence wouldn't sound half so good without the 'unnecessary' word or words.

I agree with all you say about reading aloud, Emma. That's exactly how I see it.

One of the additional reasons I always read aloud is just in case the story is read on the radio, and it might sound awful unless I've made sure it actually can be read aloud smoothly and easily ... which I think qualifies as neurotic, because how many stories (especially long ones) are ever going to be read on the radio?

Thanks Emma - that's really clear and interesting.

Catkin - thanks for your comments too.

It had never occurred to me that people never read "in their heads" until relatively recently. Makes sense, but fascinating!

Yes, I find that too. Sometimes when I get stories critiqued here, someone will say that a word or phrase is unnecessary and I should cut it. Very often, he or she is right, but the sentence wouldn't sound half so good without the 'unnecessary' word or words.

Now that is food for thought.
G