Eu não gosto de metáforas musicais. Acho fácil demais comparar emoções ou qualquer experiência humana com música porque música sempre nos toca. Além disso, música é aquela coisa aberta a todo tipo de interpretação.
Mas gostei dessa analogia de James Wood em “How Fiction Works”, que estou lendo e me encantando, onde ele sugere que a nossa percepção do mundo se dá em diferentes fórmulas de compasso. Veja se você concorda.
Flaubertian realism, like most fiction, is both lifelike and artificial. It is lifelike because detail really does not hit us, especially in big cities, in a tattoo of randomness. And we do exist in different time signatures. Suppose I am walking down a street. I am aware of many noises, much activity, a police siren, a building being demolished, the scrape of a shop door. Different faces and bodies stream past by me. And as I pass a café, I catch the eye of a woman, who is sitting alone. She looks at me, I at her. A moment of pointless, vaguely erotic urban connection, but the face reminds me of someone I once knew, a girl with just the same kind of dark hair, and sets a train of thought going. I walk on, but that particular face in the café glows in my memory, is held there, and is being temporally preserved, while around me noise and activities are not being similarly preserved—are entering and leaving my consciousness. The face, you could say, is playing at 4/4, while the rest of the city is humming along more quickly at 6/8.
The artifice lies in the selection of detail. In life, we can swivel our heads and eyes, but in fact we are like helpless cameras. We have a wide lens, and must take in whatever comes before us. Our memory selects for us, but not much like the way literary narrative selects. Our memories are aesthetically untalented.