This came to me as I watched a tape of Neil Gaiman reading his own works on tour. In the short story Chivalry, a widow picks up the Holy Grail in a used goods outlet, and puts it on her mantel. Soon Sir Galahad comes to petition her for it. When he offers a legendary sword, the widow, who does not want the sword, hunts for something polite to say, finally settling on, "It must be very sharp." Suddenly, I realized that, had I been reading rather than hearing the story, I would have taken the statement as a straightforward expression of wonder. Just as suddenly, I realized that's why stories always seem to sound better on NPR's Selected Shorts program. Good actors sift among turns of voice suggesting surprise, irritation, sarcasm, and so on for the most entertaining, even without explicit direction from the text. Perhaps they do this automatically, even unconsciously. I don't. I miss important material this way, unless the writer is as literal-minded as I.
I can blame my weakness on various causes. My own voice is monotone, so naturally I project it on books. Similarly, I tend to literal speech, apart from frequent fits of sarcasm, so anybody but Dave Barry reads literally to me. And, of course, unless the writer explicitly directs the reader, taking words at face value is the safest course. (A whole school of thought claims it's the only course.)
Unfortunately, the safe course also means I miss important content. A good writer doesn't riddle conversations with Tom Swifties, and subtly implying every inflection is a Herculean task. Perhaps my difficulty with classic literature stems from this problem - I don't "get" the classics unless I'm in a lit appreciation course.
What's the lesson here? Damned if I know. Maybe to cycle through passages repeatedly, trying out different deliveries of the dialogue. But I'd read about 20% the rate I do now, if I did. So, for fiction, I will continue to tend to stick to sci fi, which attracts a literal crowd. And Selected Shorts, of course.