On Writing Sounds...

[Zubi-Ondo]

So, I got to this point in the story where a medium sized spaceship is going to take off, and I wondered - Should I try to imitate the sounds in my writing?

I have so far decided that I prefer to describe the sounds rather than to imitate them in text. (I prefer 'The wind rushed through the open window' to 'The curtains flipped up with a whoosh') Maybe that's a bad example.

Human sounds have been fairly well established. Examples include 'Awww', 'Uh-huh', 'Ugh!', 'Whoa!' 'oooh', 'Er' or ‘Umm’ (to name just a few).

Then there's the descriptive verbs for human sounds: scream, shout, roar, howl, bellow, squeal, holler, shriek, screech sniff, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But what about mechanical or sounds made by other phenomenon?

What sound does an elevator make? How about a boiler? A bulldozer? A magnetic hydrogen gas storm in orion? A light saber?

Put another way - How would you write some of the sounds you've heard a spaceship make in an SF movie?

Thanks for any help.

- Zubi.

 

[Pyan]

Whooosh?

 

[Culhwch]

I'd describe the sound rather than try and transcribe it. The hum of the engines as they warmed up, the rumble of the boosters kicking in, that kind of thing.

And a lightsabre makes a kind of kshhhhmmmmmm noise.

 

[Commonmind]

I think it's both a matter of personal style as well as the style of the work. If I were reading something with a more serious tone I think seeing a "whoosh" thrown into the mix would probably do the opposite of what was intended, which is to drag me out of the story. I'd much rather the author describe the sound, using metaphor if necessary. If the story is lighthearted and more whimsical I wouldn't mind sounds being spelled out so much.

 

[Green]

Aye, definitely. Unless I was writing for kids, I wouldn't put the sounds themselves in.

If I were to describe lightsabers, I'd be thinking of the roar of the air tearing, the smell of ozone, electric hums and things like that.

 

[Culhwch]

If I were to describe lightsabers, I'd be thinking of the roar of the air tearing, the smell of ozone, electric hums and things like that.

I think it was always a snap-hiss in the novels...

 

[iansales]

Put another way - How would you write some of the sounds you've heard a spaceship make in an SF movie?

Er, if no one's mentioned it yet, but... sound doesn't travel in space. Spaceships don't make noises. SF movies do that for dramatic effect, even though it's scientifically inaccurate. Spaceships can't bank or swoop in space either...

 

[Culhwch]

Yeah, but they take off from somewhere....

 

[iansales]

But does that place necessarily have an atmosphere?

 

[Culhwch]

Not necessarily, no, but if it's terrestial... Besides, if you're inside the ship there's atmosphere and, thus, noise.

 

[iansales]

Well, yes. But wouldn't it make sense to soundproof the crew areas? Films might have spaceships go whoosh as they fly through space, but that's for purely dramatic effect. It's scientific bollocks. It's silly to perpetuate in written sf. If you want suspension of disbelief, you have to be plausible. Perhaps you want a rumbling noise to be heard inside the spaceship's hull...but what is it that makes the rumbling noise? Not your reaction mass, surely. And nuclear piles make no noise (it'll be the cooling system that does). And if you're going to invent your super-duper-bollocks-science-reactionless-inertialess-space-drive, well, even in that case you need to be careful about the details...

Just because you're writing science fiction, it doesn't mean you can make it up as you go along

 

[Culhwch]

I'm more of a fantasist, so I can make it up as I go along...

I do understand your point, though.

 

[iansales]

I think with fantasy, there's still a need for plausibility - but whatever you've invented doesn't have to be explicable or open to explanation. On the other hand, why would you have spaceships in a fantasy...?

 

[Culhwch]

I don't have spceships in anything. I just like being difficult...

 

[Zubi-Ondo]

This was initially a ship that takes off from earth. I just wanted to put the reader inside the ship, and there would still be oxygen in there no matter where the ship was. I know I won't be imitating the sound in text, I'll describe it once and leave it at that. I just wanted to see what others thought about it. Thanks to everyone so far, I hope to hear more ideas.

Jingle jingle jingle...
Happy Holidays!


- Z.

 

[Commonmind]

Well, yes. But wouldn't it make sense to soundproof the crew areas? Films might have spaceships go whoosh as they fly through space, but that's for purely dramatic effect. It's scientific bollocks. It's silly to perpetuate in written sf. If you want suspension of disbelief, you have to be plausible. Perhaps you want a rumbling noise to be heard inside the spaceship's hull...but what is it that makes the rumbling noise? Not your reaction mass, surely. And nuclear piles make no noise (it'll be the cooling system that does). And if you're going to invent your super-duper-bollocks-science-reactionless-inertialess-space-drive, well, even in that case you need to be careful about the details...

Just because you're writing science fiction, it doesn't mean you can make it up as you go along

Actually, the very idea of science fiction is to make it up as you go along. You just have to make it believable in the context of the story. There's no unwritten rule that sci-fi must adhere to specific scientific truths; this is an especially contradictory notion considering that the majority of the work must be improbable for it to be considered good fiction.

Can we travel from galaxy to galaxy? No, we must develop some fictional device to get us there. Must we apply realism to this device? No. Must we apply believability to it? Yes. They're two very different concepts.

While you may be one of those sci-fi readers that checklists a novel against your own knowledge of science, it would be an assumption on your part to imply that every reader is going to do the same.

This, having a lot to do with I said above, is my second point. Building an environment of sound as well as a visual one when you're writing a scene is creating a setting. Setting doesn't need to conform to any strict rules of plausibility as long as it serves its purpose. For instance, while a spaceship may be built with soundproof walls and make no sounds in the vacuum of space, adding something as subtle as the hum of [some part] can provide the reader with a tangible place in your world; it allows them to stand on the deck of the Starship Centerprize, gives them a viewpoint from inside your setting. I'm sure the majority of readers (now, pardon my assumption) aren't going to stop what they're doing and think, "wait...mass reactors don't make noises! How silly!" Let's face it, people also don't travel across light years in some super-duper-bollocks-make-believe space ship either.

 

[iansales]

Actually, the very idea of science fiction is to make it up as you go along. You just have to make it believable in the context of the story. There's no unwritten rule that sci-fi must adhere to specific scientific truths; this is an especially contradictory notion considering that the majority of the work must be improbable for it to be considered good fiction.

I didn't say it had to be scientifically accurate in all instances. And there's no reason why you can't set your story on Barsoom rather than Mars... But you can't be completely arbitrary in your story choices - for example, if you're going to have sound transmitted by a vacuum, well, it's not a vacuum then.

But whatever you're writing, if you're not going to be consistent, or you're not going to explain why known physical laws differ in your universe (or, at the very least, gives clues that suggest why), then you're "making it up as you go along".

 

[Commonmind]

I didn't say it had to be scientifically accurate in all instances. And there's no reason why you can't set your story on Barsoom rather than Mars... But you can't be completely arbitrary in your story choices - for example, if you're going to have sound transmitted by a vacuum, well, it's not a vacuum then.

Exactly right, you didn't say it had to be scientifically accurate in all places, but who decides on that magical mix of fact and fiction? Surely not one reader. If you're writing sci-fi you're already making arbitrary choices; you're deciding which parts of your story should adhere to scientific truth and which should not. If in thirty years we discover traveling faster than the speed of light reverses an individuals aging process, are all the great sci-fi works of our time now rendered moot? No, because despite the factual anomaly they're still great stories. So sure, sound doesn't travel in a vacuum, but again, neither does man travel through long distances of space.

But whatever you're writing, if you're not going to be consistent, or you're not going to explain why known physical laws differ in your universe (or, at the very least, gives clues that suggest why), then you're "making it up as you go along".

You're always making it up as you go along, just to differing degrees. If a sci-fi writer decides he must write with the integrity of a physicist that's his choice, and the audience that enjoys those types of works will likely enjoy his novel. Other successful writers don't abide the rules and it works for them too.

Just as there are readers out there who enjoy magic carpets in their fantasy, so there are readers out there who would rather there be no magic at all. It's not up to you to decide which elements of the formula should be present. It's only up to you to read those novels which you as a reader enjoy.

 

[iansales]

So sure, sound doesn't travel in a vacuum, but again, neither does man travel through long distances of space.

But human beings can travel through space (in suitable craft, of course). Sound never can. And while you could get away with a Barsoom-like Mars rather than a Viking-type Mars (see Colin Greenland's Take Back Plenty), that's not really the same as changing the laws of phyics.

Having said that, I suspect we're arguing semantics here. To me, "making it up as you go along" is making arbitrary decisions while creating a narrative or setting without regard to consistency, integrity, plausibility or rigour.

 

[Commonmind]

Not only are we arguing semantics, but we're getting way off subject. Let's call it a difference of opinion and move on.