On Writing Sounds...

[Ursa major]

You have to remember, Commondmind, that Ian is a stickler for world-building.

Seriously, though, I agree with Ian. Consistency, or at least the removal of things that jar the reader out of their suspension of disbelief (unless it's deliberate), should be a requirement of good SFF.

And back on thread.... You would need to describe the sound in any detail only if it was not what your readers might expect. We know what a Saturn V sounds like, for instance, and we have been brought up with humming space ships for decades on film and the TV. But a drive system that would quack like a duck: you'd have to describe that (or, better, change your technology ).

 

[Zubi-Ondo]

Believe it or not, I think you're all correct - you're just coming in at different angles. The wonder and fun of writing Science Fiction (or any fiction really) is to "make it up as you go along". I think what Iansales might be trying to get at is that so far most sucessful science fiction does a good job of hiding the fact that it is made up, at least as far as the technical details go. In Fantasy, you "build" some type of world and the action has to be (or should be IMO) consistent with the world you've built. The same goes for SF, and IMO it goes beyond that in SF. Meaning - in SF you must also remain true to the known rules of science, unless you make up some new rules. If you make up some new rules, you must "be careful about the details". They must be consistent within themselves. Most likely, IMO, the reason for this is that the fans of SF are often scientists, physicists, engineers and the like. I am one of the aforementioned, and I am that kind of reader. I don't like it if I'm merrily reading along, and something turns out to be scientifically implausible or inconsistent.

That said, it does seem to me like many SF writers avoid the topic altogether. I have just started reading SF again as of 2007, and my pile of TBR is gigantic. So, I was hoping that some of you might have seen some examples of what I'm asking about, and I apologize that I didn't make that clearer at the outset. I think this is still a good discussion, and it hasn't gone so far off track as to be useless to me as a writer. So thanks to everyone (Commonmind, Iansales, Culhwch, et. al.) Let's keep going shall we?


- Z.

 

[iansales]

When it comes to world-building, I'm a bit like an ex-smoker I know how much fun it is to build huge, intricate worlds - but all that effort could have been spent on the story. So I think you should let the world-building grow out of the story. But not in any way that would destroy consistency or plausibility.

There two ways in which this applies: micro and macro. Need to know how long it takes the hero to get from town A to town B? Draw a map, and work it out. Or just jump-cut, and throw in a few vague references to the time that's passed. Or: your story may require the reader to know the name of the galactic emperor, but does that mean you have to create an entire three-thousand year dynasty?

The same is true, to some extent, of the language that you use. Yes, you know the smell, the sound, the general ambiance of the scene - but how much of that does the reader need to know? I give you two examples from my favourite writer, which illustrate how the right choice of word or phrase (my italics, btw) tells the reader everything they need to know:

"In that clear hard enamel air the human voice carried so far that it was possible to call and wave to her from the top while she walked the Plaka streets below."
(from Tunc, Lawrence Durrell)

"A white sailing boat lay like a breathing butterfly against the white mole."
(from The Dark Labyrinth, Lawrence Durrell)

 

[Commonmind]

Believe it or not, I think you're all correct - you're just coming in at different angles. The wonder and fun of writing Science Fiction (or any fiction really) is to "make it up as you go along". I think what Iansales might be trying to get at is that so far most sucessful science fiction does a good job of hiding the fact that it is made up, at least as far as the technical details go. In Fantasy, you "build" some type of world and the action has to be (or should be IMO) consistent with the world you've built. The same goes for SF, and IMO it goes beyond that in SF. Meaning - in SF you must also remain true to the known rules of science, unless you make up some new rules. If you make up some new rules, you must "be careful about the details". They must be consistent within themselves. Most likely, IMO, the reason for this is that the fans of SF are often scientists, physicists, engineers and the like. I am one of the aforementioned, and I am that kind of reader. I don't like it if I'm merrily reading along, and something turns out to be scientifically implausible or inconsistent.

That said, it does seem to me like many SF writers avoid the topic altogether. I have just started reading SF again as of 2007, and my pile of TBR is gigantic. So, I was hoping that some of you might have seen some examples of what I'm asking about, and I apologize that I didn't make that clearer at the outset. I think this is still a good discussion, and it hasn't gone so far off track as to be useless to me as a writer. So thanks to everyone (Commonmind, Iansales, Culhwch, et. al.) Let's keep going shall we?


- Z.

My point was simply that no one person judges how much hard fact is required for a particular work of science fiction to be "good" literature. Authors and readers are diverse. If an author chooses to introduce the reader into his setting with the purring of an engine, so be it; so long as he makes the setting believable within the context of that particular story. Of course, his readers must be willing to buy into the atmosphere he's creating. Some authors choose to be more technical and focus on completely plausible ideas that aren't far removed from the realm of mainstream science; these authors have their own type of following.

And again, though quite a few readers of sci-fi are scientists, physicists and engineers, not all of them are, and I would wager even the former aren't always going to be critical of the science involved in the literature.

Most of the points Ian made earlier were based on one person's point of view, and although some of the folks here might agree with him, my point was that points of view are different, and not all sci-fi needs cater to the purely technical fan to be considered good sci-fi.

(No personal offense Ian, I respect your opinion, and even agree with some points you made.)

 

[chrispenycate]

Sound can't travel in a vacuum. But the volume behind an ion-drive spaceship is not a vacuum, but extremely rarified gas, which is agitated. Indeed, if you're getting more than a thousanth of a g acceleration, there is a lot of noise there. And a percentage of this will be transferred to the structure of the craft, since, if you totally decouple it, you can't get any forward thrust. Pure laminar flow would improve the situation, but not eliminate low frequency energy.
An Orion drive craft (drop atomic bombs out the back and explode then to drive it forward) is even noisier, but you can afford the mass required for better soundproofing.
Because soundproofing isn't just egg boxes on the walls; it's converting vibrational energy into thermal. If you have enough spare power, you can use loudspeakers to feed antiphase energy into the structutre (that might in fact be the lightest way to get rid of low frequency energy, but if you're trying for the greatest efficiency the ship is going to vibrate through your bones, like sitting in a W-bin at a rock concert.
The sun is very noisy, and a microphone outside the orbit of Venus can pick up the roaring through the solar wind. Guess what? It sounds a lot like terrestrial wind (I wish I could remember where I heard that recording) if a bit richer in the low frequencies; more pink noise that white, and changing texture.
I imagine the magnetic storm in the hydrogen clouds would be pitched higher, less concentration of gas, easier to move individual molecules...

 

[Zubi-Ondo]

Sound can't travel in a vacuum. But the volume behind an ion-drive spaceship is not a vacuum, but extremely rarified gas, which is agitated. Indeed, if you're getting more than a thousanth of a g acceleration, there is a lot of noise there. And a percentage of this will be transferred to the structure of the craft, since, if you totally decouple it, you can't get any forward thrust. Pure laminar flow would improve the situation, but not eliminate low frequency energy.
An Orion drive craft (drop atomic bombs out the back and explode then to drive it forward) is even noisier, but you can afford the mass required for better soundproofing.
Because soundproofing isn't just egg boxes on the walls; it's converting vibrational energy into thermal. If you have enough spare power, you can use loudspeakers to feed antiphase energy into the structutre (that might in fact be the lightest way to get rid of low frequency energy, but if you're trying for the greatest efficiency the ship is going to vibrate through your bones, like sitting in a W-bin at a rock concert.
The sun is very noisy, and a microphone outside the orbit of Venus can pick up the roaring through the solar wind. Guess what? It sounds a lot like terrestrial wind (I wish I could remember where I heard that recording) if a bit richer in the low frequencies; more pink noise that white, and changing texture.
I imagine the magnetic storm in the hydrogen clouds would be pitched higher, less concentration of gas, easier to move individual molecules...

I wanted to say thank you Chris - This was interesting and helpful. It goes along with a concept mentioned earlier which is to "consider the source" (of the noise that is... )

- Z.

 

[chrispenycate]

I wanted to say thank you Chris - This was interesting and helpful. It goes along with a concept mentioned earlier which is to "consider the source" (of the noise that is... )

- Z.

Tries to work out if previous post is ironic – I did get a bit over-technical (and under explanatory) didn't I?
Still sound, acoustics and vibration (and sleeping in W-bins during rock concerts) has been my speciality for the last forty years, so I have this tendency to get carried away – occasionally frothing at the mouth, with blood running out of the ears…