Talk:A Sound of Thunder

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A Sound of Thunder article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Novels: Short story / Sci-fi Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Question of First Publish Date

The first publication date is ~~now~~ no longer under question.

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/authors/Ray_Bradbury.htm points to 1952 but does not list where it was published.

http://www.oldsfbooks.com/pst5401.html (Google cache http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Ai39JLYPTpkJ:www.oldsfbooks.com/pst5401.html+pulp+%22A+sound+of+thunder%22&hl=en) gives 1954, a later year, but includes an actual magazine.

http://users.ev1.net/~homeville/fictionmag/t477.htm is a little confusing, as it lists the July 1954 edition of Planet Stories, but after it, it says "ss Colliers Jun 28 ’52". Looking around the site, "ss" seems to refer to a contributor of this information, but Colliers is another pulp. Does this mean it's a reprint fron 1952?

http://www.hycyber.com/SF/planet_stories.html points to the 1954 date, January no less.

I once saw a wonderful pulp fiction index, with a nifty search engine, but I'm now unable to find it. Any help in sorting this out would be nice

lunaverse 00:06, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More clues: http://www.moviefans.de/a-z/s/sound-of-thunder/ states it was in R is for Rocket. Needs more research.

I had a delightful discussion with myself, but managed to solve the mystery. This dead horse has been beaten plenty (at least, by me).

I would like to add however, my amazement that this story was written 10 years before Edward Lorenz discovered the Butterfly Effect, and the interesting coincidence between the name and Bradbury's time-changing character. I read this story long before I knew of Chaos Theory, and so when I first stumbled upon it (in Jurasic Park of all places), it made total sense *because* I'd read this story as a kid.

lunaverse 00:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

One sided butterfly effect

I'm sorry, guys, but the story doesn't really make sense. OK, a human kills a butterfly with his shoe somewhere in the past, and everything changes. Now the funny part. If a human kills a "specially designated" dinosaur, the dying creature may kill tons of butterflies or other living things with its weight when it hits the ground. And nothing changes in the future after that? Am I being too critical or the story is just underdeveloped? Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy reading most of Bradbury's stories. KNewman 04:54, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the specially designated dinosaurs were picked because they would have died seconds later. For example: just after the T. rex in the story was killed, a large tree fell on it. Ingiald729 00:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The idea is that the animals killed were about to die anyway. They would not, say, kill a sick dinosaur that would die in a few days. So the consequence of killing said animal is minimised. Your contention is sort of valid though -- the animal no longer dies in the original manner and so the future may change because of it. Piepants 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Piepants[reply]

I have always thought that the changes wouldn't be so subtle. A small change back then should compund over time. The two presidental canidates shouldn't even have been born.

I agree that Bradbury should have taken into account quite a lot of different factors, but saying his whole story doesn't make sense is going a little too far. If you want to talk about details, the phenomenon known as the Butterfly Effect (in Chaos Theory) is about a flap from a butterfly wing causing a tornado. So just imagine what the consequences of a Machine appearing out of nowhere would be. Not only do you disturb the flow of the wind, you also bring back bacteries and such to the Future. Bradbury has a point for writing an interesting story, not for being overly scientific and coherent.

Scientifically, the story does not hold water, but I believe the story was not written to illustrate a scientific point, such as the so-called "butterfly effect". Bradbury wrote on social topics (e.g., see 451F), and the story should be viewed from that angle. The question is: why butterfly? Can one kill a butterfly by stepping on it? It would fly away. From the "science" standpoint, it would be better to use a caterpillar in the story. However, butterfly is the animal associated with Psyche, the Greek goddess of soul. Thus, the metaphorical meaning of this story is this: you kill your soul, and the world becomes rotten. 72.165.80.2 (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cacoon fell and the butterfly was just coming out. Simple as that ;) -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.148.149 (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive Edits

This article is being edited unconstructively several times a week. Does anyone know why this fairly low-profile article would be the subject of such attention? BreathingMeat (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eckels Last Worlds

"He pleads to Travis to take him back into the past to undo the damage, but Travis refuses".
This isn't actually true, Eckels sees the crushed boot and started to babble; he doesn't actually ask Travis if they can go back, because he knows they would have to somehow bring the butterfly back to life in order to undo the damage. Since they can't bring the butterfly back to life, they both know there isn't anything they can do to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.88.143.1 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, they have a time machine. They *can* change what has already happened. 63.87.189.17 (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the title

The article currently states "The dark ending reveals the meaning of the title—the story’s final words are, “There was a sound of thunder.”" This literal reading of the title is missing the point. The title actually has more layers. For example, the T-Rex is a dinosaur, which were poetically called "thunder lizards"; when they roared they made "a sound of thunder". Yes, it's also the sound of gunfire -- but it's not the only meaning in the story! 190.191.237.21 (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the last sentence to reflect this. Supporting my change is this paragraph from the short story:

Silence.

A sound of thunder.

Out of the mist, one hundred yards away, came Tyrannosaurus Rex.

190.191.237.21 (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact

There's a song called "Sound Of Thunder" on Duran Duran's 1981 eponymous debut album. It's at least partially inspired by Bradbury's story, and includes the lyric "I'm the man who stepped off the path". 68.160.31.144 (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]