Forum: Author Hangout

And here in Merrie Englande, we can say 'slunk' instead of 'slinked'. ;)

AJ

Why would someone who's alone in a house, armed with a gun, who'd just shot someone in the head, be "slinking" though a house.

He's not alone. He's looking for the others. This one just surprised him.

He's not alone. He's looking for the others. This one just surprised him.

Again, there's a world of difference between "moved quietly" and "slinked". (By the way, I prefer "slunk" in that instance over "slinked".)

Also, shouldn't "phut" contain punctuation of some sort?

I don't know.

Also, shouldn't "phut" contain punctuation of some sort?

I don't know.

It's a one word sentence. After all, how many stories have you read where an explosion is marked with "BAM!", or a punch with "POW!"? Besides, an exclamation add a definitive finality to the gunshot's statement.

"BAM!", or a punch with "POW!"

That's because the ! is part of the word.

But I changed it to "Phut." with a capital "P" and a period.

I originally made it lower case because of the soft sound it represents. Without the capital, I left off the period.

there's a world of difference between "moved quietly" and "slinked"

He "slinked" — looking around him, being quiet, sneaking up on whoever was in the house.

I never heard "slunk." I actually write "dived" now instead of "dove." So it had to be "slinked." Just checked Grammar Girl. It should be "slunk."

So, now you prefer dived instead of dove, eh? I should not gloat.

Nope. I prefer "dove" to "dived" and that's what I say when talking. What I said is I now WRITE "dived' in my stories to avoid confusion for those who aren't familiar with "dove" as the past tense of "to dive."

I said above I only knew of three verbs that have trended towards an irregular form in recent centuries. 'Snuck' is another.

If someone pins you to the ground with a stake then you're stuck ;)

AJ

"BAM!", or a punch with "POW!"

That's because the ! is part of the word.

I disagree. You won't find 'BAM!' or 'POW!' in a dictionary. However, in the circumstances, I wouldn't complain about your using up some of your 'three exclamation marks per chapter' allowance for the purpose of emphasis.

AJ

Sorry, I got it wrong. The limit is two or three per 100,000 words.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/curb-your-enthusiasm/513833/

AJ

Sorry, I got it wrong. The limit is two or three per 100,000 words.

There's not much call for curses, accusations and insults in magazine articles, as arguments between reports is considered a no-no and unprofessional. As a result, I think it has little relation to fictional authors.

Although the article is actually about fiction authors, you'll note that the graph of Great authors uses of exclamation doesn't agree with the text in the article, making any conclusions drawn from it highly questionable. Also, the selected authors (a very small sample size), cover a wide variety of different types o stories and story telling, and I'm not sure you can limit one group of authors based on authors who write completely different types of stories.

I'm not a big fan of the overuse of exclamation marks, but I think arbitrary limits are meaningless when applied to every possible story, rather than simply focusing on a single story or single chapter at a time.

I wouldn't complain about your using up some of your 'three exclamation marks per chapter' allowance for the purpose of emphasis.

WHAT!
WHO says that? But it would ... set a totally arbitrary limit of three paragraphs per every chapter? That's crazy!
I will not accept that ... and that's FINAL !!!

That allows substantially more exclamations in a 1,000 word chapter than it does in a 12,000 word chapter. It might lead to authors having a single domestic fight spread across multiple chapters, just to fit in all the screams and insults.

Personally, I think it's an idiotic restriction. You include as many as the chapter calls for. Better than strict limits, it's better to approach them cautiously. Oh, and no examples of "Ooooohhhhhh Gooodddd, I'm Cuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmiiiiiiinnnnnngggggg!!!!!!!!!"

I never heard "slunk." I actually write "dived" now instead of "dove." So it had to be "slinked." Just checked Grammar Girl. It should be "slunk."

If it makes you feel better, you could split the difference and go with the past-perfect form, "slunked", as opposed to the traditional "had slunk". ;D

'Prrprrprrprr', he blew a raspberry in response. Don't like it but it doesn't upset me, either.

If you intend to show by including sounds, you eliminate any benefit by telling that they are sounds. Pick one or the other, but you can't split the difference, otherwise you just have a mess on your hands.

guess Switch wants to come as close to the feeling of a movie as possible but it doesn't work for me.

No, it's not going to work for everyone. That doesn't mean that there's anything inherently wrong with doing it.

Then again, if an author can't express himself with words—instead having to incorporate popular motifs from filmmaking—it doesn't say much for their confidence as an author. Just sayin'.

In general, although I have used certain sounds, I generally restrict it to comic uses, and mostly in 1st person narratives, such as the narrator saying "I did < something>, and then BAM! I got punched."

In my story Heritage I have a scene where two men enter a room and use sound suppressed guns to shoot the guards in the room with the sleeping target. I mention the sound of the guns this way:

" ... he's just starting to respond to the four very quiet 'phuts' of the sound suppressed pistols. ... "

Of course, we'll all forgetting the silencers don't work the way they're shown in the movies. They're not that quiet. The sound just doesn't carry as far. But you can still hear it in an otherwise quiet residence, assuming it's not a million-dollar spread.

Of course, we'll all forgetting the silencers don't work the way they're shown in the movies. They're not that quiet.

Actually, when someone does make the real effort to use a 'sound suppressor' that's properly designed for the gun and they intend to greatly reduce the sound, they do become as quiet as you see in the movies.

The thing is a lot of people use a gun with super-sonic rounds, while people wanting to reduce the sound use lower velocity rounds. Also, some of what people think are sound suppressors are actually anti-flash devices to reduce the flash.

Sound suppressors are placed on guns to reduce the sound, which they, a great deal. However, the people who use sound suppressed guns in real life also use lower velocity ammunition to reduce the original sound to begin with. Here's some real life videos of guns with and without suppressors. Note the differences and how quiet they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3VITZ6-CcY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZU5TGljAmw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhdXly6jT4E

The bottom one is by The Myth Busters

Using a 9 x 19 mm Parabellum you can load with different loads in the cartridge in both gunpowder and bullet weight to vary the velocity from 990 ft/s to 1,335 ft/s. The speed of sound is 1,087 ft/s so you can have rounds both faster and slower than the speed of sound.

The sound suppressors reduce the sound by a significant percentage, when you lower the starting sound what you end up with is a lot lower than most people expect. The main reason the military use sound suppressors in some situations is to reduce the range the sound carries, thus lessens the risk of people hearing it, and it also confusers those who do hear it as to where it came from, due to the change in frequency making it harder to locate.

Where the authorities have found sound suppressed guns used to murder people in real life they've found guns using .22 short which is a low velocity small calibre ammunition which has a much lower sound to start with, nothing like the heavy .45s many people like. Most .22 shorts are sub-sonic at around the 830 ft/s to 1,000 ft/s. You can get some supersonic .22 shorts, but the more commonly used ones are down around the 560 ft/s to 750 ft/s. thus they're very soft sounding guns to start with.

Compare the sound of this to the early unsuppressed guns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCte1rSfvKQ

In my story Heritage I have a scene where two men enter a room and use sound suppressed guns to shoot the guards in the room with the sleeping target. I mention the sound of the guns this way:

" ... he's just starting to respond to the four very quiet 'phuts' of the sound suppressed pistols. ... "

I doubt that a suppressed handgun is so quiet as to not wake a sleeping person. There's been much discussion of this recently as the US Congress has proposed loosening restrictions on suppressors.

I doubt that a suppressed handgun is so quiet as to not wake a sleeping person.

A lot will depend on how sound a sleeper they are. However, the real issue is the calibre and propellant charge in the cartridge. With a handgun firing low velocity .22 shorts out of a suppressed weapon you'd have to strain to hear it from ten feet away. Mind you, using a suppressor on a .45 ACP will reduce the sound a lot, but you'd still hear it a about 40 feet away. The Myth Buster did an episode where the fired some suppressed guns and the 9 mm they fired sound so close to what you hear them use in the movies it's very hard to tell a difference. That clip is on YouTube. I did post some link in an earlier post on this.

you've convinced me that the only issue affecting whether a silencer will be effective is if the speed of bullet exceeds the speed of sound.

That's the main issue, because most modern ammunition fires bullets at supersonic speeds, especially the most common calibres now used in handguns. The two that still have regular sub-sonic ammunition are .22 and 9 mm, while you can also get supersonic rounds for them as well.

Where a professional soldier wants to cut the sound during a raid they tend to go with low velocity sub-sonic 9 mm 9 x 19 parabellum rounds in a sound suppressed weapon. Even so, the quality of the suppression is reduced with each round fired, so they try to limit the rounds fired with a suppressed weapon to the minimum for the job. In many cases soldiers on raids will often carry extra suppressors to change during the raid if they have to.

Okay. So not the only issue. Thanks. :-)

One of the things the sound suppressors do to cut the sound is to reduce the energy of the sound by absorbing it through the suppressor. The heat transfers to the materials the suppressor is packed with, and a small amount of the material melts with each round fired, thus the effectiveness is slightly reduced due to having less material to work as an active component. How many round you fire before it becomes a problem varies with the bullet and the packed material. From what I've read once you get to around 30 rounds fired there's no sound suppression worth talking about for most of the commonly used military weapons fitted with suppressors.

To that end, I've read where they have a sound suppressor for a .50 cal rifle - which strikes me as a total waste of time and effort as it'll be like trying to suppress the sound of a tank cannon firing. However, what I read only recommended using the suppressor when the target is under 800 yards and you want to hide the flash while causing confusion about where the sound of the shot comes from. So I'd say it's more of a flash suppressor than a sound suppressor in that application.

One of the things the sound suppressors do to cut the sound is to reduce the energy of the sound by absorbing it through the suppressor

One of the basic things a sound suppressor does to reduce the sound made by a bullet being fired is disperse the gases generated by the propellant burning. If that is what you meant by absorbing, then I would agree with you.

If that is what you meant by absorbing, then I would agree with you.

After the bullet the two main things to leave the gun barrel are the propellant gases and the shockwave of the propellant explosion. The shockwave carries the sound and goes well beyond the gases, although both travel together until after they leave the barrel. The main thing the suppressor does is to absorb the energy of the shockwave into the baffles, in doing so it also absorbs a large part of the gases while it disperses what little it doesn't absorb of both the gases and the shockwave energy.

Does this even work?

I've not heard of it being used.

The science behind the way the suppressor works is to eliminate most of the energy from the sound wave riding the compression wave of the propellant going off in the gun. The wave front races up the barrel while pushing the bullet in front of it. The suppressor is designed to deflect and absorb most of the gas and energy in the wave front. In many systems a lot of the energy is absorbed by the suppressor as heat. So, in theory, anything that has the effect to absorb the heat and energy should work.

The majority of modern suppressors work via a series of baffles that allows the gas and the wave fronts to expand before being blocked and constricted again, with each successive baffle removing energy from the wave front. The baffles have a hole aligned with the barrel so the bullet passes through the hole in the baffle and the gas starts to spread only to be stopped by the baffle.

If you look at any video of a big gun firing you can see the big cloud of gas expand out around the barrel when the projectile leaves the barrel, the same thing happens in a smaller way with guns as well. Just the gas and wave is smaller. The baffles allow part of the gas to expand, then has it bounce of the walls of the suppressor to counter act some of the rest of the gas. Thus a smaller amount of energy goes onto the next baffle for the same again, and so on.

The thing a lot of people forget is sound suppressors reduce the sound by a percentage, a high percentage, by still a percentage. Thus the higher the sound you start with, the higher the final sound, and the reverse is true. Yet many people insist on trying to use a sound suppressor on high velocity heavy calibre weapons, and they don't have the effect they want.

I doubt that a suppressed handgun is so quiet as to not wake a sleeping person.

I would agree. Some people are very sensitive to noise when they are sleeping and even very minor low-level volume noises will wake them.

When I was younger, I studied Ju-Jitsu. We were taught how to collapse into the ground, which was similar to how I see a body collapsing. We did not make a Thud or any other sound that I have a word for.

My understanding is that when you're taught to fall 'properly', it's a soft fall. However most people tense up and make a hard fall, the sort that can break bones, especially in the elderly.

A hard fall would be noisier than a soft fall.

AJ

My understanding is that when you're taught to fall 'properly', it's a soft fall. However most people tense up and make a hard fall, the sort that can break bones, especially in the elderly.

A hard fall would be noisier than a soft fall.

The other secret to not making noise when you fall, is to not break your skull and suffer a concussion by banging your head against a concrete or hard wood floor. That's usually the biggest sound you hear in most instances.

However most people tense up and make a hard fall, the sort that can break bones, especially in the elderly.

Awnlee, you missed the context.

SB was talking about a Dead body collapsing and making a Thud. People don't tense up when they are Dead. There may be a brief tensing of the muscles followed by spasmatic muscle twitches. But the muscles basically go limp and a limp body does not make a lot of noise when it collapses to the ground. Someone who is still alive will stiffen and they can go down like a tree falling, which can make a much louder noise.

Aha, you grasped my point.

AJ

Aha, you grasped my point.

I always appreciate it when someone grasps and manipulates my point-er.

SB was talking about a Dead body collapsing and making a Thud.

Dead weight. He didn't die until the second shot.
The reason for the "thud" was to give the sense of dead weight dropping, like a sack of potatoes.

Time for some science. You'll have to go out and shoot someone dead and listen carefully to what their dead body sounds like when it hits the ground. Choose someone of no benefit to society, like a politician or a banker.

AJ

Has the character who gets shot been described as tall and solidly built? Then, I think thud will comfortably pass any plausibility test readers might give it. :-)

All of the bad guys are large.

I assumed they would be, except, of course, if your bad guys just happened to include a weedy computer nerd with glasses, or a wiry, inscrutable, oriental martial-arts expert.

Bouncers and security people are largely big, mostly because they're more likely to be hired if they portray an intimidating image. Most criminals, though, tend to be small and wiry, either because they're hungry, drug-addicted or hoped up on something. But most gang members I've encountered all seem to fit into the same thin and relatively short motif. That's probably why they all feel the need to shoot whenever someone disses them, cause no one would ever be intimidated by them otherwise.

Most criminals, though, tend to be small and wiry,

Don't forget the type of story it is. The protagonist is a Jack Reacher type, 6'3" and all muscle. The bad guys are KGB/FSB guys built like our Special Ops hero.

Criminals come in all shapes and sizes. You can't categorize them. My basis for that comment - over 20 years in the bail bond business.

You're right. I was thinking of the drug addict, young gang member (cause few of them live to old age) and those struggling to survive criminals.

Is it realistic that the sound when he fell would be a thud?
I think REP and EB are right that in many circumstances it would not.
Has the character who gets shot been described as tall and solidly built? Then, I think thud will comfortably pass any plausibility test readers might give it. :-)

I think "thump" is a good alternative, as it's not as loud (and hard) as "thud". Again, the words reinforce the sound, making "thump" a better description for a dead body falling, rather than someone who's been punched and who falls straight back, striking their head.

Of course, if you're talking aliens, they always "pling" when they fall. 'D

I think "thump" is a good alternative, as it's not as loud (and hard) as "thud". Again, the words reinforce the sound, making "thump" a better description for a dead body falling,

Not to me. I used "thump" when his head was thumping on each step as he was dragged down the staircase. But "thud" has the sound, to me, of something falling quickly onto the floor, like a sack of potatoes or a large body. But that's just me.

People don't tense up when they are Dead.

Do they tense up when they know they're about to die? It's been posited that's the reason lobsters which are stunned before being chucked in a pan of boiling water are more tender, and why ethically slaughtered meat is more tender than halal.

AJ

Yes it was. However we were taught to hit with our hand not our arm. That smack was an intentional act for a specific purpose. We allowed our bodies to relax in a controlled fashion so we collapsed to the ground in a more gradual manner than all at once, which is why our bodies didn't make a Thud.

SB corrected my recollection of what he wrote. The thug wasn't dead when he hit the ground. However, I still see him crumpling in a fashion similar to the fall taught by the various martial arts disciplines and without a Thud.

However, I still see him crumpling in a fashion similar to the fall taught by the various martial arts disciplines and without a Thud.

Without bothering to check the earlier posts on this, I'll just mention this:

How a person goes down will depend on how they're hit. A punch in the gut or the balls will have them fold over and go down slowly with little extra sound when they hit the floor. A strong knock from behind to have them fall forwards will be a soft fall as well, because they'll either put out their hands to cushion the fall and their knees will fold. While a hit to the head or upper body that knocks them totally off balance will have them fall backwards like a tree with their whole body straight to have a much hard hit on the floor. A hit to knock them over sideways can go either way, depending on if they put an arm out to cushion the fall and if they turn their body while falling.

If jui jigsaw was. Like judo you used your arm to hit the mat with a smack -very different to what is wanted here. I can't think of better than thud

Put the dead body on a balcony and then you can use "splat!" Now that brings up visual images!

Somehow Thud for a body collapsing onto the floor bothers me. A body collapses like a wet noodle rather than toppling like a tree, so I don't see Thud as a good term.

Only once have I heard a human body hit the floor with a loud thud. Tall guy toppled over backwards almost as stiff as a board. There was a loud thud when he hit the hardwood floor. They treated him for a severely fractured skull when he got to hospital.

A body collapses like a wet noodle rather than toppling like a tree, so I don't see Thud as a good term.

A two-hundred pound wet noodle, maybe.

After changing all occurrences of "slinked" to "slunk," I took them all out. I replaced them with "sneaked" and other words. I do not like the word "slunk."

And I used "sneaked" rather than "snuck."

For me, slinked/slunk has connotations of 'down' rather than 'up' whereas sneaked/snuck has no such limitations, so sneaking upstairs doesn't jar with me.

I approve of your change.

AJ

I approve of your change.

I actually like "crept," but I think of that as being on your hands and knees, rather than hunched over and walking stealthily.

walking stealthily.

Maybe it's time for an adverb. :P

I actually like "crept," but I think of that as being on your hands and knees, rather than hunched over and walking stealthily.

You're confusing it with "crawl". There's nothing inherent in "crept" that denotes moving on your hands and knees (other than various comedy shows). The original usage, and those I'm most familiar with, uses it as a synonym for slunked. 'D

rather than hunched over

We evolved to have a head on top of a relatively fragile, long neck because it gives us a decent chance of spotting incipient danger, despite having a relatively poor range of vision. I'm not sure someone who is anticipating danger would be hunched over, because that would reduce their field of vision even more.

Any special forces operatives able to comment on this?

AJ

I'll just poke my head up out of this trench to check if there are any bullets flying about the place. :-)

Some of the gunfights in TV dramas are hilariously dire. Highly-trained ex-special-forces bad guys and NCIS firing-range crackshots can't hit each other from five yards when it comes to a gunfight, except towards the end when the bad guy inexplicably stands upright from behind his cover, allowing the NCIS agents a free shot from short range ;)

AJ

That's the entertainment business for you. The actors can act, the script writers can write, the producers produce, and the directors direct. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, the result doesn't resemble real life.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, the result doesn't resemble real life.

And fiction does? Hell, reality doesn't even reflect real life.

reality doesn't even reflect real life

My definition of reality is "A person's perception of real life."

I'm not sure someone who is anticipating danger would be hunched over,

Smaller target. Easier to pounce from. Human nature to do it when sneaking up on someone.

Smaller target. Easier to pounce from. Human nature to do it when sneaking up on someone.

Except the visual imagery is all wrong. People hunched over and trying to disappear, and aren't likely to venture forth where it might be dangerous, whereas the hunter types are alter, watchful and ready to react when danger—or opportunity—presents itself.

Personally, I prefer a hero who's in charge, not one who's slinking around, hunched over and afraid.

Personally, I prefer a hero who's in charge, not one who's slinking around, hunched over and afraid.

Never said he was afraid. Cautious. Ready for the unexpected.

Personally, I prefer a hero who's in charge, not one who's slinking around, hunched over and afraid.

Never said he was afraid. Cautious. Ready for the unexpected.

I understand, but that's not the message you're sending with the phrasing, which evokes it's own visual imagery in readers' minds.

I'm not sure someone who is anticipating danger would be hunched over,

I am not such an operative. It seems reasonable that if a person is expecting trouble, likely in the form of being shot at, they would make themselves as small of a target as possible.

We'll have to disagree on that.

Without knowing the full context, it seems to me the scrawny 5' 0" Jack Reacher type (as played by Tom Cruise) has the element of surprise, so optimum perception would be more important than making the smallest target.

AJ

I am not such an operative. It seems reasonable that if a person is expecting trouble, likely in the form of being shot at, they would make themselves as small of a target as possible.

You're more likely to "hunch over" when rushing from one safe position (ex: a wall, a car, a building) to another, but you stand to fire back, or to rush the shooter attacker. Once again: hunch=cowardice, standing=bravery. It's OK to cower when you're biding your time for the perfect opportunity, but you want to paint it as a aberration, rather than a primary position.

what is a goatherd?

A group of elected officials moving about in a pack.

Once again: hunch=cowardice, standing=bravery.

When you are being shot at or believe that someone is going to shoot at you, 'Standing' to fire at the bad guys may give the appearance of bravery, but it is actually a good way to get wounded or killed. If you think of all the scenes you have seen on TV of actual hostile situations (i.e., not Hollywood scripted scenes), you will notice those 'cowardly' police officers crouching behind their patrol cars so they will hopefully not draw the attention of the bad guy and get shot. You may also note the bad guys generally don't expose themselves if they can avoid it.

WWI was plagued by insanely stupid military tactics by all parities.

Yeah, standing when you think someone may shoot at you is really, really stupid.

Yeah, standing when you think someone may shoot at you is really, really stupid.

My point, and I did have one, wasn't that people should stand while people are shooting at them, only that the use of the work "slink", "crouch" or "hunch" might convey more than Switch intended. Authors need to be aware of those secondary assumptions when selecting the best word for a particular context, ensuring their protagonists look cautious, rather than cowardly or sneaky.

Personally, I think anyone reading the text would naturally assume that those terms meant the character was moving cautiously and as silently as possible to avoid being detected, not being cowardly.

That's fine, but not having Switch's book in front of me, I wanted him (or any author) to be aware of a potential complication.

Personally, I think anyone reading the text would naturally assume that those terms meant the character was moving cautiously and as silently as possible to avoid being detected, not being cowardly.

That was the intention.

You're more likely to "hunch over" when rushing from one safe position (ex: a wall, a car, a building) to another, but you stand to fire back, or to rush the shooter attacker. Once again: hunch=cowardice, standing=bravery. It's OK to cower when you're biding your time for the perfect opportunity, but you want to paint it as a aberration, rather than a primary position.

Your earlier point was your MC should stand and expose himself in order to shoot at the bad guy. In doing so, you demonstrate that your MC is brave. My primary position would be the least possible exposure.

Would you settle for "insane military tactics"?

Isn't every military tactic insane?

"You want me to do what?"

"Rush the enemy line, climb through the barb wire, dodging the enemy rifle and machine gun fire, in the hope that a few of you might survive so you can win us another 20 yards on this thousand mile front."

"No thanks, I think I'll stay behind for this particular action."

All Quiet on the Western Front :(

That's because Operation Barbarosa was in full swing on the Eastern Front.

Two different wars.

Actual, both wars had a western and an eastern front. It's only if you are being specific about a particular book title does it become two wars. You didn't say that.

Your mentioning of Operation Barbarossa was quite specific too, wasn't it?

I mentioned a specific operation in response to your mentioning a battle front that existed in the war the operation I mentioned.

You made the poor assumption that everyone would immediately link your statement about the western front to a book of that title. That didn't happen with me, because I've never seen a copy of it, let alone read it. So I naturally took it to refer to the lack of action on the Western Front at the time the Eastern front was started.

My original reference was written with capitals and in italics.

Which was the title of a battle front. I'd not heard of the book or movie until you mentioned it was a book and movie. So an automatic assumption everyone knows it is wrong.

My assumption was that everyone here would know that must be the title of a book, movie, etc.

only if they've heard of it as a book or movie title. With the whole line in italics it looks like it was done for emphasis.

Does CMoS say you should put book titles in apostrophes ? That may have made it a little clearer as a title and not a general comment.

With the whole line in italics it looks like it was done for emphasis.
[Apostrophes] may have made it a little clearer as a title and not a general comment.

No, and not necessary, because it was capitalized too.

I agree with Ernest on this one. There's little point to putting a book title in italics if the entire line is in italics. Either way, a book title needs to be differentiated in some way so that readers will recognize that it's a title, rather than simply an odd comment.

"Differentiated in some way"? That was achieved with the capitalisation! That's what makes it clear it is not just some odd comment.

I got the inference immediately, but then I'd not only seen the movie, but I read the book in school nearly a half-century ago. But he did have a point, in that if the italics don't set the title apart (since the full line is italicized) then you need to include quote marks (Ernest's "apostrophies"), bolded text or even the test "THIS IS A FRIGGIN' BOOK, DAMN IT!!!" 'D

Since the claim (DS or EB, I'm unsure) was that they'd never heard of the classic book/movie, and supposedly thought you were referencing the actual historical event, italicizing the entire line might confuse the uninitiated.

You're going to piss off readers if you put titles in quotes sometimes and italics at other times.

I don't know whether this is true but I recently heard a claim that italics are on their way out in dead-tree publishing.

AJ

You're going to piss off readers if you put titles in quotes sometimes and italics at other times.

Yes, the main purpose of a style guide is consistency.

Book titles are in italics. Short stories, poems, and other stuff are in quotes. I don't remember all the rules.

Just the other day, my wife composed our holiday newsletter to friends and family. She mentioned my non-erotica novel and underlined the title. I told her it should be italics. That was a surprise to her. She said the convention used to be underline (her masters is in English Literature and Creative Writing and she was an English teacher for a short period of time. A long time ago). So I guess conventions change.

Italics and underlining generally serve similar purposes. However, the context for their use is different. When handwriting a document--or in other situations where italics aren't an option--use underlining. When you are word processing a document on a computer, use italics. The important thing is to stay consistent in how you use italics and underlining.

Italicize the titles of magazines, books, newspapers, academic journals, films, television shows, long poems, plays, operas, musical albums, works of art, websites.

Book titles are in italics.

Perhaps that's a US convention. At school I was taught to use quotes, and that Titanic has sailed smoothly until encountering the CMoS fatberg :(

Supposedly it used to be a dead-tree publishing convention that underlines in manuscripts got converted to italics for printing or vice versa (I can't remember which way round it was). But modern printing has less restrictions so I believe its now archaic and neither italics nor underlining present a problem for printers.

AJ

Supposedly it used to be a dead-tree publishing convention that underlines in manuscripts got converted to italics for printing

Typewriters didn't have italics so underlining was used. Same for hand-written manuscripts. That's what Purdue University says (in my previous post) and they're not CMOS.

Thanks.

When posting to SOL, I'm going to stick with quotes because I've adopted the paranoid approach of converting everything to plain text before it gets shared anywhere. I once proofread a story in Word format by a fellow member of a now defunct writing group and was shocked when I saw the amount and content of metadata Microsoft held.

AJ

Find some way to distinguish those things and this Grammar Nazi will give you his tick of approval.

And what's your approval tics name, just in case we run across each other someday? 'D

Grammar Nazi will give you his tick of approval

Keep your goddam ticks to yourself - I don't want Lyme Disease :(

AJ

When posting to SOL, I'm going to stick with quotes because I've adopted the paranoid approach of converting everything to plain text before it gets shared anywhere. I once proofread a story in Word format by a fellow member of a now defunct writing group and was shocked when I saw the amount and content of metadata Microsoft held.

I've mentioned before, you've got to manually turn off each of the various metadata inclusions for WORD (things like foreign terms, names, and other things they label only so they can highlight potential errors in your text.

Until you get comfortable with it, I suggest checking each of your html files until you're sure you've eliminated them all. Reviewing my earlier writing, it's amazing the crap I hadn't managed to strip out yet (like color changes for every edit I did on the road (from black to black and back again!!!)).

There have been three main uses for italics:
1. words from a foreign language
2. various titles
3. emphasis

And, getting back to the OP, sounds. :)

Pffffft!

AJ

Interesting.

The number of fs is commensurate with the amount of contempt so the market leader, 2 fs, isn't very contemptuous at all. No wonder pffft is catching up - I expect it to overtake shortly ;)

AJ

I would adamantly maintain that one of your three examples, 'thud', is not a sound. It is preceded by the indefinite article, 'a'. That makes it a common noun. The meaning of that noun is exactly how you want readers to interpret it.

I already made that change.

One question ... I don't doubt it, but I don't recall seeing the suggestion that sounds may be put in italics. Do you know of any references which suggest that?

I tried finding a reference on Google and couldn't.

Still, IMHO, it's not going to strike readers as in any way odd if you're consistent in how you do it.

You emphasis words with italics. When I use a sound, like BANG! I want it emphasized.

I hope you won't mistake my comments as a critique of your writing. It isn't. It's just my own personal preference. I'm fully aware you have yours as well and they appear to be differing.

As always, there's a right and wrong way to show, but the 'proper way' predates modern movies by some time. (Mark Twain was an early proponent.)

I hope you won't mistake my comments as a critique of your writing. It isn't. It's just my own personal preference.

That's why I started this thread. I wanted people's opinion. I got it on another forum where people didn't like the sounds and thought it was comic book-like and amateurish.

I like using sounds at the right time. Not a "POW" like you find in a Batman comic book (I used to get paid to write comic book scripts), but something that enhances the story.

"Don't! Wait there!" Steele shouted.

The woman looked over her shoulder. "Fuck you!"

She ran through the open door.

BANG! … BANG! BANG!

The group of women screamed and ran like stampeding cattle down the hallway. Steele held up his hands, but they flew past him.

"Everyone, wait here!" he said and sprinted to the open door with pistol ready.

Steele crouched next to the door and peeked inside the bar. The woman lay slumped on the floor in a pool of blood. Her open, dead eyes stared at him. The bartender's bald head and black beard popped up from behind the bar counter. Steele ducked behind the wall. A loud gunshot echoed throughout the bar. The wooden door jamb splintered next to where Steele was hiding.

In the above, I could have said, "Steele heard three gunshots and ran to the open door. It tells the reader the same thing. But is it as exciting?

The analogy was for how they were running, not a sound. Stampeding cattle make a lot of noise, just from the pounding of their hooves on the ground. A group of stampeding humans, unless there are hundreds of them, not so much.

i wasn't terribly fond of the stampeding either, as "scrambling for safety would be more accurate, but Switch seems focused on sound effects at the moment, so I wasn't going to quibble.

i wasn't terribly fond of the stampeding either, as "scrambling for safety would be more accurate, but Switch seems focused on sound effects at the moment, so I wasn't going to quibble.

Stampeding has nothing to do with sound. It's the women running like a herd of scared cattle. I think the verb is perfect.

Why did you use an analogy for the fleeing women and not a similar approach as you used for the representation of the gunshots?

I don't think they're the same, although both are ways to plant an image in the reader's mind. One is a sound effect, the other a simile.

With the "bangs," I was looking for impact. She runs through the door and then a shot, a pause, two more shots. Maybe I do try to make a novel like a movie. In a movie, Steele wouldn't say, "Someone's shooting. Hope she's okay." You'd hear the shots and wonder what happened.

With the "stampede," I simply wanted the reader to see the women running in panic as a group away from the gun shots.

Ede name meaning - SheKnows
www.sheknows.com/baby-names/name/ede
Ede. The name Ede is a baby boy name. Meaning. English Meaning: The name Ede is an English baby name. In English the meaning of the name Ede is: Wealthy guardian.

She named him Ede, because having the gift of far-sight, she knew he'd end up being stampeded to death during a Black Friday Sale extravaganza one Thanksgiving Evening.

With the "bangs," I was looking for impact. She runs through the door and then a shot, a pause, two more shots. Maybe I do try to make a novel like a movie. In a movie, Steele wouldn't say, "Someone's shooting. Hope she's okay." You'd hear the shots and wonder what happened.

"BANG!" isn't much better, or more mature, than "POW!" , "KABANG!" or "ZAP!". It's not even a sound, as a comic representation of a sound. If anything, I'd use "the pop-pop-pop of repeated gunfire".

I don't think they're the same, although both are ways to plant an image in the reader's mind. One is a sound effect, the other a simile

I agree that the two ways you handled the text are not the same. However, you could have handled them in the same way.

You wrote:

The group of women screamed and ran like stampeding cattle down the hallway. Steele held up his hands, but they flew past him.

You could have written something like:

The screams and Thud! Thud! Thud! of feet striking the wooden floor of the hallway alerted Steele to the approaching group of women. As he threw himself against wall to avoid being trampled by the panicked women, they flew past his upheld hands like a herd of stampeding cattle.

The screams and Thud! Thud! Thud! of feet striking the wooden floor of the hallway alerted Steele to the approaching group of women. As he threw himself against wall to avoid being trampled by the panicked women, they flew past his upheld hands like a herd of stampeding cattle.

You can easily trim that to:

The screams and Thump! Thump! Thump! of feet striking the wooden floor alerted Steele to the approaching women. Ignoring his upheld hands, the women advanced, forcing him to throw himself against the wall to avoid being trampled as they flew past like a herd of stampeding cattle.

You can easily trim that to

My first cut was 49 words; yours was 47.

The screams and Thump! Thump! Thump! of feet striking the wooden floor alerted Steele to the herd of stampeding women. Ignoring his upheld hands, they pounded past him as he embraced the wall to avoid being trampled.

My second cut is now 37 words - your turn. :)

My first cut was 49 words; yours was 47.

I noticed that as I wrote it, but I emphasized (expanded) a different segment than you did. The point, and I did have one, is that by trimming the unnecessary passive or duplicate phrases, the whole thing reads smoother and the end result is (hopefully) more powerful.

By the way, is that two sentences or five? If your grade school teacher never explained it to you, exclamations go on the end of sentences, not at the end of each individual word. 'D

In the above, I could have said, "Steele heard three gunshots and ran to the open door. It tells the reader the same thing. But is it as exciting?

Personally, I prefer splintering wood and flying debris, as it's more descriptive of the environment and the multiple dangers from bullets (both direct (i.e. being hit) and indirect. It give a better feel for what the situation is like rather than simply saying "someone fired three shots".

And that's why I prefer actual words over sound effects, because it allows more nuanced writing, allowing you to illustrate multiple details, rather than simply focusing on the most obvious ones, like you find in comics.

You can hear a gunshot from a vantage point where you couldn't see and wouldn't be in danger of any debris kicked up by bullet impacts.

And there's no reason why you couldn't combine the flying debris descriptions with a "sound effect"

It's a question of 'immersive details'. Somehow "BANG, BANG" isn't a very immersive detail. It's just a comic book motif which demonstrates a lack of imagination by the author.

While I commend you for thinking outside the box, I think you've got to reach farther than simple one-word descriptions. The flying debris won't sell any single scene, but adding those elements remind readers that they're IN the scene, rather than having someone TELL THEM what happened. They're living it, experiencing it and feeling what the characters are feeling, as opposed to simply seeing what they might see on screen.

Finally, unless you're extremely close to a shooter, you're unlikely to hear anything similar to a "Bang". What you traditionally get is a "pop-pop" similar to fireworks, which is why many people don't recognize when they're in danger until it's too late.

As for seeing the debris, unless you are very close to the point of impact you are unlikely to see more than a indistinct puff that looks like dust or smoke.

The point of the debris isn't to further the plot (ex: by crippling the character with a painful facial splinter), but it brings in the other senses, providing a more complete environment which pulls the reader in. They not only SEE the action, they smell the smoke, their eyes sting with the sulfur in the air, they trip over shell casings, and the suffer the 'fog' of war (unsure who the good guys and bad guys are). All go into creating a scene which feels more 'authentic' than a simple 'shoot-em up' where one guy shoots another and never misses.

Even for the later purpose, anything beyond a puff of dust is unrealistic unless the character is either right next to the point of impact or the weapon at issue is a high caliber crew served weapon.

Although I was stretching for examples here on the forum, typically when I use it in a story, I use it to convey a 'near miss', almost fatal shot, rather than a more general 'chaotic scene'.

My latest story, "A House in Disarray" uses it, but I didn't want to bother searching for the passage. :(

where one guy shoots another and never misses.

Lee Child's introduction in his first Jack Reacher novel defines Jack Reacher. He always wins. Realistic or not, that's his character.

Luckily I didn't have the chance to hear a .22 from a distance.

depending how far away they are, it's usual a sharp 'snap' like sound. I used to hear other people out hunting rabbits until the socialists convinced the government to disarm the population. So now only the criminals, the police, and the military are armed.

Fortunately they didn't remove them at the shoulder. Probably they are working on inexpensive surgery to do so.

With the jump in news reporting of drive by shootings and other shootings by criminals since then, I think they have it covered.

My reaction as a reader is, 'I get it, she's angry; why don't you just say so! Now let's move on with the story'.

Somehow we get back to show don't tell.

I'll give you one reason to show her anger before she speaks her dialogue.

If the dialogue is followed by "she said, angrily" the reader is told how she said it. But it's too late. The reader already read the dialogue.

But if you show her anger first, then the reader hears her anger while she's speaking.

I have the impression you want your writing as close to a movie as you can get it. I read a book when I don't want to watch a movie.

But don't you want the book to be as engaging as a movie? Come to life?

The professional editor I referred to about italicizing sounds also has an article on show don't tell. I just read it. Her first step in "How to Show Action in Writing Fiction" is: "Step 1: Think of the Movies."

Step 2, btw, is "Step 2: Use Your Senses." She has an example of bad "show don't tell" and good "show don't tell."

Bad example of "show, don't tell:"

The sun was bright and he squinted as he walked.

(Boring!)

Good example of "show, don't tell:"

He squinted hard against the blinding white-hot sunlight. Heat rose from the sidewalk as he trudged toward the door.

(I can picture it!)

Her opinion on show don't tell:

I don't care how cliche it is – I tell clients "show, don't tell" countless times (often until they tire of hearing it).

You know why I repeat it so much? Because it's true. How many times has a book languished because the writer took the easy way out and said, "Bob and Sue had a fight about chocolate chip cookies." Don't tell me this – show me it! What are their facial expressions? Does Sue throw flour at Bill? Do they reconcile their differences about the recipe? How?

Readers want to know and deserve better. It's your job to deliver.

I simply object to the often generated impression that 'showing' always trumps 'telling'.

I don't think anyone ever said that. In fact, I've read where people said, "Showing all the time would be tiring for the reader." There are many times to tell.

I also want to repeat that my comments aren't specifically aimed at you.

I know. :)

Read the statement you just quoted. It implies exactly that impression.

It doesn't. She doesn't say, "show NEVER tell." Her point is people tell when it's better to show. It's easier to tell. It's hard work to show. That's what she meant when she said, "How many times has a book languished because the writer took the easy way out."

Her statement is very explicit, and it's 'show, don't tell'. You're the one who relativizes it, she doesn't - at least not in the passages you quoted.

The point is, there are scenes which call for showing, and others which are easier to merely tell. If a scene has little emotional import, then there's not much sense wasting time on it. Simply saying "I was stupidly drunk" is more effective than recounting how you threw up on yourself at a party (Yuck! Talk about squick value). But, when you're describing how a relationship falls apart, it's often during those relatively minor issues (like baking cookies, when one party doesn't listen to the other).

Though the detail seems unimportant, it's an essential emotional point in the story! But again, that's something you don't pick up on by thinking of your story as a 'poor man's' movie!

I guess it is telling. Which is worst? Ruin your life, or destroy your relationships, or consume your soul?

I prefer "consume your soul", as it turns the taste metaphor on itself. "Ruin" and "destroy" really have little role in cookies other than to remind readers how easy it is to screw up baking , which only reminds them how easy it is to screw up basic literary descriptions too! There's never any call to preannounce your own failures among readers. When you do, it's like Checkov's gun, they'll only start looking for where your writing doesn't measure up.

Bad example of "show, don't tell:"

The sun was bright and he squinted as he walked.

(Boring!)

Good example of "show, don't tell:"

He squinted hard against the blinding white-hot sunlight. Heat rose from the sidewalk as he trudged toward the door.

(I can picture it!)

Ugh, overblown vernacular like that is actually more boring to read than the original.

Her opinion on show don't tell:
I don't care how cliche it is – I tell clients "show, don't tell" countless times (often until they tire of hearing it).

Cliche is a noun. A 'professional editor' should know that.

You know why I repeat it so much? Because it's true. How many times has a book languished because the writer took the easy way out and said, "Bob and Sue had a fight about chocolate chip cookies." Don't tell me this – show me it! What are their facial expressions? Does Sue throw flour at Bill? Do they reconcile their differences about the recipe? How?

No, that's not true. Books fail because the story is uninteresting. Chucking in some florid language won't fix them. If it could, Megan Harris wouldn't be an unsuccessful author.

AJ

Cliche is a noun. A 'professional editor' should know that.

It's also an adjective.

I checked in my own dead-tree dictionary before my post but I particularly remember it from an article on misused words.

Cliched is the adjective.

AJ

In SB's defence, some dictionaries have now rationalised the misuse of cliche as an adjective, but the ones I refer to seem to be pretty unanimous about it being a noun only.

AJ

Parallel evolution may be taking place.

People who live in RestOfTheWorldville grimace when Americans pronounce 't' as 'd', hence the names Hetty and Hedy have become homophones. But recently I've noticed more and more that Americans are dropping 'd' entirely from their pronunciation, so Hedy is becoming He'y (the apostrophe representing a slight pause). So is dropping the 'd' from cliched intercepting the future?

AJ

And there's the silent 'n' in 'me neither'. :)

AJ

People who live in RestOfTheWorldville grimace when Americans pronounce 't' as 'd', hence the names Hetty and Hedy have become homophones.

Which Americans are you referring to. The only reason why Americans confuse names like "Hetty" is because we're completely unfamiliar with those types of names. A simple "No, that's not right," will normally straighten them out. But I've never noticed ANY American dropping 'D' trends!

In my own usage, I drop hard consonants to show characters are upset and emotional, rather than convey an inherent American distrust of hard 'd' sounds.

He squinted hard against the blinding white-hot sunlight.

Interesting that 'hard' is the adverb from the adjective 'hard', and yet the more intuitive 'hardly' means something else and has a different etymology.

AJ

For those cases, the adverbial form without the '-ly' suffix can only be used after its verb.

The motorbike hard turned, leaving my SUV's tyres scrabbling for grip as I attempted to follow.

AJ

I would say that, functionally, that sentence is using the phrasal verb to hard turn.

Is that the same as the phrasal verb 'to turn hard'?

AJ

I never add a smiley to my comments. If you believe my statement contains anything to argue about, you'll have to do so without me.

The infallible 'Google Translate' treats both phrases equally. You can argue till you're blue, you're proven wrong.

OK, rather than using Google to validate using "google" over "Google", let's try a different tack.

We can all agree that the main purpose in using guidelines, wherever we derive them from, it to promote consistency in our writing. In that case, why would you treat "google something" different from every other use of a Corporate name, especially since we're specifically referring to the specific company's product (as opposed to, say, "Duck-Duck something").

I concede, "Yes, there is an inconsistency in what they recommend."

So now you're googleplexed ;)

AJ

So now you're googleplexed

I still prefer "gobsmacked" (with the uppercase "Gob"). 'D

why would you treat "google something" different from every other use of a Corporate name

Personally, I treat all corporate names the same. I capitalise them for uses as nouns and adjectives, but lowercase when I use them as a verb. My reason is both the BrE and AmE style guides I use recommend that.

I concede. You're right in this case. I hadn't following the logic all the way through.

I have two cars, named slow and fast.

Do you ever drive slow in the fast lane and fast in the slow lane?

AJ

Aren't there laws against it? It's like driving a car in the bus lane or a bus in the cycle lane ;)

AJ

Yes, aren't you supposed to?

Whenever someone drives slow in the fast lane, creating a slower lane, I drive faster (in the new slow lane), riding their bumper, reminding them they're in the WRONG DAMN LANE!!!

If the young bucks don't teach the old blue-haired biddies how to drive, they'll never learn! 'D

riding their bumper

Not advisable in European cars. The sterns are relatively resilient but the prows are designed to crumple and are expensive to repair ;)

AJ

Interesting that 'hard' is the adverb from the adjective 'hard', and yet the more intuitive 'hardly' means something else and has a different etymology.

That's hardly hard news!

Damn, AJ. If only I hadn't spent those extra forty seconds copying the word from my digital dictionary to get the accent right.

Since my stories get converted to plain text, I don't usually bother with accents. The exception is my Twitter profile, but that's under a different name ;)

AJ

If you want authenticity, a three-arsed cat would be closer.

That's closer to the mark, as most of the 'cats' here are three-arsed! 'D

But don't you want the book to be as engaging as a movie? Come to life?

Not really, because books based on movies rarely are as captivating as books written for readers. It's merely an attempt to trick non-readers into reading, which is a losing proposition across the board for voracious readers.

The fact is, if you try to make your book read like an action movie, it's almost guaranteed to fail as an engaging read, as it focuses on the visual rather than the emotional, which is primarily what attracts most readers. They want to feel that they're a part of a separate world. They don't really want to 'feel' like they're in a movie theater being read to be famous movie actors. There's an essential disconnect there.

That's not to say there isn't a need for dramatic action scenes and visual components in stories, just that equating literature with movies is, ultimately, a losing proposition. Need I remind you, the vast majority of outstanding movies derive from books, while virtually no outstanding books have ever derived from movies.

In short, why limit your books to visual motifs when they're designed to strike readers across a variety of interests? It seems like you're purposely short-selling yourself.

Your 'good show' example exemplifies this:

He squinted hard against the blinding white-hot sunlight. Heat rose from the sidewalk as he trudged toward the door.

This passage wouldn't work at all if the author tried to imagine a movie. Instead, you get that kind of writing when writers try to completely integrate all the senses in their writing, completely immersing the reader into the fictional narrative.

They want to feel that they're a part of a separate world.

That's what I've been trying to say about having the reader live the story. Don't tell the reader the door slammed shut. Have the door slam shut and make the reader jump.

I bet everyone prefers showing even if they don't realize it. My wife is a voracious reader. In her book club, they're reading a novel by a local resident here. She says it's so boring. It's all telling. The omniscient narrator is telling the story rather than the reader living the story.

They don't really want to 'feel' like they're in a movie theater being read to be famous movie actors.

When you're watching a movie you don't want to hear the actor reading his lines. That's poor acting. Same for authoring.

The fact is, if you try to make your book read like an action movie, it's almost guaranteed to fail as an engaging read, as it focuses on the visual rather than the emotional,

Absolutely not. Why would you come to that conclusion?

you get that kind of writing when writers try to completely integrate all the senses in their writing, completely immersing the reader into the fictional narrative.

Yes, showing.

Somewhere previously you stated, you view your use of 'sounds' as 'showing'. To me, it represents the opposite. Writing 'Bang' is essentially TELLING the reader 'use your own imagination'. You provide a short 'word' to convey an image you could show but you don't.

Here, here! Excellent point.

As Switch keeps repeating, showing takes work, whereas most authors don't want to invest the necessary time, resulting in lackluster prose. So then, why limit yourself to one-word sound shortcuts?

P.S. For me, "explosive sound" sounds much better than "BANG", regardless of whether you italicize or add a dozen exclamation marks. Listen to your inner critic. It says "Add the visual clues" because the phrase ("Bang bang") is lacking emotional punch!

Somewhere previously you stated, you view your use of 'sounds' as 'showing'.

I said something like, isn't it a form of showing?

He heard the door slam shut (is telling)
The door slammed shut (is showing)

so how about:

He heard three gunshots (telling)
BANG! … BANG! BANG! (showing?)

'BANG! … BANG! BANG!' isn't showing because it's prompting the reader to do on his own what you are supposed to do, to show what's happening with your writing.

The other aspect of showing is you don't spoon feed (tell) the reader everything. You let the reader come to the conclusion on their own (like my previous abusive father example).

I honestly don't understand your comment. I'm showing what's happening by using the words that represent a sound.

My opinion is, there are no sound effects in writing unless you link sound files to your words.

I might concur with that concept. If I do, then I would also have parallel the comment by saying there is no action in writing unless you link video clips to your words.

That's really good, though I still would prefer 'The screams and din of many feet striking the wooden floor ...'.

That's better, because as was noted earlier, no one's individual footfalls are likely to register as "Thud! Thud! Thud!". Many footfalls sound like a stampede, but no one's footfall sounds like a gunshot or rockfall.

I might concur with that concept. If I do, then I would also have parallel the comment by saying there is no action in writing unless you link video clips to your words.

My repeated objections to Switches use of "Bang! Bang!" wasn't whether I don't believe in using sounds, rather it was echoing what his Wattpad critics already told him, that "Bang!" is an amateurish cartoon expression, rather than a serious literary application of sound.

Authors need to use their words, rather than trying to appropriate shortcuts from other imprecise mediums. That's why I like terms like "slam", "rebound" and "reverberate" to indicate sound rather than "Bang!".

what his Wattpad critics already told him, that "Bang!" is an amateurish cartoon expression, rather than a serious literary application of sound.

It wasn't wattpad nor the word "bang." It was on a forum, maybe even Amazon's board, where people were talking about using sounds. Maybe it was a Linkedin group.,

It wasn't wattpad nor the word "bang." It was on a forum, maybe even Amazon's board, where people were talking about using sounds. Maybe it was a Linkedin group.

Still, it's been a fascinating discussion. For as opinionated as we all are in this topic, it highlights the dangers these techniques carry (which highlights my 'minimize the danger by minimizing the special effects' caution).

A single "Bang!" won't change a story's score much, but a BANG! BANG! BANG! just might tip someone's minor annoyance into a show-stopper.

Personally, I like the Star Wars scenes where all the characters say "Zip! Zip! Zip!" while firing their lasers! 'D

Personally, I like the Star Wars scenes where all the characters say "Zip! Zip! Zip!" while firing their lasers! 'D

Allegedly they couldn't stop Ewan McGregor from making light sabre sounds while he was filming the relevant scenes so they had to edit those out then splice in the 'correct' sounds over the top.

AJ

I honestly don't understand your comment. I'm showing what's happening by using the words that represent a sound.

You're NOT showing anything! All you're providing is a single word cartoon representation which doesn't convey anything other than 'imagine what this sounds like.' That's not just a short cut, that's lazy-telling too!

BANG! … BANG! BANG! (showing?)

I don't see it as showing. To me showing demonstrates or makes a statement about the action or activity being described.

"BANG! … BANG! BANG!" is about the same as "He heard three gunshots". "The door slammed shut" gives me context and I can visualize a door being slammed shut.

When I read "BANG! … BANG! BANG!", I don't visualize an automatic handgun is being fired, unless I have previously been 'told' that an automatic is being fired. The Bang could be the bad guys slamming doors shut. I also can't tell if the sound is a short, sharp easily ignored Bang of an underpowered popgun, or the a loud, overwhelming Bang of a high-energy hand-cannon that makes you jump when you hear the sound.

I don't have a problem with "sound" words in a story, and I do think they can add to the passages if done properly. However, a sound doesn't 'show' in my opinion. It is just a different way of 'telling'.

However, a sound doesn't 'show' in my opinion. It is just a different way of 'telling'.

That's why I had the question mark. I've never read that using sounds is showing.

When I read "BANG! … BANG! BANG!", I don't visualize an automatic handgun is being fired, unless I have previously been 'told' that an automatic is being fired.

You would if what I presented here wasn't taken out of context.

I don't see it as showing. To me showing demonstrates or makes a statement about the action or activity being described.

"BANG! … BANG! BANG!" is about the same as "He heard three gunshots". "The door slammed shut" gives me context and I can visualize a door being slammed shut.

Our examples are all overly simplistic. It should be:

The door slammed shut, the wooden frame reverberating with the force of the impact.

or

The sharp retort of a gunshot caused me to flinch, though it was the echo of the shots reverberating through the enclosed room which informed me of the true extent of the threats. The splinters flying from the wall, and the bullets wizzing past further emphasized the immediacy of the danger."

That is a heck of a lot of works, much more work than simply saying "Bang! You're dead!", but it conveys what it's like to be IN that scene, and it goes beyond merely 'showing what a TV camera' would.

Relying on a simply movie motif is selling your storytelling short. Books don't NEED to be just like movies, because books were popular for thousands of years before the invention of movies, and they continue to be more popular, because no movie will ever prove to be more long-lasting than books. And if you doubt that, consider how strong your old 35mm photos are, and how worthless your three year-old digital pictures taken with your old smartphone are.

Absolutely not. Why would you come to that conclusion?

The whole point of my examples (in the previous post) was that literary works portray emotions, rather than just visual scenes. Readers get to feel what the protagonist feels, rather than just 'seeing' the action on a screen.

The follow-up on that premise, is that restricting a literary story to the purely visual (to the exclusion of invoking the other senses) is inherently limiting, eliminating the literary word's strongest selling point—allowing the reader to personally connect with the protagonist.

Showing an action isn't the problem here, it's the exclusive focus on 'showing like a movie'. Merely thinking of a story like a movie, inherently prevents you from considering the other literary focuses.

It's better to say "I want this scene to be exciting," rather than saying "I want this story to read like a movie". If you want to write a movie, then go sit in a Starbucks with other the other struggling authors and start writing movie scripts!

Again, the argument for this approach is that there are vastly more famous movies made from novels, than there are famous books made from movies. Why limit yourself if there's really no gain from doing so?

If you think, 'fast-paced scene', you'll incorporate more into it than if you ONLY think 'make it like a movie'.

The whole point of my examples (in the previous post) was that literary works portray emotions, rather than just visual scenes. Readers get to feel what the protagonist feels, rather than just 'seeing' the action on a screen.

"He's an abusive father" or "The father is abusive." That's telling. How does that evoke emotion?

Now, what if you never tell the reader the father is abusive. Instead, what if you have a scene where he beats his daughter and locks her in a closet for two days. Another scene where he belittles her in front of her friends. Another scene where he tells her she's worthless and will never amount to anything, that the world would be better off if she had never been born.

That's showing. That evokes emotion. The reader feels her pain. That's what happens in a movie. A narrator doesn't tell the audience the father is abusive. The movie shows his abusiveness. That's all I meant when referencing a movie.

That's showing. That evokes emotion. The reader feels her pain. That's what happens in a movie. A narrator doesn't tell the audience the father is abusive. The movie shows his abusiveness. That's all I meant when referencing a movie.

Just as you can always create telling examples in writing to further your argument, you can also imagine movies where the acting is so bad it's the equivalent of 'telling' the readers 'the father is abusive'. Bad examples don't prove your point, all it's proves is that you're using terrible examples!

My point wasn't that writing ISN'T showing or that movies ALWAYS show, it's that literary is better about conveying emotions, and if you continually try to copy the quick action in movies, you'll invariable forgo revealing the emotions which make writing such a rich medium.

To be more succinct: movies only SHOW, they don't emote, and they don't reveal any more than what's visual.

As was noted earlier, smells aren't more powerful than visuals, but a story without the other senses is little more than a flashing-picture show.

restricting a literary story to the purely visual (to the exclusion of invoking the other senses)

Who ever said that?

You emphasis words with italics. When I use a sound, like BANG! I want it emphasized.

I linked to this one because I'm too lazy to dig through the over 150 posts to find where you first mention the 3 bangs.

Today, most of the people in the US who have a handgun carry and use high velocity heavy caliber handgun like a .40 or ,45, with a few going for the lighter caliber 9 mm guns. When you fire most of the bigger guns it's more of a 'boom' sound than a 'bang' so I'd have written a scene like that along the lines of:

When he heard the boom of a gun fire followed by two more in quick succession he raced for the door ...

When he heard the boom of a gun fire followed by two more in quick succession he raced for the door

That loses the impact. That was my point. Instead of writing that he heard the gun shots, let the reader hear the gun shots.

There's a lot going on that I don't want to get into, but think of the scene. Steele is freeing the women. Trying to help/protect them. One ignores him. He screams at her to stop. Next thing is BANG! … BANG! BANG!

It's not the same impact to write that a gun fired 3 shots or that Steele heard 3 shots. I want the reader to hear the shots. I want the reader's heart to skip a beat. I may not be a good enough writer to accomplish that, but that's what I try to do.

I have a theory about bangs. Make 'em BIG!

That's what Yo' Mamma says! 'D

Just google BANG BANG.

Just Google (Capital "G") "Bang Bang" on SOL and you get an entirely different kind of reference! 'D

When he heard the boom of a gun fire followed by two more in quick succession he raced for the door

That loses the impact. That was my point. Instead of writing that he heard the gun shots, let the reader hear the gun shots.

How about:

The sound of gunshots exploded a short distance away, and I heard the whizzing of bullets flying past, reminding me our lives were in danger before we even realized where the danger originated from.

There are more ways to use sound that "BANG, BANG!".

When he heard the boom of a gun fire

I prefer "When he heard the unmistakable boom of a gun firing he ..."

One question ... I don't doubt it, but I don't recall seeing the suggestion that sounds may be put in italics. Do you know of any references which suggest that? I have checked the Punctuation Section of CMOS (section 6) and that does not mention sounds.

Did you check the "Comics Submission Guidelines"? Maybe Marmaduke or Garfield have something to say on the subject?

One question ... I don't doubt it, but I don't recall seeing the suggestion that sounds may be put in italics.

I finally found someone who says sounds are in italics. I don't know her, but she seems to be a professional editor who offers other writing services to authors, such as, synopses and blurbs. http://mharriseditor.com/write-onomatopoeia/

In general, sounds in fiction are formatted using italics. If the context requires the sound to stand alone for emphasis, it is usually recommended the author use the sound on its own line.

She also has an opinion for my original question:

Many writers are familiar with the ways in which sounds can improve their storytelling. No matter if you write in first person or third person, your story (and ultimately, your readers) benefit when you bring in other senses.

She also has an opinion for my original question:

Many writers are familiar with the ways in which sounds can improve their storytelling. No matter if you write in first person or third person, your story (and ultimately, your readers) benefit when you bring in other senses.

I definitely agree with that sentiment, but I don't think sounds like "Pop" and "Bang" add much to the other senses. They're not quite like "tangy", "tart", "sour" or "biting", which are all much more descriptive.

I agree with your statement, CW, but I don't agree with hers. The only sense a writer stimulates is eyesight (I already foresee DS will now mention Braille). Prompting a readers memory of smells, sounds, taste, or sensations isn't the same as exciting those senses.

It doesn't need to be as exciting, but merely including the other senses help to invoke the other senses and conveys a more complete world. Of course, that assumes every author is equally capable of accomplishing such things. Given the sheer lack of examples in most works, that's hardly something any advice 'couch' can assume.

For a short while, following the release of "Like Water For Chocolate", there was a spate of 'food books' which did just that. The hungry acceptance for such books shows there's a definite need for such outreach, but again, the fact that few others managed to achieve the culinary perfection in their words as she did shows just how difficult it is to carry out.