The use and creation of sound in fiction

In films it is obvious how sound fits in, the soundtracks nowadays usually detailed and blasted on high. Silent movies are now beyond a rarity to almost non-existent. In movie soundtracks, not only do you get the spoken word but you also get music and incidental sounds. If you listen to the complete soundtrack by itself, not just the song listing, it sounds very much like a detailed radio show or talking book. A very high quality one. So much so that I often wonder why they aren't edited with a narrator's voice or just released as is for those interested in listening to them rather than watching. Many of us travel long distances in cars and these would work well in keeping us all awake and interested.


Same goes for cartoons, anime and TV shows but the soundtracks of these would be less appealing as versions of talking books, given the emphasis on short interludes, cut tales and the length of the overarching story lines.

But other than films, sound in its original form (in wavelength form rather than memory references) is used primarily in talking books and the occasional children's book. Like the use of pictures, sound has been dropped almost entirely from adult works of written fiction. Now it exists almost solely within the limited section of talking books and is used to replace the reading process altogether. It is a pity, as far as I'm concerned, but not so much as the loss of pictures from adult works.

But even in the two fields of talking books and children's books the sound used is loud, often varied and inclusive of music. Only the most staid of talking books consist of a single narrator reading a piece, putting on various voices as s/he goes. The best of talking books are akin to radio plays: inclusive of several readers, containing incidental sounds and an opening and closing music track at least. Likewise, children's books contain a variety of incidental sounds referencing sounds likely to be heard in reality as well as quick explanations in a chirpy voice. Both appeal directly to us through the use of sound in its original format and are in some ways richer for it, especially when they are produced with care and an attention to detail.

But what can be done when there is no sound to be used? Well, we write it out. Comics provide a good example of this, containing many a "zap", "splat" and "poc" amongst other things. Onomatopoeia is one of the main ways that action and a clash of characters is expressed in comics, standing alongside dialogue as second to illustrations alone. In comics we have to imagine the sounds but with onomatopoeia and blatant illustrations it doesn't take much to insert a "crash" or "kapow" into our thoughts as we read them. The sounds may be distorted from what they might otherwise sound like in reality but that is memory and the reading of onomatopoeia for you. Reading onomatopoeia is like reading Italics, there's an emphasis and a reference but you're often just reading (internally or no) the word in a different way. But with onomatopoeia it becomes quite easy to fabricate your own soundtrack of sorts while reading comics, even if it is restricted to the imagination rather than to the expressly auditory.

A step further again into silence is the average fiction book. Non fiction contains even less again but those aren't written so much for providing entertainment as for providing information. In fiction we attempt to insert a soundtrack through the written dialogue, some limited use of onomatopoeia though this is mostly out of fashion except in long descriptions or in a snappy action scene. Strangely, through the decline in use of onomatopoeia the imagined sounds are closer to real ones remembered as there is less mental interference as happens like the above with colour.

In written fiction, sound that isn't dialogue has dropped in usage to the point where it is barely above smell as a sense to be described. Most authors tend to focus on sight first and combine it with dialogue as the main reference to sound. What is odd about this is that most of the sounds you create or hear every day don't actually include speech - unless you're a voice actor or a radio host etc. The average person may speak a fair amount in a day but even then the sounds around them and created by them are far greater in quantity and in often volume. Just listen and you will see.

Even a person occasionally muttering in a quiet room is greatly overwhelmed by sounds not made through dialogue. Right now, there is the hum of a computer, the whine of a screen, the tapping of keyboard keys, the ticking of a clock, chatter of birds, the hum of the fridge, a cat meowing at the door, cars rumbling past, a plane overhead, my breathing and my clothes rustling as I move, wind in the trees and if I turn on a movie again to provide a little more noise to cover up the "silence" there will be a movie soundtrack blasting away on top of it. And that's just now. I'll soon be banging about in the kitchen making bread and out feeding the birds and disturbing their peace. Meanwhile, not a word is spoken and won't be until the cats come in and hassle me or the bread burns.

Yet most of this would not be written down in a book because it is general background noise of a single scene likely of little importance to the plot. Most writers want to and do write a complete scene through referencing multiple senses, focusing mainly on sight, then hearing and smell, then taste and touch. Limited attention is given to any particular moment and the divide between the senses lesser still so that the representation of sound is intermittent and usually apparent in action scenes (carriages don't always rattle but swords always zing and snick and swish). 

Plenty of dialogue is used to shunt any book along and create colourful characterisation and interactions. They say include lots of dialogue because it increases the pace and helps build character and plot while being easy to read. But I have read books that focus heavily on dialogue and found the characters very much like cardboard cutouts because of it and the action shallow and fleeting. In other words, too much sound only as written dialogue can be incredibly boring to read.

Yet if sound is used in other ways, such as to describe the click and crunch of a clockwork robot grinding to a halt you suddenly have a whole lot more going on in the imagination than when a girl named Emily says "Oh my dear, I forgot to ask. Would you like a cup of tea?". A And funnily enough, both are perfectly acceptable and reference some scenery and action. But what makes sound really come to life isn't the dialogue, which can only be imagined with different voices. As with sight (through the referencing of colour and texture and depth and shadows over "there was a tree") adding more details to sound and winding it through the descriptions is what helps build a world that can be said to be full and brilliant in the imagination.

While sound isn't the first sense pulled on outside of dialogue (which still is mostly second to the description of sight) its actually quite important to creating a fictional world even when the method of conveying that sound is solely through the written word. Sound isn't always obvious. It doesn't always leap out and grab your attention but even when subtly interwoven into a work of written fiction it really does make the world sing, as it were.

Thinking in pictures, sounds and words

There are people who think almost solely in pictures, people who think solely in sound and people who think almost solely in words. None of these processes particularly inhibit the imagination but they do impact upon and limit what can be created from it through interpretation and translation.

Most of us though, think in a mix of them all, with one or two more in focus than the others. This results in us tending towards certain forms of creative expression over others. And our chosen form of expression can rarely be shifted once we discover it, no matter what others have to say. So how should we chose a creative path to begin with? How are you more likely to chose the right path from the outset?

All forms of art often require a person to not only think in pictures but interpret the kinetic into the stationary. Many artists find interpreting the kinetic into the stationary an issue and so stick to what was stationary enough to begin with in order to be able to represent the subject as they wish, which may or may not include a high degree of accuracy. Then there are those who would like to be artists but cannot shift their focus from either seeing the whole picture to seeing the parts or vice versa. Art requires you to not only think in pictures but to dissemble and reassemble the subject matter in a method of your choosing, to analyse the parts in order to create the whole and to absorb the whole in order to see the significance of each part. Art is a practice that relies on the eyes and hands, on perception of form and function and flow, and is best created by those who think mostly in pictures while creating it. The person who stares, dazzled, at the sky or the sea or the flock of birds and has no words to say about it is likely one capable of recreating the sights through art given the chance to practice the techniques artists use.

Music comes from the minds of those focused on sound, movement and words but mostly on sound. Musicians can become artists or writers with a degree of ease due to the overlap of vision and interpreting methods but because of their intense focus upon sound visual arts can be quite difficult at times. If you are interested in sound above all else and have a song forming in your mind it would be quite hard to represent it satisfactorily in clay or paint or wood. To a person focused on sound above all other things the music world is beyond enticing, instead being downright absorbing and inescapable. Surrounded by such beauty and thoughtfulness for the ears and mind, with sounds that elicit all sorts of emotional reactions, how could a person focused on sound turn away from it all and constantly create soundless art or writing? It just shouldn't be and, more often than not, cannot be.

Science and maths are interesting to look at with regards to thought processes and sources of creativity. There is a high degree of focus on functionality required, on parts becoming whole and vice versa, on the desired or projected end solution and what would be required to create it. To be creative in science it would likely require a person to be able to think in pictures as well as words and numbers. In math, a high focus on words and numbers (or words as numbers and numbers as words) is required and even the ability to see the flow or translate numbers to pictures. But above all, in science and maths a sense of play has to exist. A knowledge that what seems inflexible can possibly be bent or broken, a knowledge of how things work together, build upon each other and click in place and a desire to tinker with it all. The desire to meddle with the world and discover what it is all about is where the creativity stems from in science and maths.

Writing is also interesting to look at because it requires an intense focus upon two types of thinking in equal measure. Or, at the very least, a strong ability to interpret one as the other. Writing requires a person to think in pictures and in words at the same time. It requires a writers to imagine complete scenes, worlds, events, people, to make them real as though you were staring up at that sky. The writer needs to build a world up from scratch and navigate about it freely only to then break it all down and assign words to each part and then not only write those words but make them coherent and enticing enough to a reader that the reader can then, according to their own though processes, rebuild the world in their own mind. Writing is creation and destruction, recreation and transference in one. It relies on multiple interpretations of a singular vision forever broken down into its parts. At no point in the reading or writing process is the whole creation exposed in full, not even with the ending. It requires an ability to interpret flow as well so there is in a writer just a touch of a strong understanding of the kinetic too.

So when choosing your path of creativity it is probably a good idea to match it with how you typically think. The skilled interpretation of words, pictures, sound and movement all play a part in our understanding of the world and our ability to express ourselves so it will impact upon your skill in any particular creative field. Choosing the creative field that best matches how your view and interpret the world is the best way to start. From there it is practice, practice, practice.

But this mix of focused thought processes and practice is in essence where that talent and skill come from that you so admire in others. Talent is the initial aptitude that comes from a good match in thinking to a creative style while practice is how the skill is built up. No one beginning starting out as an artist knows how to create brass sculptures but they do likely know how to paint or draw with some capability. Even in painting and drawing though, the arts most children start out with, there is a incredibly huge gap between the skilled artist and the initially talented child. And all that is required to leap that gap is much practice and careful consideration.

Sight, sound, touch, smell and taste in writing fiction

There is one thing that can set apart a good book from a great as far as the reader is concerned and that is an exploration of the senses. It adds a little spice to the list of events a tale can be reduced to.

Sight and Sound

Humans have three main senses they rely upon for almost everything. These are touch, sight and sound. Still, sight and sound are used far more in writing that touch. In all fiction, sight and sound are dominant and readily expressed just so that a character can move through a world. A character moves about the environment and notes sights for the reader, explaining the world in words that express colour and shape. Sound is drawn on the most to express a dramatic situation but is expressed throughout to one extent or another. Good writers reference sound a lot.

Touch

Characters touch things all the time, just as we do, but we don't note how important touch is to the creation and continuation of a character near as much as we do in our own lives. Touch is incredibly important to maintaining stability in our lives, keeping ourselves from being too hurt, repairing what damage is done to us, recognising when to escape a situation and what needs attention or we'll incur irreparable damage and so on and so for. That doesn't even cover any of the pleasant side-effects of touch and I'm not talking about sex here so minds out of the gutter. I'm talking about general tactile sensations that keep you aware that you're made of flesh and blood and happy for it. Touch is a constant so write it wherever possible to ground your character in the world you've created for it.

Smell

Smell warns us and draws us in, depending on what the smell is. We're aware of it and then we automatically lose it to avoid over-saturation which would lead to disorientation. Smell is constant but our awareness of it fluxes and wanes just as our recognition of any particular scent. Despite this, smell is one of the senses most powerful in fiction as it is rarely explored and often poetically evocative when it is. The nicer smells are mentioned more than the nasty but referencing both rounds out a world to near reality.

Taste

Taste, like smell, tells us of danger in foods and substances. By danger I mean poison and disease. Also, like smell, taste brings out the poetry in language and is as evocative. And yet it is rarely used properly. Meals, the most obvious instances of taste, are often written by use of cataloguing the items on a plate instead of what they taste like. Then comes instances such as vomiting up a meal. People mention bile but not bitterness or burning and they almost never mention the sweetness of the corn as yet undigested (for example). Blood is copper, another often mentioned taste but skin is mildly salty and dries the tongue. If possible, write the tastes and make them strong or poetic. They have great impact no matter how they're used.

The best stories are those told using all five senses but that is not to say to forget the emotions or thoughts and replace them with the senses (although I'd love to read just one book based solely on the senses - so that the reader has to interpret what is going on). Emotional responses to the senses are what makes the five senses make sense (as it were). Emotional responses lead to thoughts and thoughts lead to full characterisation. Consider the senses as the building blocks of your character's past, present and future mentality.