New to the site. This might already have been rehashed. My freshman class recently read and discussed A Sound of Thunder and reached a conclusion that seems to be at odds with the editors of our text (Elements of Literature, published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2000) . According to the editors, Travis shoots Eckels in the final scene. Our class reached a different conclusion. We think that the change in the air, the feel, the sound of the screaming, Eckels's actions and the drama of his discovery all point to the presence of dinosaurs in 2055. Thus the death of that butterfly somehow influenced the future existence of dinosaurs. We believe that when Eckels could not move and Travis asks, "What're you staring at?" that he was seeing the head of a T. Rex in the "one high window." So in the final action when Travis raised the weapon and took the safety off, he was firing at the beast in the window, not at Eckels. At every point in the story when "There was a sound of thunder," it was made by the dinosaur, not a gun.
Any response to our conclusion would be appreciated.

I always assumed he shot him, but gosh! That IS a new one! Maybe the moviemakers should consider THAT as a twist ending!

An interesting conclusion, which (without re-reading the story carefully and checking EVERY detail) possibly fits the facts. However, your interpretation is a bit of a stretch:

Travis certainly has the motivation to shoot Eckels, and by so doing the story is neatly resolved. If he is shooting a T.Rex, however, the story isn't resolved at all.

The consequence of Eckels' stepping on the butterfly is fairly rational. But I find it hard to imagine how stepping on a butterfly would prevent the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Mr Bradbury writes in metaphors. Dinosaurs do not literally make the sound of thunder; it's a metaphor. When, at the end of the story, there is another sound of thunder, it is a double metaphor - referring back to the appearance of the T.Rex.

The "standard" interpretation of the story shows it to be full of ironies: the reversal of hunter and hunted; the insignificance/monumental importance of a single butterfly; the cowardice of Eckels... I'm afraid your T.Rex interpretation does away with many of these, in favour of a virtually meaningless twist!

Incidentally, Bradbury's television adaptation of the story clearly shows Travis shooting Eckels.

Phil
www.bradburymedia.co.uk

[This message has been edited by philnic (edited 09-16-2004).]

That is a cool way to have the story end grteacher.

Philnic you need a new Imagination they are kids they have the open mind to think of better more intresting endings.You should read the story agian to find out how one butterfly could effect the future. the "sound of thunder" is to tell the reader how a t rex could sound.

I have no problem with anyone coming up with new endings for stories, but the question was about whether that particular interpretation made sense. In my opinion it diminishes the story.

Phil
www.bradburymedia.co.uk

Back after a long hiatus (a few weeks) which will be explained later.

I like this interpretation. It would definately make a good premise for a full length motion picture.

Besides, why would you shoot someone just because the spelling of Tym Saforry Enc. (or however it was spelled) was different. Okay, so things are a bit off, but shooting him for it?

It seems to me that Travis shooting Eckels is just a bit to predictable. Travis says: "I may kill you yet Eckels, I have my gun ready!" At the same time we don't really know if he shoots a dinosaur either! It is my opinion that he wrote this story open endedly, meaning, Bradbury may have wanted to confuse the reader. As such we don't know how Mr. Bradbury intended the original story to play out in the end, We are left to draw our own conclusions from the clues he left in the text. I hope this helps the discussion!

I appologize, it seems my 1st post covered only what had already been decided. I only wnated to be sure we were all on the same page. Anyway I agree with the ending found by GR Teacher. It seems unlikely that Travis would kill Eckels, he is smart, he would have realized that Eckels may be able to help them fix the past. Besides if Travis shoots Eckels and thats the end of it there is no room for a sequel, It just doesn't seem like the story could continue with the original conclusion.

Something that neither ending supplies an answer for: What is the signifigance of The signs spelling?

Travis shooting Eckels is the 1ST conclusion that comes to mind, and with Science Fiction The fist answer isn't always the best!

It's been a while since I have posted. I am sorry if it is old news, or bad. I e-mailed a local theater about the supposed October 8th opening of A Sound of Thunder. They replied that Warner Bro's have pushed the opening back to March 11th of next year! I am getting tired of waiting... I will have to deal with the teaser trailer until then I guess...

quote:

Originally posted by Wheely:
... if Travis shoots Eckels and thats the end of it there is no room for a sequel, It just doesn't seem like the story could continue with the original conclusion.

Something that neither ending supplies an answer for: What is the signifigance of The signs spelling?

Why should the story need a sequel? It is thoroughly self-contained!

The significance of the sign's spelling is that it is different from what it should have been if there had been no change of history. (It probably doesn't make a lot of sense from a linguistic point of view - and that's one of the reasons the story was rejected by The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction in the 1950s. But it's a good shorthand way of saying the world has changed because of Eckels' actions.)

Phil
www.bradburymedia.co.uk

People have also drawn different conclusions about the ending of "The Dwarf"--why he wanted the gun--which was another thing gone further into in the TV version.

Having read the story countless times, I must admit I had to re-visit it to be sure I didn't miss something. Always a possibility with RB. Great to find the discussion has some hs students creating and interpreting. Priceless. Yet,I have to concur with Phil!

The descriptions in the final several paragraphs create an Orwellian tone. Eckels closed his eyes and awaited "his" inevitable sound of thunder. He had screwed up all the way through the story - arrogant, egotistical, stubborn, and tragically narrowminded.

Set in motion by the event of 60 million years ago, the minutely perceptible changes in the smells and feel of things is subtle, but devastating. The misspellings, the society beyond the desk and office walls ("so many chess pieces blown in a dry wind"), and the Deutscher Presidential nomination all point to a different future world of authoritarian character. In the RB Theater version of this story (with which Mr. B had first hand input), it did seem quite clear what that sound of thunder did.

As for the written text, the final line separates the events from the reader's previous engagement. "There was the sound of thunder." The scene the author has so carefully created is suddenly flicked off. Instantaneoulsy the end arrives. This is classic RB!

Checked out the latest trailer for "A Sound of Thunder"... and I thought I didn't see it right ... so I looked at it again...and lo and behold... '''they''' minutely changed the first scene of the rocket coming into Chicago, making it appear less computer generated, by less rocket engine distortion. Did someone get our many messages from these postings saying some scenes looked tacky with the special effects? Who knows?
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/asoundofthunder/

Could the later release in March be to please a certain Author, or just schedule it for a better market release date?

I've always heard it's a bad sign for the movie when the release date keeps getting pushed back, so I've been a bit worried about this. However, as Nard brought up, maybe it's because they are working on the special effects to make them more realistic and less cheesy, as we've heard they were. I can't bear the thought of an audience laughing at the story, at least for the wrong reasons. I'd much rather they fine- tune the movie so when people see it, their interest in Ray is peaked and a whole new generation of fans is born.