Wheely,

Do you think all stories need to have open endings, no closure or a hint at a sequel?

Is this a common practice nowadays? I'm a little out of touch as far as current SF, but I have noticed the majority of SF/Fantasy/Horror authors have at least one series going or several novels set in the same "world".

Everybody seems to be "trilogy happy" nowadays, especially film makers. Maybe the movie will have a dubious ending.

[This message has been edited by grasstains (edited 09-25-2004).]

What's been on my mind is how the election at both ends of the story could be the one we're having this year. D*mned butterfly...

A sequel who needs a sequel when The ending is right there. With a sound of thunder.

True. A friend of mine likened most Bradbury stories to a window being opened. At the beginning, the story is going on, and when the window is closed at the end, the story is still going on. Science Fiction author Larry Niven seemed to agree, saying in a letter to me that Bradbury makes it seem so easy to tell a story by implication, writing only a crucial _part_ of it.

Donn Albright (Ray's #1 fan I'll have you know) violently disagreed. His words were along the lines of, when the doctor holds up the scalpel at the end of "The Small Assassin," what do you THINK he is going to do? Use it to distract the baby while he calls up Child Protective Services to report a poor little orphaned infant left all alone? Don't think so....

Dandelion is right.
One of my Theatre instructors once told me that he felt that good plays answered questions, but great plays ASKED questions. I believe this applies to literature as well - storytelling in general.

Maybe there is no reasonable conclusion at all for this story. Maybe not even a conclusion; the story keeps going and going, because there will always be a past, present (0.0000000000......1 sec.), and always a future. It is possibly that the "Fantasy", as Bradbury states, is fit up into the "butterfly". In the story, it doesn't state that Travis killed Eckels. It just states: "He heard Travis breath loud in the room; he heard Travis shift his rifle, click the safety catch, and raise the weapon."
"There was a sound of thunder."
---The book is just fictional and entertainment. I don't want to influence anyone's mind, but for me, this story didn't show me a moral; it was just an "entertainment" FICTIONAL story.

I think A moral is obvious -- small things can have a large impact. This applies to personal choices and the impact of those choices in our personal histories and it has to do with long-term consequences brought out at any cross point. It's like the Robert Frost poem. He has two paths to choose. The path he chose made all the difference.

But, it is a great and entertaining story. Looking for morals doesn't ruin a story for me -- it's part of the fun.

But I welcome anyone to just read away for the pure pleasure of it.

Hey
In response to an earlier post, no, I don't think that all Science Fiction stories HAVE to have a sequel. All I'm saying is that this particular story seemed like it could go on. I agree with the post MichaelBalp submitted, that maybe there is no true conclusion to "A Sound of Thunder" we don't know that he shot Eckels, he could have shot a dinosaur as sugested by grteacher, he could have even taken his own life because it seemed so hopeless to him (Although I think that to be a bit inconclusive, I mentioned it merely as conjecture)

The obvious conclusion is that Travis shot Eckels because that ending has the most backing behind it. Is this the ending Bradbury had in mind when her wrote this? I don't know. Lastly please don't get me wrong I am open to all the other possibilities.
Wheeley

Only Mr Bradbury knows what was in his mind when he wrote it... however, as I mentioned above, in Bradbury's own script for Ray Bradbury Theater it is quite clear that Travis is pointing the gun at Eckels.

Phil
www.bradburymedia.co.uk