Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chekhov's Gun

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 181 posts

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#11

Post by bambax »

zorr wrote: post #4

I've seen this principle come up a few times but I don't think I fully understand it. For example, assuming a passage in a story where a protagonist enters person X's house and a particular room is described in much detail. The described detail does not necessarily advance the story but instead does "character building" hinting at the personality of person X. There literally could be a loaded gun hanging on the wall…

> There literally could be a loaded gun hanging on the wall because X is a secluded hunter living in a cabin. Is this then a violation of the principle?

Yes. If the gun doesn't appear anywhere after its first mention, then it should not have been described. This is quite literally what Chekhov says, and I think he's right.

It works the other way too. In order for a gun to be used in a story, it has to have been alluded to before. A character cannot suddenly find a gun in their hand and use it in any significant manner. If they do, the audience will feel cheated and be upset. But avoiding this pitfall is super easy, all one has to do is just present the gun a few moments before it is needed.

It the final scene of "Sea of love" (1989), Pacino's character overpowers the bad guy with an object he finds under the bed. This object has been shown to the audience before. If it hadn't, the scene would not have worked.

Of course, rules exist to be broken... but do so at your own risk.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#12

Post by bambax »

shakna wrote: post #8
zorr wrote: post #4

I've seen this principle come up a few times but I don't think I fully understand it. For example, assuming a passage in a story where a protagonist enters person X's house and a particular room is described in much detail. The described detail does not necessarily advance the story but instead does "character building" hinting at the personality of person X. There literally could be a loaded gun hanging on the wall…

The best stories frequently break the principle. There is a ton of worldbuilding done in even simple-reading stories like the Hobbit, that are largely irrelevant to the greater whole, but serve to give the reader a better perspective. Mindlessly following Chekhov's Gun, in my opinion, will always result in pulp fiction. Whether it's TV or novels, or movies. If you've stripped a story down to the bare basics, all you'…

Alexandre Dumas did, and his stories are among the best there are.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#13

Post by avindroth »

I wonder how much this principle holds with respect to real life stories, which is filled with irrelevant details. Of course you can render true stories to have a dramatic version.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#14

Post by pvg »

zorr wrote: post #4

I've seen this principle come up a few times but I don't think I fully understand it. For example, assuming a passage in a story where a protagonist enters person X's house and a particular room is described in much detail. The described detail does not necessarily advance the story but instead does "character building" hinting at the personality of person X. There literally could be a loaded gun hanging on the wall…

It makes somewhat more concrete sense when you take into account the startling brevity of some of Chekhov's own work. I don't think you have to agree with the notion as some universal literary principle to appreciate he was a consummate and successful adherent to his own advice.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#15

Post by bambax »

croes wrote: post #3

This principle kills surprises because a soon you see the rifle you know what will happen. A little bit of misleading is not a bad thing.

Surprise is overrated. Suspense is superior. The best explanation of the difference is given by Hitchcock in an interview with Truffaut.

We see two characters talking for 45 seconds. Then a bomb goes off, that was under the table. The audience didn't know there was a bomb: big surprise; but the dialogue between the characters is completely irrelevant and eclipsed by the explosion.

Now imagine the same scene, but before, we see a terrorist placing the bomb under the table. Now the scene is totally different, and every word that comes out of one of the characters' mouth is fascinating. Does either one of them know about the bomb? Will they find out in time? Will they survive? Etc.

Suspense > surprise.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#16

Post by neals »

avindroth wrote: post #13

I wonder how much this principle holds with respect to real life stories, which is filled with irrelevant details. Of course you can render true stories to have a dramatic version.

Real life stories are never really done, any small detail can still eventually come back as a main feature.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#17

Post by flippyhead »

shakna wrote: post #8
zorr wrote: post #4

I've seen this principle come up a few times but I don't think I fully understand it. For example, assuming a passage in a story where a protagonist enters person X's house and a particular room is described in much detail. The described detail does not necessarily advance the story but instead does "character building" hinting at the personality of person X. There literally could be a loaded gun hanging on the wall…

The best stories frequently break the principle. There is a ton of worldbuilding done in even simple-reading stories like the Hobbit, that are largely irrelevant to the greater whole, but serve to give the reader a better perspective. Mindlessly following Chekhov's Gun, in my opinion, will always result in pulp fiction. Whether it's TV or novels, or movies. If you've stripped a story down to the bare basics, all you'…

Also, sometimes entire movies are made about some of these "inconsequential" details much later. If a gun appears in scene one, but only goes off in the sequel, are we in violation of this rule?

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#18

Post by pvg »

shakna wrote: post #8
zorr wrote: post #4

I've seen this principle come up a few times but I don't think I fully understand it. For example, assuming a passage in a story where a protagonist enters person X's house and a particular room is described in much detail. The described detail does not necessarily advance the story but instead does "character building" hinting at the personality of person X. There literally could be a loaded gun hanging on the wall…

The best stories frequently break the principle. There is a ton of worldbuilding done in even simple-reading stories like the Hobbit, that are largely irrelevant to the greater whole, but serve to give the reader a better perspective. Mindlessly following Chekhov's Gun, in my opinion, will always result in pulp fiction. Whether it's TV or novels, or movies. If you've stripped a story down to the bare basics, all you'…

If you've stripped a story down to the bare basics, all you're left with is predictability that gives the reader an easy ride.

I think you'd have a hard time finding a Chekhov short story that you can dismiss as an 'easy ride' or 'pulp fiction' and many of them are very, very short.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#19

Post by flixic »

One my favorite subversions of this technique is in Mr. Robot, with a gun hidden in a popcorn machine. Using of the gun is never shown on screen: the show assumes that the person watching remembers that a gun was shown and hidden, and allows the connection to be made "between the lines". Excellent use of Chekhov's Gun, but it only works because of a certain amount of TV tropes literacy.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#20

Post by quietbritishjim »

watt wrote: post #5
croes wrote: post #3

This principle kills surprises because a soon you see the rifle you know what will happen. A little bit of misleading is not a bad thing.

A cough means blood in the napkin. Blood means cancer. If a character coughs, they die.

This is thoroughly ridiculed in A Series of Unfortunate Events (the Netflix TV series and presumably also the books that they're based on). (Mild spoiler alert) The bank manager has a noticeable cough the whole way through. If anything it gets worse and other characters comment on it, and it seems for sure that it will be a plot point. Of course, it ultimately comes to nothing.
Post reply on HN