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

171–180 of 181 posts

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#171

Post by AlphaSite »

pavlov wrote: post #121
wutwutwutwut wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the rifle/gun is just a bad example today? I watch movies all the time where there are guns or rifles which does not gow off. And I sure don't feel like some promise was broken.

Chekhov used this example of a rifle on the wall in 1889, years before the invention of the movie camera. It shouldn't be taken as advice on movie production design.

I think it’s something which is more obvious in a literary context where not talking about the gun means there is no obvious reference to it, but in a movie it may still exist, they just do not draw attention to it.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#172

Post by SilasX »

nicbou wrote: post #122
antattack wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chekhov's gun treatment can remove an element of surprise, or worse, reveal whole plot-line. It's a convention that is an art in itself, too much and too little can ruin the experience.

Properly blending it in is a form of art, and a surprise in itself. For example, [spoilers] the rock hammer in The Shawshank Redemption, or more literally, the rifle on the wall in Shaun Of The Dead. A good gun makes you go "oooooh!" On the other hand, building up readers' expectations with details that turn out to be irrelevant is just deception. See the last season of Game of Thrones, for instance. All those charac…

I'm pretty much alone in the world in thinking this, but I consider the rock hammer in Shawshank to be a bad execution of Chekhov's Gun, albeit for reasons unrelated to the core logic of that rule.

Basically, Shawshank clearly establishes itself as having a gritty, realistic tone, where shit happens for reasons that have no cosmic significance or relation to your epic hero arc. Specifically, when that prisoner turns out to be a witness who can clear Andy, and just suddenly gets shot by avaricious guards who don't care about the injustice. (If it hadn't been already, Red's final parole speech cements that tone.)

It's a huge betrayal of that when you turn around and say "oh man, if you just belieeeeeeeve in yourself hard enough you can somehow make a figurine carving tool last 100x longer than is realistically possible and accomplish major excavation work, it's all about your force of will".

(Similar complaint about Interstellar, which commits to hard sci-fi enough to include an expensive, photo-realistic black hole, and doubles back and resolve the plot with "ah man we just have to tap into the mysterious fifth-dimensional power of love!")

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#173

Post by SilasX »

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'…

Some good stories break Chekhov's Gun, but only in the same way that a good story would break any rule of storytelling, which is to say, the author knowingly breaks it in a calculated way that compensates for the known deficiencies that would otherwise exist as a result of not following the rule.

It in no way follows, as you're suggesting, that Chekhov's Gun is some arbitrary inconvenience, or that you can gleefully ignore the amount of detail you introduce relative to the interesting bits, which is what a real rejection of Chekhov's Gun would entail.

Your purported counterexample recognizes as much: that yes, it's detail that doesn't have a shocking payoff, but which was still accomplishing something and which Tolkien certainly weighed against the "cost" of continuing said detail arbitrarily deep.

It really is an anti-pattern to equate, "oh yeah in some circumstances it's okay to break this rule" with "you will write a better story by completely ignoring all constraints of this rule".

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#174

Post by sangnoir »

Borrible wrote: post #101

"One must never place a loaded rifle on the stage if it isn't going to go off. It's wrong to make promises you don't mean to keep." Anton Chekhov Reality is full of false promises. So why not in fiction as well, Mr. Chekhov? Why does an author owe his readers consistency or coherence? Make it Lynchian. People love to puzzle over mysteries. Just sell it as one.As a mystery. They'll build in the wrong and unnecessary p…

> People love to puzzle over mysteries.

It's a mixed bag. Lost was a Rorschach test for which side a person falls on: some loved the unresolved mysteries and made, others got tired of questions that never got answered and quit watching entirely because of it.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#175

Post by shakna »

SilasX wrote: post #173
shakna wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Some good stories break Chekhov's Gun, but only in the same way that a good story would break any rule of storytelling, which is to say, the author knowingly breaks it in a calculated way that compensates for the known deficiencies that would otherwise exist as a result of not following the rule. It in no way follows, as you're suggesting, that Chekhov's Gun is some arbitrary inconvenience, or that you can gleefully…

> It really is an anti-pattern to equate, "oh yeah in some circumstances it's okay to break this rule" with "you will write a better story by completely ignoring all constraints of this rule".

I really don't think I said that, at all:

> Mindlessly following Chekhov's Gun...

> ... if you religiously follow the principle.

The takeaway should be that the principle, like all principles, is not universal, and isn't appropriate at all times. Nuance and consideration should be part of writing.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#176

Post by slmjkdbtl »

I often think about the same with game design, especially level design, where every object and every inch of terrain should contribute the fun / story factor.

But for creative works, any rules / razors should be mere reference, in the end it's all about senses.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#177

Post by [deleted] »

scrame wrote: post #126

Chekhov Gun discussions always remind me of this Vonnegut passage: "I had no respect whatsoever for the creative works of either the painter or the novelist. I thought Karabekian with his meaningless pictures had entered into a conspiracy with millionaires to make poor people feel stupid. I thought Beatrice Keedsler had joined hands with other old-fashioned storytellers to make people believe that life had leading ch…

[deleted]

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#178

Post by alexpetralia »

bambax wrote: post #15
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 befo…

What's interesting about this example in particular is when the theory building occurs: before or after.

Nobody is surprised, then subsequently asks no questions. The questions simply come after.

And so I imagine the sequence of when you want the viewer to ask their questions can be used as a literary device (famously, in media res).

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#179

Post by Doxin »

bambax wrote: post #15
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 befo…

A great example of this is a scene in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Before the scene starts the narrator explains, in detail, what exactly will happen in the scene, and what the end result will be. None of this makes the scene itself any less thrilling.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#180

Post by P_I_Staker »

ackbar03 wrote: post #88
codetrotter wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of that movie, I can recommend anyone who is familiar with The Room, but who hasn’t seen The Room, to watch the movie The Disaster Artist (2017) instead. I’ve only watched the latter and not The Room itself but watching the latter instead was a nice experience. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3521126/ The Disaster Artist is based on the book "The Disaster Artist: My Life Inside The Room, the Greatest Bad Movie…

I had high expectations for that movie but it didn't turn out as good as I expected.

I have to agree, but this seems to be a bit of an unpopular opinion. I don't think it really captured the spirit of the book. It was too nice, and made the characters too likeable.

I think Tommy should always be a villain. You should never like him! He's this terrible person that on some level you despise, but at least he's interesting.

How many miserable jerks are there that won't shut up about their stupid film idea? How many actually follow through?

Post reply on HN