One of the reasons the final season of GOT was so bad is because there were a lot of Chekhov's guns that never went off...
Chekhov's Gun
21–30 of 71 posts
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#22See also from 2013: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6541508
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure isn't just a click. Once you get in, you can never get out of a rabbit hole of hyperlinks. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuin...
For F*cks sake. I didn’t know that page until now. I already got lost reading 4 articles in a row. Thanks for ruining my life
You can be optimistic and read this one https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SugarWiki/TVTropesWil...
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#24I've never been a fan of Chekhov's gun. Interactions and details that aren't directly connected to the main plot do a good job at giving the world texture and making it feel alive. Fiction that does away with too many unrelated details (and I'd argue a lot of fiction does this) often feels artificial and empty to me.
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#25When I teach my students how to write academic papers, I always refer them to this statement. Basically, don't raise questions you're not going to resolve (unless in the discussion) and alternatively, raise questions that you will resolve. There may be an equivalent principle for prose, but I'm not aware of it.
I read a paper recently where every figure made me ask a question that the next figure resolved. "Neurons specifically represent barriers! What happens if a door opens up and there is now a path? What happens if the barrier starts lowering into the ground until you can walk over it? What happens if it floats up into the air and you can walk under it?" It was truly beautiful.
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#26When I teach my students how to write academic papers, I always refer them to this statement. Basically, don't raise questions you're not going to resolve (unless in the discussion) and alternatively, raise questions that you will resolve. There may be an equivalent principle for prose, but I'm not aware of it. I read a paper recently where every figure made me ask a question that the next figure resolved. "Neurons s…
And when I read such a paper it is truly a delight!
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#27I wonder how this plays out in mystery stories where there is what seems to be intentional misdirection where you are lead to believe someone might be the killer, but they're not. Granted some things like "nobody liked him" could be still relevant to the overall story, but particularly in film or TV I find those bits of misdirection common, but also kind of annoying.
1Q84 subverts Chekhov's Gun in a fantastic way. It partially breaks 4th wall but it also somehow illustrates that real life doesn't abide by Chekhov's Gun.
It's not a mystery per se but it deals with a lot of unknowns and protagonists finding out information that changes their world-view as they go through the story. It's a great trilogy/book.
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#28I like the concept but in many cases it ends up being annoying/distracting. I'll see something innocuous in a movie or video game, and immediately think "welp, that's going to be an issue later."
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#29I've never been a fan of Chekhov's gun. Interactions and details that aren't directly connected to the main plot do a good job at giving the world texture and making it feel alive. Fiction that does away with too many unrelated details (and I'd argue a lot of fiction does this) often feels artificial and empty to me.
What's more, when prose is too tight, any extraneous detail immediately stands out, and you automatically start wondering why the author mentioned it.
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#30Well, if you want a much more in-depth discussion (at least if you follow the links...) with examples than Wikipedia, you could do a lot worse than checking tvtropes.org.[1] P.S. Sorry in advance for the loss in productivity to anyone that clicks though and doesn't know what they're in for... 1: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun
tvtropes covers so much ground, that I don't know where to start on this one, but maybe you can help me out.
There is a category of story device that goes so far as to become more of a storytelling crutch. Or a wheelchair. Some examples from Star Trek that come to mind (since I'm re-watching TNG right about now):
- Holodeck: Totally new environments on a whim! Just in case FTL travel wasn't enough!
- Troi's empathy sense. Why script and act your way to communicate a character's emotional state when she can just tell you!
- Multiple-universes time travel. Why stick with an existing world and its background when you can just replace it!
- Technobabble. Solves any problem! Causes any problem!
- The Q. Omnipotence itself! To be fair, Voyager did manage to tell some better stories with this one.