FA+
Shop
Chekov's Canon
3 years ago
Yes, the spelling on the title is intentional.
For those unfamiliar with the concept of Chekov's Gun, it refers to something from the playwright's letters, wherein posited that nothing should be shown to the reader or viewer that did not serve a future purpose.
This seems like a good time to bring up another literary device, known as a red herring. A red herring can be something a writer puts in a story specifically to tick off Chekov... well, not really. It's an event, person, or object that seems important to the story, but ultimately is not. The term might come from a strong pickled fish believed to be able to throw off pursuing hounds. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made use of the literary concept more than once.
These two concepts do a wonderful job of demonstrating something I'm noticing more frequently lately: the internet allows a lot of bad writing advice to become popular. Like I've said many times in these journals, it's best to look at why someone gives the advise before you accept it as scripture.
Chekov was a Russian playwright who authored hundreds of short stories. He also wrote a single novella. His work has endured and he is considered by some to be the great short fiction writer to ever live. Obviously such a title is going to be debated, but not by me. I want to concentrate on what Chekov wrote: namely short stories and plays. It seems to me that his advice is very good advice for most short stories, plays, and film--especially for plays, where you have limited stage space. Like most good advice, however, it does have limits and can be overdone.
One iconic form of the red herring in literature is found in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's A Study in Scarlett, when the German word "rache" is written on the wall in blood to distract the police. So at least one author thought it was ok. Interestingly enough, you'll find red herrings are frequently used in mysteries. It has the effect of making it more difficult to determine which are the real clues. Just about any time someone seems to be guilty, but isn't comes down to the author doing just that. Faux Scent makes use of it, but I don't want to give any spoilers.
Chekov even ignores his own rule in his play The Cherry Orchard, where two loaded rifles show up, but are never fired. Possible he was mocking himself.
Both Chass and Ambassador Genis were originally meant to be disposable characters who just showed up and never really did much. I liked them both so much, I kept them in. Their continued existence has nothing to do with Chekov's Gun.
What is important is that you don't burden readers with a lot of useless information. The problem comes in when you try to define useless. Descriptions add depth, scenes might just make time to even out pacing or create a mood, and sometimes a gun is just a gun. Making canon out of Chekov's Gun can burden your writing unnecessarily and make for a story that's too sterile.
That's it for this week. May you keep running forward and never look back.
For those unfamiliar with the concept of Chekov's Gun, it refers to something from the playwright's letters, wherein posited that nothing should be shown to the reader or viewer that did not serve a future purpose.
This seems like a good time to bring up another literary device, known as a red herring. A red herring can be something a writer puts in a story specifically to tick off Chekov... well, not really. It's an event, person, or object that seems important to the story, but ultimately is not. The term might come from a strong pickled fish believed to be able to throw off pursuing hounds. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made use of the literary concept more than once.
These two concepts do a wonderful job of demonstrating something I'm noticing more frequently lately: the internet allows a lot of bad writing advice to become popular. Like I've said many times in these journals, it's best to look at why someone gives the advise before you accept it as scripture.
Chekov was a Russian playwright who authored hundreds of short stories. He also wrote a single novella. His work has endured and he is considered by some to be the great short fiction writer to ever live. Obviously such a title is going to be debated, but not by me. I want to concentrate on what Chekov wrote: namely short stories and plays. It seems to me that his advice is very good advice for most short stories, plays, and film--especially for plays, where you have limited stage space. Like most good advice, however, it does have limits and can be overdone.
One iconic form of the red herring in literature is found in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's A Study in Scarlett, when the German word "rache" is written on the wall in blood to distract the police. So at least one author thought it was ok. Interestingly enough, you'll find red herrings are frequently used in mysteries. It has the effect of making it more difficult to determine which are the real clues. Just about any time someone seems to be guilty, but isn't comes down to the author doing just that. Faux Scent makes use of it, but I don't want to give any spoilers.
Chekov even ignores his own rule in his play The Cherry Orchard, where two loaded rifles show up, but are never fired. Possible he was mocking himself.
Both Chass and Ambassador Genis were originally meant to be disposable characters who just showed up and never really did much. I liked them both so much, I kept them in. Their continued existence has nothing to do with Chekov's Gun.
What is important is that you don't burden readers with a lot of useless information. The problem comes in when you try to define useless. Descriptions add depth, scenes might just make time to even out pacing or create a mood, and sometimes a gun is just a gun. Making canon out of Chekov's Gun can burden your writing unnecessarily and make for a story that's too sterile.
That's it for this week. May you keep running forward and never look back.
