by Anne R. Allen
Anton Chekhov, the Russian playwright, also wrote short stories, essays and instructions for young writers. Probably his most famous writerly advice is this admonition:
“If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don’t put it there.”
In other words, remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If chapter one says your mild-mannered reporter heroine won a bunch of trophies for archery which she displays prominently alongside her handmade Mongolian horse longbow, she’d better darn well shoot an arrow before the story is done.
“Mood and Setting” Details vs. Chekhov’s Gun
Yeah, but what if that longbow is there to show us what her apartment looks like? It’s good to show her décor, because it gives an insight into her character, right?
It depends. Yes, we do want to use details to set tone and give depth to our characters. Ruth Harris told us all about that in her post on using details to create memorable characters.
But the key is how you stress those details when you first present them. If there’s a whole paragraph about those archery trophies, or the characters have a conversation about the Mongolian horse longbow, you gotta shoot some arrows. But if there’s just a cursory mention, “her apartment walls were decorated with an odd assortment of personal trophies and exotic weapons” then you can leave them on the wall.
So not every lampshade the author mentions has to show up two chapters later on the head of a drunken ex-boyfriend, but you need to be careful how much emphasis you put on that lampshade.
What about Red Herrings?
Wait just a goldern minute, sez you. I write mysteries. Mysteries need to have irrelevant clues and red herrings. Otherwise the story will be over before chapter seven.
This is true. But mystery writers need to manage their red herrings. If the deceased met his demise via arrow, probably shot by a Mongolian horse longbow, then Missy Mild-Mannered Reporter is going to look like a very viable subject to the local constabulary.
But of course she didn’t do it because she’s our hero, so the longbow and the trophies are red herrings.
But they still need to be “fired.” Maybe not like Chekhov’s gun, but they need to come back into the story and be reckoned with. Like maybe the real killer visited her apartment earlier when delivering pizza, then broke in to “borrow” the longbow in order to make Missy look like the murderous archer.
The Chekhov’s Gun Rule Applies to Subplots
I’ve been running into this problem in a lot of fiction lately—both indie and traditionally published.
That’s what inspired this post.
I sometimes find myself flipping through whole chapters that obviously have nothing to do with the main story. That’s because the subplot isn’t hooked in with the main plot. It’s just hanging there, not doing anything.
The subplot becomes the unfired Chekhov’s gun.
For instance, one mystery had the protagonist go through endless chapters of police academy training after the discovery of the body. The mysterious murder wasn’t even mentioned for a good six chapters. I kept trying to figure out how her crush on a fellow aspiring policeperson was going to solve the mystery.
I finally realized it wasn’t going to. None of the romance stuff had to do with the mystery. When I finally flipped through to a place where the main plot resumed, the hot fellow student didn’t even make an appearance. He’d already gone off with a hotter fellow recruit.
It’s fine to have a romance subplot in a mystery—in fact, that’s my favorite kind. But the romance has to take place while some mystery-solving is going on. And hopefully it will provide some hindrances to the proceedings, and maybe some comic relief.
But if that romance doesn’t “trigger” a new plot twist or reveal a clue, then it’s an unfired gun on the wall. It’s just hanging there, annoying your reader, who expects it to be relevant.
Naming a Character Creates a Chekhov’s Gun.
Another “unfired Chekhov’s gun” situation often comes up with the introduction of minor characters and “spear-carriers.”
You don’t want to introduce the pizza delivery guy by telling us how he got the nickname “Green Arrow” followed by two paragraphs about his archery expertise— unless he’s going to reappear later in the story. And he’d better be doing something more archery-related than delivering another pie with extra pepperoni.
This is a common problem with newbie fiction. In creative writing courses we’re taught to make every character vivid and alive. So every time you introduce a new character, no matter how minor, you want to make them memorable. You want to give them names and create great backstories for them.
Don’t give into the urge, no matter what the creative writing teacher in your head is saying.
If the character is not going to reappear, or be involved with the plot or subplot, don’t give him a name. Don’t even give him a quirky outfit. Just call him “the pizza guy” or “the Uber driver” or “the barista.”
A named character becomes a Chekhov’s gun. The reader will expect that character to come back and do something explosive.
Beware Research-itis
A lot of unfired guns come from what I call research-itis. That’s when the author did a heckuva lot of research and goldernit, they’re going to tell you every single fact they dug up.
You’ll get three chapters on the historical significance of the Mongolian Longbow…and how Genghis Kahn used a smaller bow…which in the 17th century was replaced by the Manchu bow… And how the Manchu bows have larger siyahs and the presence of prominent string bridges…
None of which has anything to do with the dead guy in the living room with the arrow in his back.
If the reader doesn’t need to know it to solve the mystery and it’s not a red herring, keep it to yourself.
Although a lot of that research will come in very handy for blogposts and newsletters when you’re marketing the book, so don’t delete all those research notes!
Beta Readers and Editors Can Take Chekhov’s Gun Off the Wall
It’s tough to weed out all those unfired guns in your own work. You’re sure you absolutely need to tell us that our heroine won those trophies when she was on her college archery team where her nemesis, Renee Rensinger, once stole her glasses before a meet…and she found out she could shoot better without them and didn’t need glasses after all, which was great because her glasses made her look so dorky and after she stopped wearing them, Jake Hawkins noticed her for the first time. Jake turned out to be a creep, but…
Your editor will tell you different. And eventually you will thank her for it.
So will your readers.
by Anne R. Allen (@AnneRAllen) October 6, 2019
What about you, scriveners? Have you ever left a Chekhov’s gun on the wall? Are you annoyed when you find them in published books? What’s the worst Chekhov’s gun mistake you’ve found in fiction?
BOOK OF THE WEEK
SHERWOOD, LTD: Camilla Mystery #2
Suddenly-homeless American manners expert Camilla Randall becomes a 21st century Maid Marian—living rough near the real Sherwood Forest with a band of outlaw English erotica publishers—led by a charming, self-styled Robin Hood who unfortunately may intend to kill her.
When Camilla is invited to publish a book of her columns with UK publisher Peter Sherwood, she lands in a gritty criminal world—far from the Merrie Olde England she envisions. The staff are ex-cons and the erotica is kinky. Hungry and penniless, she camps in a Wendy House built from pallets of porn while battling an epic flood, a mendacious American Renfaire wench, and the mysterious killer who may be Peter himself.
Here’s a great write-up of Sherwood, Ltd from Debra Eve at the Later Bloomer
Available in ebook from:
All Amazons GooglePlay Scribd Kobo Nook Smashwords
Available in paper from:
Exciting Event!
I’ll be appearing with TV star Mara Purl and 3 other amazingly talented writer-actors on October 8th at the SLO Nightwriters meeting.
If you’re in the San Luis Obispo area, check us out. Also check out the SLO Nightwriters, a fantastic organization.
I’ve found I do much better not leaving threads hanging and setting up the gun on the wall by better plotting. And to think I used to be a pantser.
Susan–You’re right that pantsers have the problem much more than outliners.. But even outliners sometimes leave a few threads untied. I think it’s always safer to have a beta reader or two.
Love this take-away, Anne: A named character becomes a Chekhov’s gun. The reader will expect that character to come back and do something explosive.
I’ve always believed the fiction writing advice that you never name a one-time character, you never describe a supporting character and you put your real effort into the main characters. Seems to make sense.
Oh, BTW, up here in Canada we have super-strict gun control so we need special permits for Chekov’s piece 🙂
Garry–I’m the kind of writer who always likes to name the pizza guy and give him a backstory, so this has been a hard one for me to learn. Requiring a permit for a weapon, whether or not it’s meant for wall decor makes a whole lot of sense to me.
I’ve encountered similar things in books I’ve been reading of late. One writer whose work I do enjoy has a habit of giving you all the details of every character. Though interesting, it makes it tough to figure out which characters are really important in the story. And there are a lot of them.
But your research-itis section really hit home. I just read a book where the writer obviously knew the area intimately. At every opportunity, it seemed, we got a mini travel-logue on the city. Sometimes for pages. It really had nothing to do with the plot and it didn’t seem right that a character who’d been living in that area his whole life would look out his window and describe historic landmarks in minute detail. Unfortunately, the writer wasn’t as in love with research concerning police procedure and infrastructure and skipped on those details.
I wonder if this habit is more about the writer feeling the need to fill pages because of thin plotlines though.
Anyway, good post, Anne. Thanks.
Annie
Annie–It sounds as if we’ve been reading some of the same books. 🙂 Giving all the details of each character as they are introduced is lazy writing. That’s the stuff that should be in your notebook, not on the actual page. I think you’re right that somebody is writing for wordcount, not quality.
And as for research-itis…I’m so tired of it! And as you say, it’s even worse when some things aren’t researched at all.
Well said, Anita! Lengthy unrelated descriptions bore and annoy me, in both my leisure reading and my editing of fiction.
YES! Taking this one to class on Wed while intoning to my little darlings (many of whom are over six feet tall): “This is why you should be following Anne R. Allen’s blog Every Single Week!” Followed by a *hit one over the head with the gun on the wall* as an example to the others, if they don’t. Excellent post, Anne.
Melodie–Thanks for sharing my posts with your little darlings. 🙂 I hope they’ll remember Chekhov’s gun when they’re editing.
Anne—Excellent post, right on target! In a way, what you’re warning against is the mythical “Aunt Arabella” who puts on *every* piece of jewelry she owns when she really just needs one or two to make her point. Same goes with fiction. Learning what to leave in—and what to take out—is crucial. It takes time and experience to learn but is so, so important for all the reasons you cite.
Writers must learn not to confuse or overwhelm their readers—or they will lose them
Ruth–I’ve never heard of “Aunt Arabella” but I love it! That’s so true. People who wear a ton of jingle-jangle jewelry look tacky and cheap. even if each piece is actually expensive and lovely. Throwing “everything but the kitchen sink” into a novel only creates noise and chaos, not story.
There are a lot of things that could be that unfired gun. I’m working with a character right now that needs to come back in an pull the trigger. I’ll figure it out!
Alex–When I’m writing a first draft, I put lots of those characters in, because I usually don’t know which ones I’m going to need. When I get to the end, then I’ll know which of the clues and characters I need and which need to be cut. The hard part is making sure I get them all.
I struggle with dangling characters … There, I admitted it. Hopefully, that is the first step to solving the problem. I do better in the short story arena – naming only the people who need names. I think I might need to post a reminder about this somewhere in my writing space.
Thanks for the great post!
Of course, now I am imagining the Green Arrow fan pizza guy pulling a prank on the main character, but then getting wrongfully thrown in jail while the real killer steals her long now again to kill the MC, but she foils him with esoteric knowledge about bow shooting. Yes, my imagination went there.
Tyrean–“Dangling characters” is a great phrase. Yeah, I love to put them in my first drafts and have to weed them out later. (I agree. I don’t think Green Arrow did it either. 🙂 )
I recall from years ago the advice not to put something in the story that doesn’t move it forward in some way. Good advice, Anne.
Patricia–That’s always good advice, and related to Chekhov’s gun.
Total Trivia Serendipity Dept: Despite being onstage all my life I never heard of Checkov’s Gun (although I think someone else claimed it, I heard it in another form).
BUT- totally incredible point- I DID read an old Hugo Award winning tale called “The Darfstellar” (W. Miller) about a stage actor in the future, whose profession is being totally replaced by lifelike (enough) robots. He sneaks onstage for one final performance, hoping to give the crowd the rendition of a lifetime, after which he’ll let himself be SHOT by a gun which he loaded with real bullets. And it’s a play by Checkov!!!!!!!!!!
Well, he called the author Pruchev (“The Anarch”) but I knew who he meant. Oh, that HAD to be on purpose!
Will–When I was directing stage plays, I was always having to teach set designers about Chekhov’s gun, so you’re not alone.
Your story is fascinating. And I think we’d be safe in saying that W. Miller knew all about Chekhov’s gun. Hilarious in-joke for people in the know. 🙂
Great post, Anne! I run into the “Beware Research-itis” a lot in my editing. The writer has spent countless hours researching a time or place or topic and feel they need to include some or most of those interesting little tidbits they’ve discovered. Really throws a wrench in the pacing and deflates the tension and intrigue. Plus, as you say, it can be confusing to the reader, who’s wondering if any of those details are relevant to the plot. Excellent points, and I love your chatty style!
Jodie–Thanks! Research-itis can ruin any story. I once wrote a parody piece that told the Cinderella story in research-itis style. After I spent five pages describing the fireplace where Cinderella was scrubbing the hearth, nobody could go on.
It’s especially annoying in a mystery, where every detail might be a clue.
Ha ha! Great way to illustrate the dangers of detailed descriptions that don’t add to the plot and slow down the pacing. And yes, especially annoying in a mystery. 🙂
Great article, Anne.
You hit two of my biggest pet peeves as a reader, the meaningless subplot and the minor character who does not add to the plot.
~Ingmar Albizu
Ingmar–Creative writing advice doesn’t often mention subplots, but they need more attention than many writers give them. They can be meaningless and seem stuck in there to pad the story.
Hey Anne — Great post. I think we may have to have bumper stickers printed saying, “Manage your red herrings” — too funny.
CS– Or “It’s 10 PM. Do you know where your red herrings are?” 🙂
Lol! Great post, Anne. Horrors! I’ve just realised I named a bit-part character in an earlier book. I think I’ll sneak in and do a stealth removal. 🙂
Geraldine–It’s not a cardinal sin. I think the reader will forgive a minor Chekhov’s gun. 🙂
At one point, my novel draft had an entire armory of unfired Chekov’s guns. The W storyboarding method got them off the wall. I don’t have too much trouble with research-itis. By the final draft, only about 10% of my research remains.
Liz–“An entire armory of unfired Chekhov’s guns” great phrase. I know storyboarding works wonders for some novelists. Glad to hear you found a method that works for you!
As I was reading this great post, (Thank you, thank you!) I kept feeling guilty about something. Heh heh.
There is a disturbing (I hope) scene from one of mine, in which one of the main females, in a state of depression, over-stuffs all her laundry at once into the washer and turns it on hot with too much soap, mainly to irritate her mom, but also to show the reader her desperate need for help. Tears run down her cheeks and suds down the front of the washer, while her mom is satisfyingly irritated. Enough to threaten death, which she habitually does, but never carries out. Until one day later… etc.
Does that have enough consequence for the entire laundry scene? It’s also her slobbing attempt at improvement, a sort of turning point, albeit through taking near comical shortcuts. It’s bothered me a long time. Should I revisit it (well, of course, yes, but) or does it sound maybe okay?
Katherine–It sounds like a poignant scene. Whether it belongs depends on the stakes of your novel. If your story arc involves a depressed person turning her life around, then I’d say it’s intrinsic to the plot and must be there. If there’s a murderer on the loose, it might not be so important and you might want to downplay it or speed it up for comic relief. Genre makes so much difference!
It belongs. Yay! Thanks a million. You make such improvements in this world! (In my world, anyway…) 🙂
Very timely post for me Anne. I’m working on a story right now that incorporates some real life memories involving a massive annual Halloween party. There was one detail I felt it necessary to include to add a little more mystery and authenticity but it was filler, a Chekhov’s gun until I read this. Your article got my brain working in the background and made me think of a way to incorporate it again at the end of the story that’s going to make the twist at the end stronger. Thank you!
Anne–Memoirs always have the most problems with Chekhov’s guns. That’s because everybody has some great memories you want to get in there, but it doesn’t fit the story arc. That’s because life doesn’t really have a story arc. But how great that you figured out how to position the scene so it does fit in with the overall narrative! Glad I could help!
I really enjoyed this, the lively writing style and the wise advice. I have reduced descriptions of the living room in my novel to “Mom’s Central Asian art museum”, and left it to readers to imagine the contents of the room. It provides insight into Mom, insight into her kids’ attitude to her collecting, and the atmosphere of a room where significant scenes take place. Pity I had to discard all my lovingly researched details of what might be there…
Julia–I know it’s hard to let go of all those details in your final draft. But that’s what blogs are for. Post that stuff on your blog and you may bring in some readers interested in Central Asian art who never would have found your books otherwise. 🙂
Wonderful post Anne! Admittedly, I struggle with the named characters, because I like to have a lot of walk-on roles that just seem easier to name. I’m gonna have to do some major culling in the next draft.
As for Chekhov’s guns, I tend to just keep mounting new ones on the wall as I write, and then take down the unfired ones in Draft 2. Mostly because I find that a lot easier that trying to find a gun in a pivotal moment and knowing I need to go back and hang it up.
Irvin–I’m like you. I tend to stockpile the “guns” in case I need them. Later I weed them out. Works better for me, too.
Great post, Anne! The first few paragraphs struck a real nerve with me and many of my clients, especially the idea of the room reflects the character. What I find is that environments tend to skew toward the author’s preferences, or what they think the space ‘should’ look like. Scribbling this between consults, so please forgive any blunders…
I will be sending this post to many, many clients — lol — with a note: see?? someone else wants you to create an environment with a reason.
It amazes me how often I work on material where the settings match the story, but not the character, or is not presented through the character’s view of that space – how it relates to them and their current situation.
Again, great post — thanks, as always, Anne for sharing your insights.
Maria D’Marco
Maria–I’m glad this will help you explain how to do room descriptions for your clients. Unfortunately not all writers have editors like you.
And as for setting not presented through the character’s POV–I ran into that in the wildly popular Where the Crawdads Sing. A little girl who’s been living wild in a swamp all her life goes to a motel and makes snarky remarks about the tacky decor as if she were a writer for Vanity Fair. Not terribly likely….Sigh.
If you’re a firm structuralist, and the plot spine is solid beginning to end, and the characters firmly labeled as to their tier, some of these problems get much easier: just ask, ‘Does this contribute to or detract from the story?’
There’s a lot to manage, but isn’t a random lot. The decisions get easier when you realize that character, or that plot point, or that symbol/omen/object is a ‘darling,’ and either connect it more solidly, or save it for another book (never just toss darlings).
Sometimes the darlings are your subconscious screaming at you that you forgot something – those are very satisfying to connect. Other times they are try-outs that didn’t make the cut – really – and they must be abandoned or stored.
I have lately realized that my whole first complete draft – referred to in Notes as ‘Old Text’ (OT) – has to be mined quickly and incisively and not be allowed equal standing with current ideas – there’s a reason I couldn’t just polish it and be done, and I’m have nostalgic thoughts about my early writing and ideas, and that’s no way to make progress. The disconnect is too large in the story department to cherish the few lovely phrases.
When I resist, I tell myself it’s one of TV’s major sins to not clean those up – and find it easier to excise.
Alice–That’s good insight about the screaming darlings. 🙂 Some things need to stay. They just need to be more connected or emphasised.
Old first drafts can be a minefield, can’t they? I find stuff I adore, but then I realize that revising the whole thing would take more work than something new. It’s always a dilemma.
Hi Anne, Lovely post. In context of “Beware Research-itis”, when I first started writing, I would look at those online world-building resources where you are supposed to answer a bazillion questions about your story world and internally deflate. That was too much. What worked for me was to research/formulate just enough to get me to the next scene, next chapter, etc. Sometimes I would use those laundry lists of questions as imagination prompts, but that was it. Still, it took me awhile to not feel like I was somehow writing “wrong” by not answering all those world-building questions. I am over that now. 🙂
Another voice on this same point: Chapter 2 in Lisa Cron’s “Wired for Story” (which is all about brain science and story) makes a similar point–the chapter is called “How to Zero in on Your Point.” The book a fascinating, practical read.
Christine–I think a lot of those “writing aids” that involve endless hours of prep are a waste of time. What works best for me is writing the story and then leaving gaps where I need to do research. Then I research only what I need to fill the gap. I’ve known wannabe writers who spent years researching and outlining and got so caught up in it, they never wrote a word.
I’ll check out Lisa Cron’s book. Thanks for the tip!