Talk:Chekhov's gun

message: *Not to be too snide or critical I think there are better examples than the TV series "24" where something incidental in the first few episodes is forgotten until it becomes the basis for a plotline in the fifth season.  This would more be an example of how not to do it than how to.  --SMSkaar 21Aug06
*Isn't Chekhov's gun just a specific example of foreshadowing? -AnonArtist
*The way I see it, foreshadowing is something you usually see fully in hindsight but have clues towards beforehand; the "Hero's Toolkit" is something that you can see having a major effect and is virtually labelled as such (like the Bond gadgets). Chekov's Gun is more an item or happening that isn't strongly and conspicuously forced as a plot device, but stands out enough to have a mental 'hook' - for example, if a hero were to be in an area with a large warning sign regarding a steep drop or dangerous wiring in the background, that had the danger later used with the effect of dispatching a villain, that could be considered a Chekov's Gun. Other examples I'd put forward would be the toolshed in Evil Dead II, or some of the more obscure 'magic' items in folk tales (such as the hankerchief that becomes a lake in a time of desperate need in some variants of the Baba Yaga tales).
:There is also no way this needs to be merged, as it has gone on to be a valid seperate technique in its own right and is related to Chekov in name only, in much the same way as the page on Pythagorean theorem shouldn't be merged with Pythagoras. What it might need however is a more detailed and accurate way in which it differs from foreshadowing to prevent people in the future assuming that a merge is needed? Slavedriver 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rethink 

message: *~~ Simba 16:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge. 

message: *It's more than a foreshadowing. The Hero who overcomes, with the gizmo which is supplied with some kind of foreknowlege, is a genuine archetype.  More than prophesy, there's also an issue of technology and preparedness by means of a kit. As a part of the Hero Myth it long preceeds Chekov or James Bond, and needs a name.I think this is way down deep in the humnan psyche. Here's a place to put it. I'll add a few "heroic" references. Perhaps we really need a primary Wiki for "The Hero's Toolkit." Sbharris 23:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't merge unless you can find a better term than [[foreshadowing]]. The Hero's Toolkit?

message: Well, now I've read that I've had both series 5 of 24 and a couple of harry potter books ruined for me.  Alas, I can't figure out how to put in a useful spoiler warning in there without arbitrarily blocking off chunks of the article that don't need it...
Any thoughts on how to edit around this?
: I got one - get rid of em. Too many articles have needless references to "here are a dozen more examples of this." If any example is needed, why not just leave it at Lord of the Rings and/or James Bond. Both are obvious and direct enough to illustrate the point without the need for additional examples. For that matter, the Star Wars references seem to be original research and I don't see much of a reference to Anton Chekhov here or a reference to his "gun" on Anton Chekhov's own page... -  Kevingarcia 10:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: The number of examples of Chekhov's guns in this article is ridiculously large. Two would suffice; one from a historical reference, and one from a modern story.
Think about it. Look at Fly system. It does not spend the entire article giving examples of the common usage of a fly system. It has a clear, concise section, and the rest of the article actually explains the device.
This article, on the other hand, has one poorly written paragraph explaining what a Chekhov's gun is, then the rest is redundant examples and a pointless redundant quotes section. This article needs a major rewrite. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many examples 

message: I placed a verification tag on the reference to Chekhov's letter.
I've read a book of his letters and there's no mention of this. Arguably there were other letters left out of the book, but not such a famous one, surely. The reference is curiously precise until we get to the space where publisher and date should be. Chekhov, I believe, never said this. I will take it back if you can verify this letter, but I wish you luck.qp10qp 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the examples included in this article are laughable.  Many of them were obviously not yet conceived of in their entirety by their creators when the "gun" was first introduced.  Specifically 24 and the West Wing.
*BURGLE BARGLE!  The outcome of a foreshadowing doesn't need to be considered when the object is introduced.  Consider the origin of Tolkien's Hobbit.  He wrote a sentence on a blank page handed in by a composition student and didn't come back to it until years later.  And the prehistory setup of all the outcomes from his Middle Earth series were introduced in his Silmarillian which wasn't published until after his death.  The gun had gone off but he didn't introduce it until he was already dead.Zerooskul (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

text: There are no external references included herein, and it seems that the author is grasping at straws to try to find applications of this principle.  Gremlins?  Really?  21:39, 21 December 2006 75.32.34.118 (Talk)
*Yes, Gremlins!  If it weren't for the MacGuffin of the smokeless ashtray and the introduction of the rules in the Chinatown curio shop (setup) Randall Peltzer's son Billy wouldn't have had that stupid adventure(follow through).  And if not for the Chekov's gun setup of Randall Peltzer selling the gas station attendant a smokeless ashtray at the start of the movie Mr. Wing wouldn't have found him at the end. Yes!  That is use of Chekov's gun, convoluted though it may be. Zerooskul (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Did Chekhov really say this?


message: What is the difference between this and a plot voucher/coupon. They seem exactly the same.
FyiFoff 20:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference with [[plot coupon]] 

message: The reference to Questionable Content seems to me to be Original Research.  Thoughts? Metzby 05:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Questionable Content:  OR 

message: In "The Hobbit", Bilbo Baggins finds a ring that makes him invisible. Only later is the true power of the ring revealed in "The Lord of the Rings".
I'm going to take this out, because it's just nonsense to cite this as an example of Chekhov's gun. (1) Tolkien had no idea of the true nature of the Ring when he wrote The Hobbit. (2) Bilbo starts using the ring immediately after acquiring it. (3) The true power of the Ring (to rule the other rings) is revealed in LotR, but never used -- if it's a Chekhov's gun, it's one that never goes off. 91.105.60.226 04:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord of the Rings example 

message: It's pretty clear to me that a "Plot voucher" is the basically the same thing as Chekov's Gun, just a different word coined by a different person.  What's more, it's a section in an only-somewhat-related article.  I'm going to attempt to merge it unless anyone can think of a good reason not to.--TexasDex ★ 19:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Plot coupon#Plot vouchers]] 

message: I found the language of this sentence hard to parse:
:"So the idea is not to introduce a plot element early if it is going to be used, but to not introduce the element at all if it is not going to be used."
It seemed that a reader might stumble over the confusion of possible readings:
:So the idea is not to introduce a plot element early if it is going to be used...
or
:So the idea is not to introduce a plot a plot element early if it is going to be used...
I realize that the second reading is correct, but it doesn't read well, especially as the word "not" appears three times in the sentence, used in different ways each time.
I considered rewriting it thus:
:The idea is not that a writer must introduce a plot element early if it is going to be used.  Rather, an element that is not going to be used should not be introduced at all.
However, I wondered if we should even try to reiterate the already clear explanation that precedes it:
:"...do not include any unnecessary elements in a story."
I know we want this to be as clear as possible, so for now I leave it to other editors to consider whether further explanation is needed, and how best to phrase it to avoid confusion. zadignose (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove or Rewrite concept reiteration? 

message: Is the opening scene in Fight Club (where an abnormally large amount of, on second viewing, seemingly obvious spoilers are given - "I know, because Tyler knows" etc) an example of Chekhov's gun? Is it also possible that the writers were making a direct note of this that it starts looking down the barrel of a gun?   22:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fight Club 

message: ...and replace it with a pointer to TV Tropes?
The way I see it, it's not Wikipedia's job to list such things (and it;'s got that "irrelevant examples" banner on it).  Any exhaustive examples list would overshadow the article and any non-exaustive one will have someone complaining it's not notable enough to mention the series that were mentioned.  Examples are exactly what TV Tropes is about however.  So like this:
""The wiki TV Tropes hosts a large list of fan-submitted examples of Chekhov's Guns in media, along with many invented sub-classifications such as "Chekhov's Armory' (a work loaded with multiple Chekhov's Guns), Chekhov's Gunman (the rule applies to characters) and Chekhov's Skill (a learned or displayed skill that will end up being important later).
Figured I should ask before taking an ax to a whole section. EllePollack (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree with this. The section is not encyclopaedic, and the examples given are embarrassingly fanboyish. Chris Martin (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd give tentative support, yes. One or two examples to make it clear how the device works, yes. Anything else is overkill. The Rhymesmith (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

text:  Currently it's changed for lack of objections, since I don't expect a flood of people weighing in, but I'll keep checking back here for a few days.  EllePollack (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut "Other Examples" section... 

message: I just re-read Act I of Uncle Vanya and I can find no mention of a pistol, gun, shots, &c. anywhere before Vanya actually picks up the gun and shoots. Can someone please provide a citation to this device being used in Uncle Vanya, if not, the reference to Uncle Vanya should be removed!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.44.227 (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Try the stage directions...Swanny18 (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Swanny - I did, and I don't see it there either. I've done a search on the text for gun, revolver, pistol, weapon, firearm and rifle; the gun doesn't appear until the fourth act. Furthermore, even then it isn't fired, so I don't think it has anything to do with Chekhov's rule. I think that reference is erroneous and ought to be removed. (I am not the person who posted above, btw.) ETA: My bad - it's totally fired. But it still doesn't appear until the fourth act. ...AlCracka (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that raises a bit of a puzzle; if the gun appears in the fourth act, then in keeping with the notion behind foreshadowing, it ought to make some kind of appearance beforehand. I haven't read the play, or seen a production of it; do you know how directors resolve this when staging it? Swanny18 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Swanny - The truth is the gun's not very important in Uncle Vanya, and therefore doesn't need to be foreshadowed. I wouldn't be surprised if many directors snuck it in somewhere just as a little inside joke about this rule though. ...AlCracka (talk) 13:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I'd say the gun is important, because it provides the ironic climax of the play.  Vanya, always a loser, shoots point-blank at his enemy and MISSES.   73.137.170.88 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chekhov's gun actually in Uncle Vanya? 

message: I flagged the opening statement as dubious a while ago, with reference to this; the tag was removed, without addressing the problem, so I’ve flagged it again.
The opening statement claims Chekhov's Gun is a literary device akin to foreshadowing. As far as Chekhovs comments go, the principle of Chekhov's Gun appears to be a plea for economy; “if a gun isn’t needed later, don’t put one in” (ie anything that doesn’t contribute to the plot should be left out). In that context, a Chekhov Gun is any irrelevance or un-necessary item. It is the corollary, “if a gun is needed in the fourth act, it should be mentioned beforehand” that equates to foreshadowing.
I think the opening statement is incorrect (and is not helped by being completely unreferenced) and needs to be wholly re-written. Swanny18 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's appropriate to call it a "literary technique". If anything, it's a "rule" or "principle". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the lede to reflect this. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Hey fellas, and thanks for including me in this interesting conversation, Swanny. The funny thing about Chekhov's Gun is that as much as we talk about it these days, its entire appearance in Chekhov's writings are referenced in the article - a few off-hand comments in letters. So the debate over what it "means" is a debate over what it's come to mean in society, right? In other words, we have no idea what Chekhov had in mind. Which is neither here nor there; the opener as rewritten by Jason and anon looks great to me. The principle can be about economy or foreshadowing. Fun talk!  -Al Cracka (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: I can't find a source for it (opera/theater is not my "thing"), but I've always heard this concept described as "Mimi's cough". In La boheme, Mimi (one of the lead characters) enters the stage coughing violently. Two acts later, she's dead of "consumption" or some such. The only thing I've been able to find connecting the two is a page at TV Tropes calling it "[the Incurable Cough of Death]". Does anyone with more familiarity with sources in this field have anything? The absence feels glaring to me. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mimi's cough 

message: "How many times have you read a novel or watched a film in which a seemingly insignificant object or piece of information goes on to save the day? This, my friends, is the literary technique known as Chekhov’s Gun" - FuelYourWriting.com 2011
"[Chekhov's gun is] the technique whereby an element that’s meaning is not immediately evident is introduced early in a story and its significance becomes clear later on." - found on uproxx.com 2012
These and other assertions like them are an almost verbatim quote from the TVTropes article. They are a mistake, popularized by TVTropes, brought on by dropping the first two parts of the quote, which leads the reader to assume the quote is about foreshadowing, while the quote is actually about **removing** unnecessary elements. IsaacAA (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But foreshadowing is not being mentioned out of context here. If someone reads this whole article, it provides the necessary context to explain that Chekhov was lecturing about economy of setting.  But to insist that his admonition had nothing to do with foreshadowing ignores the recurring theme when he gave it.  In his various formulations of the principle, Chekhov repeatedly used foreshadowing as an example of when an object is necessary, and it's the application of Chekhov's rule (elimination of irrelevance) that makes foreshadowing possible.  To make no mention of that, leaves the article incomplete, and we can't balance the incomplete information in other articles by making this one oppositely incomplete. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: All the sources that link Chekhov's Gun with foreshadowing are recent, and seem to be influenced by the misapprehension of the principle popularized on the internet. IsaacAA (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

text: For example in this letter from November 1, 1889, Chekhov spells it out: "Он был бы у места, если бы Вы пожелали сделать из Даши не просто выходную роль и если бы он, монолог, много обещающий для зрителя, имел бы какое-нибудь отношение к содержанию или эффектам пьесы. Нельзя ставить на сцене заряженное ружье, если никто не имеет в виду выстрелить из него. Нельзя обещать. Пусть Даша молчит совсем — этак лучше." Don't make promises you won't keep. This isn't about leaving little clues to the audience, it's about taking out what might be regarded as an unfulfilled promise. IsaacAA (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The association of this principle with foreshadowing comes from Chekhov's use of foreshadowing as an example; it is not a recent creation of the internet. The reason all of the internet mentions of it are recent is because the internet is recent. Your we-must-delete-all-mention-of-foreshadowing anger is misdirected. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The dangers of partial quoting

message: David Mamet's film "Heist" has a wonderful line that almost embodies the concept of Chekhov's gun. Sam Rockwell's upstart thief emerges from the shadows to reveal that Gene Hackman's wife is now with him. Hackman asks her "Is he going to shoot me", she replies "not if you cooperae", he says "then he ought not point a gun at me. It's insincere."  This seems like an almost lyrical example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spawn777 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embodiment of Chekhov's Gun in Media 

message: I've noticed that one of the categories for this page is "Gun violence in fiction". Is there a specific reason this is here? This doesn't seem like a particularly good example of "gun violence", as the name of the idea refers to a gun in a story that was never even fired in the first place, thus removing the "violence" part of it. I'm hesitant to be bold and remove it because I don't know if it's included there for a specific example or part of the principle's origin that I'm missing. There is also "Metaphors referring to war and violence" which also seems slightly dubious. Thoughts? - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 12:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gun violence in fiction" 

message: The redirect Repetitive designation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Repetitive designation]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]