Has anyone actually read Chekhov?

[Lady of Bear Island]

I like the asoiaf novels enough, but I'm baffled that Martin believes he follows the principle of Chekhov's gun. As Anton Chekhov said "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."

Anyone that has read Chekhov knows what that means to him. There is no exposition, there are no red herrings, things are very straight forward. It's pretty much the opposite of Martin's style. He uses foreshadowing, of course, but that is in no way the same as Chekhov's gun.

It's like Martin describes four weapons on the wall, talks for pages and pages about the houses that had them forged, their words, sings a song about their great deeds, fires one and the rest is a red herring. Chekhov must be turning on his grave.

[Mladen]

Ah, the most overused word on the board. Everything is the Chekhov's gun unless proved a cigar,

Despite the volume, I find very little in Martin's work that I would throw out and claim it as irrelevant. Red herring thing is something intended for the users, plus, I wouldn't say that, for example, AAR herrings like Stannis or Dany or anyone as for that matter are pointless. Combine that with the flashy, pointy finger used in the mystery novels and its purposefulness is revealed. It is that simple.

[Lady of Bear Island]

Just a quick example of irrelevant: all the food descriptions. It's pretty much the opposite of Chekhov's style.

[plectrum]

He's verbose, but let's all keep in mind that this series doesn't take place in our world. He's creating a new planet, with new cultures and races, etc. In order to do something that ambitious and truly bring it to life, you have to talk a lot.

[Mikkel]

Just a quick example of irrelevant: all the food descriptions. It's pretty much the opposite of Chekhov's style.

Yes. But Chekhov is famous for writing short stories, not multi-volume epics.

So... there's inevitably going to be a lot of stylistic differences (I agree some of the "food porn" is superfluous though).

This doesn't mean that the basic "Chekhov's gun" principle can't be used, but it does mean that not every single thing mentioned can hold deep, plot-changing significance. That is, we can discuss whether a given something is a "Chekhov's gun", by which we mean something that is eventually going to be important, but it doesn't follow that just because you know of Chekhov's gun and use it as a descriptor, everything must then follow that principle.

[Mladen]

Just a quick example of irrelevant: all the food descriptions. It's pretty much the opposite of Chekhov's style.

Apples and oranges. As Mikkel said, the principle of Chekhov's gun can be applied even though we are speaking about two significantly different works. The principle is very simple. There are plot devices that at some point are going to be used. Whether it is a person, sword, bottle of Arbor gold or secret. Many authors all over the world in many genres are following the Chekhovian principle. And to be clear about that, the principle is not about style, nor even using bare essentials. It is about plot devices.

[Mithras]

How many swords are missing in the crypts?

:hat:

[Arrow of the Morning]

George created a whole new word and shows and explores his locations, characters, noble houses in the books. Some characters and situations can be superfluous or not be quite important, the novels have both Checkov guns and red herring, just be watchful and you can see what is relevant and what is not.

[Lady of Bear Island]

If there are some elements that will be relevant in the future and some that won't, than the plot device used is foreshadowing rather than Chekhov's Gun.

It's not a critic, I don't think it would be possible to build a universe using that technique. As you guys said, it's better suited for short stories and plays, and I think that's because for it to make sense it can't be used in a moment and not in another. Then it's something different.

[plectrum]

Actually there's a solid example of Martin subtly skewering this concept. Remember when Tyrion is in the tower of the hand at the end of ASoS? He describes (I think) three weapons on the wall before choosing the crossbow...

[three-eyed monkey]

There is a difference between epic novels and say a short story or a play, where economy of language becomes more important. A lot of the detail GRRM adds is for the purpose of world building or characterisation so it has relevance to the series, though not necessarily the plot. But these things are important in anchoring the reader in the world he is creating.

In my opinion GRRM, like most good writers, does adhere to the principle of Checkov's Gun. For example Mance Rayder is mentioned by Ned early in AGoT and becomes important in later books. That is the basic principle. I find very little of what he writes to be irrelevant, even though it takes a few reads to pick up on some of the things.

I do agree however that there are a lot of literary terms frequently misused on this forum, like foreshadowing, red herring, and my personal favourite when it comes to Varys and Kevan, breaking the fourth wall.

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

We've still got two novels to go, it's a bit early to say whether something is a Chekhov's Gun or not

[Lykos]

Just a quick example of irrelevant: all the food descriptions. It's pretty much the opposite of Chekhov's style.

I don't think Martin ever claimed to copy Chekov's style, that doesn't mean he can't be using a variation of the literary device known as Chekov's gun (good example plectrum!). Martin has stated that he doesn't think that he writes purple prose, which means that his rich details are chosen purposefully and that there is merit in threads such as The Food Code of Ice and Fire.

[ummester]

Doesn't Chekhov just refer to an extremely tight narrative and Purple Prose refer to a loose one?

I would argue that ASoIaF had a tight narrative for the first 3 books and became lose in the last 2. I think the looseness is the main reason why fans noticed a difference, as I don't think the word use or writing style had any noticeable changes in quality.

[The Marquis de Leech]

People do invariably have Chekhov's Gun backwards: the idea that if you have a gun going off in Act Three, it must have been somehow foreshadowed in Act One. What Chekhov was actually getting at isn't build-up, but rather pay-off: if you want to put something in the story, it must have pay-off (i.e. the gun must go off). Martin doesn't write like that - ASOIAF is full of dead-ends and side-plots that wrap up half-way through (Quentyn, Renly, et cetera, would never pass Chekov's scrutiny).

Different genres, of course, though, and Martin is a gardener-style of author, whose writing grows organically.`

[Mikkel]

People do invariably have Chekhov's Gun backwards: the idea that if you have a gun going off in Act Three, it must have been somehow foreshadowed in Act One. What Chekhov was actually getting at isn't build-up, but rather pay-off: if you want to put something in the story, it must have pay-off (i.e. the gun must go off). Martin doesn't write like that - ASOIAF is full of dead-ends and side-plots that wrap up half-way through (Quentyn, Renly, et cetera, would never pass Chekov's scrutiny).

Different genres, of course, though, and Martin is a gardener-style of author, whose writing grows organically.`

I agree. Which is why it only makes sense to use "Chekhov's Gun" as a descriptor of sorts for something (event, object or person) expected to have an impact later on, when in effect it has little (or nothing) to do with Chekhov as far as style goes.

[Ser Greg of House House]

Has George himself said something along those lines or are you basing this on the forums? The thing is people here are trying to figure out stuff. It's obvious that on a book that relies so much on "world building" we can't know what is there for plot purposes (therefore probably a "Chekhov's gun") and what's not. The fun is trying to get it right. There are a lot of misinterpretations, though.

Anyway, "Chekhov's gun" is just a common expression. I have never seen anyone saying Martin is actively trying to emulate Chekhov's style.

[hallam]

Chekhov said act, not chapter. Big difference. And he didn't say if can't go off earlier.

And GRRM does make his guns go off, just not necessarily how people think they should. Renly served a purpose and so did his death: Once Stannis murdered his own brother using black magic, he lost his claim to the throne.

[Lord Bowie]

I've actually read his plays. I find strange that no one here mentioned the fact that Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" has a character cleaning a rifle that never goes off.

Anyway, there is a big difference between a play and a world-building, fictional universe series. If GRRM hadn't put things like description of meals and only once seen characters we would not get sunk into his ASOIAF. A play (especially Chekhov's) relies on dialogue and character study. We see and we hear.

A gun in a IV act play is a very big deal. A sword or tapestry in these case, not so much. Proportionally, The Others are the gun that we are still waiting to go off.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

"Chekov's gun" and "Chekov's writing style" are not the same thing.

Here's an example of Chekov's gun in the series: in AGoT we learn from Ned that when the bodies of Rhaegar's wife and children were presented to Robert Baratheon, the infant prince's face was so badly disfigured that he was unrecognizable. For some reason a lot of people missed that and then were surprised when the "gun" went off in the form of Aegon/FAegon/RhAegon showing up.

I've actually read his plays. I find strange that no one here mentioned the fact that Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" has a character cleaning a rifle that never goes off.

<snip

Except that the rifle in that play is not a plant the way a "Chekov's gun" is. I've read "The Cherry Orchard" too. Good stuff.