Has anyone actually read Chekhov?

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Simply, the "Chekhov's gun" trope lives its own life independent of Anton Chekhov's himself. When used nowadays, it doesn't mean "first, a gun introduced in the first act must discharge in the third act, and second, the story must closely follow Chekhov's writing style". It only implies the first part.

Maybe it isn't all what Mr. Chekhov wanted to convey. Maybe it was ripped out of context and used as if it had been a standalone maxim with no introduction, no followup and no context. Hardly the only famous quote to be used that way. If I were you, I'd try to make peace with it.

[ummester]

"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 don't think he planned that though. I feel it's more like GRRM leaves a lot of vague doors open, in case he wants to go through them the down the track.

GRRM cocks all of his guns, then camouflages them and leaves them in the mist :)

[Lord Ser Septon Maester]

I don't really care for Checkov's Gun, but no, Martin ain't following it.

[Witchy]

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

"Chekhov's gun" is the term used to describe what often happens in plots. It is about not teasing your audience with a catastrophe and then not delivering on it, because that it not good story, that's disappointing. This wasn't Chekhov's style, per se. It's every suspenseful writer's style. The gun in Chekhov's story is a metaphor for how this works in any story.

It's about plot, not exposition or description. An example of not using Chekhov's gun in GRRM's novels would be if the Others never came or if Dany never left Essos. The Others are this menacing weapon up there that we've been warned about. Dany's been threatening to come to Westeros and burn shit. If either of those things doesn't happen, that would be the equivalent of not firing Chekhov's gun. The trick is to foreshadow enough to get people excited (build hype) but not blow the surprise completely. It's difficult!

[jlk7e]

Whether or not Martin writes much like Chekov (answer: he does not!), he also certainly includes tons and tons of material that isn't actually going anywhere. Does anyone really expect that all of the various hints and loose ends he's left lying around are actually going to be resolved? Martin's already basically admitted that Dany won't be going to Asshai, for instance, despite Quaithe's repeated prophecies to the effect that Dany needs to go to Asshai. Less specifically, the entire Quentyn plotline was a gun that never fired. The Aegon plotline will probably fire, but it's firing a gun that we'd care about a lot more if it was being fired by Dany, which would have been absolutely possible if Martin hadn't screwed up his plotting so badly.

Martin's plotting is intricate, but the story has raced entirely out of his control. It certainly doesn't bear much resemblance to what Chekov recommended.

[three-eyed monkey]

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).

I respectfully disagree, unless Checkov himself got it backwards. He said that there are two often confused concepts, the solution to the problem and the correct formulation of the problem, and the writer need only concern himself with the latter. If you get that right then the pay-off takes care of itself. The arcs of both Quentyn and Renly might be shorter than you expected but they are not incomplete, and both serve the greater plot in their own ways. GRRM may be a gardener, but it is a very well laid garden.

[Fire Eater]

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.

Another example of Chekov's Gun being the ToJ scene, or possibly Robb's will.

[three-eyed monkey]

Another example of Chekov's Gun being the ToJ scene, or possibly Robb's will.

Exactly, Fire Eater. Two excellent examples. Do people not expect those guns to go off? It just boils down to good story telling. The principle has been around long before Chekov.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

I don't think he planned that though. I feel it's more like GRRM leaves a lot of vague doors open, in case he wants to go through them the down the track.

GRRM cocks all of his guns, then camouflages them and leaves them in the mist :)

True on that last sentence. But I respectfully disagree about the planning of that particular surprise. I knew on my first read of AGoT that we'd be getting an Aegon. I don't usually pick up on things like that if they're unplanned. Unless I'm far more awesome than I've imagined... :cool4:

[hallam]

"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.

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.

Only it could well have been foreshadowing Theon's murder of 'Bran' and 'Rickon'.

[ummester]

True on that last sentence. But I respectfully disagree about the planning of that particular surprise. I knew on my first read of AGoT that we'd be getting an Aegon. I don't usually pick up on things like that if they're unplanned. Unless I'm far more awesome than I've imagined... :cool4:

But, it could be open to interpretation, like many other things in the saga - it's not a fool proof 1 for 1 match. The babies face could simply have been unrecognisably disfigured to show the Mountain's ferocity. And logically, if the Mountain disfigured some random family to prove that he has slain Rhaegar's wife and children, why has only one child shown up? Why is that child in the care of Jon Con and not his mother?

I've read elsewhere that the fAegon foreshadowing comes by way of the mummurs dragon.