Reversing Chekhov’s Gun – Why you can’t introduce new information in Act III

by Mikhaeyla Kopievsky

There is a well-worn narrative principle that often does the rounds in writer’s circles. You would have seen it on Twitter or quoted in blogs and books on writing. Chekhov, the Russian playwright and master of the modern short story, is credited with saying “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.”

The principle is often invoked to caution writers against irrelevant details – if it has no impact on the plot, remove it. It is sage advice, but it has a counterpart that is often overlooked – a reversal of the idiom that I would like to phrase as:

If a rifle is going to be fired in the third act, in the first act it absolutely must be hanging on the wall. 

gun

This kind of philosophy harkens back to my school debating days (sigh. remember those? good times.) As the Third Opposition Speaker (which sounds like a key councillor role in a fictional dystopia, but is not), you couldn’t bring up new information – it wasn’t fair to raise new arguments or introduce new concepts that weren’t accessible to the other team for response (and rebuttal).

It’s the same with stories. If you have something major happen in your Third Act, you must introduce it – explicitly or through foreshadowing and hinting – in the First or Second Acts.

Introducing new characters (or other plot devices) too late in the piece is disingenuous. The reader enters the Third Act expecting that everything that is to transpire is a natural progression (likely or unlikely) from the components that have already been built and developed in earlier chapters. Bringing something new in feels like a cheat.

The most common transgression of ‘reverse Chekhov’s gun’ is the much maligned ‘Deus ex Machina’ (which sounds like an awesome futuristic sci fi, but is not (although 2015’s ‘Ex Machina’ deserves a mention…)).

As Wikipedia so eloquently elaborates, Deus ex Machina (literally, God in the Machine) is “a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object.” The internet is full of examples.

But, more subtle transgressions are where minor characters or plot devices that make brief appearances in earlier chapters or Acts, suddenly and inexplicably become crucial elements that are central for tying up the loose ends of Act III.

If you find your story falling into the latter category, fear not! There is a solution (and it is simple):

Go back and add some foreshadowing and hinting in earlier chapters/acts. 

That junior intern that has a whole two lines of overlooked dialogue in that scene jammed into the middle of chapter four? The one that will end up saving the day with her personal rocket launcher project that isn’t even mentioned in the story? Go back and beef up her role. Hint at her ingenuity. Give us a glimpse of that awesome rocket launcher. Let her reappear throughout the story, maybe at the pinch points, or points of high tension. Keep her simmering in the back of our minds, so that her reappearance will be welcome and logical (even if it is a little surprising).

 

What about you? Have you introduced a Deus ex Machina in your WIP or are you committing a transgression against the reverse Chekhov’s gun? Offload your guilt in the comments… 🙂

Image courtesy of Don Stewart via Flickr Creative Commons

 

Liked this? Want more?

You can grab your own copy of Resistance (Divided Elements #1) to read now. Available as a paperback or ebook on your favourite device. 

RESISTANCE

 

 

Advertisements
Reversing Chekhov’s Gun – Why you can’t introduce new information in Act III

2 thoughts on “Reversing Chekhov’s Gun – Why you can’t introduce new information in Act III

  1. Greetings Mikhaeyla!
    Thank you for writing this article, highly informative, to the point and served to confirm a strategy I’m using for a linear narrative fictional biopic feature I’m finishing to write in the next days. In the context of your article, when my hero starts her “new adventure” on second act at a (all second act adventure happens in an exotic location) and in the first 10 pages or so I introduce all the new characters but I only reveal the enemy identity in fragments but also, the REAL enemy only shown through newspapers and minor characters referencing the person but I don’t reveal the REAL enemy until the second act’s “reversal of the hero’s fortune” beat. Is probably a risky proposition to reveal the biggest threat to the hero with only with about 10 pages left to reach the climax and then to a brief conclusion. What are your thoughts about this strategy? Thank you in advance.

    Like

    1. Thanks Francisco – I’m glad you found it useful. As to your question – if the feature is stand-alone (i.e. not part of a series), then I think you’ll need to more explicitly introduce the real/key antagonist earlier. The hero doesn’t have to directly engage with them at that point, but they should be aware of them and know that the other antagonistic forces are related. I think introducing the real/key antagonistic force too late will feel like a ‘cheat’ to readers or, worse, be anti-climactic. A chance run-in or (if the feature is multi-POV) a scene from the antagonist’s viewpoint could really help in this respect. Hope that helps!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s