Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Red Herring vs. Chekhov's Gun

There are two contradictory thoughts in storytelling: the red herring and Chekhov's gun. The original red herring was literal; it was a pungent fish that was used to overpower the scent of prey and send hunting dogs down the wrong paths. Chekhov's gun was a reference to a quote that if you mention that there is a gun over the mantle in the first act of your play, then it must be fired by the end of the third act.

Red herrings exist solely to throw us off. They purposely make us think something is wrong to maintain the surprise when it is revealed (or to make it a surprise). Chekhov's gun is the exact opposite, saying that anything that is explicitly mentioned must be used.

So which one is correct? This has been a difficult question for me to answer. My guy reaction is Chekhov. I have been all about succinctness as long as I can remember, so I should agree with the sentiment that says you should use everything you mention.

And yet, the problem with being succinct is that you become predictable. I hate seeing stories where I know what the ending will be because they showed everything important in the beginning. The whole story is then just watching everything happen and being unsurprised. At least with red herrings, the audience will get some amount of surprise, since they won't be sure which things are critical.

After some thinking, I realized that Chekhov was right all along. The red herring may be surprising, but it's a cheap trick, like a jump scare. It exists only to cover up bad writing. And along with that, you can be succinct as long as you are a good enough writer to make it work.

You can surprise people without red herrings you can have everything you mention be used, and you can retain surprise by having them used in unexpected ways. Maybe that gun doesn't get used to kill the evil brother, but to protect him from a burglar, hoping that the act of kindness would redeem him or show that the blood was thicker than water.

So, if you think your story is predictable, ask somebody to read it and say if they could guess what happened. If they could, and you're thinking about tricking them with false leads, ask yourself if that would actually make your story better.

Remember a predictable story isn't bad if it is told well. And a story is only surprising if it makes sense. Red herrings are the first step toward head-scratching and plot holes.

1 comment:

  1. Although I agree in general, the classic mystery novel always has a few essential red herrings. Does this clue point to the real killer? Or does it point to someone else who turned out to be innocent? Hard to keep your readers involved in a good murder mystery when they only see the essential elements.

    ReplyDelete