It just seems like Chekhov's gun is about not putting in anything you aren't going to use, you have to fire the gun by the third act, and world building creates an entire town, country, planet or universe just encase. It seems like Chekhov's Gun is often disguised as world building, but sometimes there actually is tons of world building, just at the end the author only fires one gun instead of the 70 they put on the table. Any thoughts on this?
Honestly...I don't think so, and I never really cared a whole lot about Chekov's Gun. Like I can easily see how it is a problem to introduce entire concepts never really gone deeply into or touched upon, but at the end of the day, adding lore and backstory to a setting helps not hurts. And frankly if the fans do demand some kind of real depth to the titular gun, just write an offshoot or a side story. This is kinda a personal opinion I have, but I'd rather have too much of something I need and look stupid than not have enough of something I need when I actually need it. So I'd rather have seventy guns and only use one, then need sixty guns and only HAVE one to use. But then again I really love lore-heavy stories in general so that may just be me lol
I think the only way the Checkov's Gun idea makes any sense is if you have a pretty narrow definition of what a "gun" is and/or a pretty broad interpretation of what it means to fire that gun. I think "gun" has to be seen as something that's inherently unusual and noteworthy and out of place. If the scene of the play is at a hunting lodge and there are a few guns hanging on the wall, I don't think they count as "guns" for Checkov's analogy. Alternatively, I think "firing the gun" has to be interpreted as "pays off somehow" or "earns its keep" or something similar. If the gun is placed on the table and the play is about the character's decision whether or not to use it and in the end the character doesn't use it, I think the gun still earned its keep, even without being fired. So... I think world building is fine because it's not generally a "gun", according to my way of understanding the term, and also fine because when there are features of world building that are highlighted, they're often made to pay off somehow in the story.
I essentially agree with BayView. I think Checkov's Gun isn't supposed to be a strict rule that applies to everything. It's more of a guideline, and only applies to details that stand out. Briefly describing a table doesn't mean it has to be crucial to the plot later, because we probably won't care about or remember that description. But unusual objects for the circumstances, and/or objects described in unusual detail, probably should mater because they seem more significant and the reader wonders why they are there if they don't actually matter. Worldbuilding details set the scene, can establish tone, can provide plot details, or provide characterisation for related characters. We aren't left wondering why they were included so there's no reason they need to provide future plot relevance. But you shouldn't just include interesting descriptions of random unusual things- the descriptions of things should match the story you are telling, significant descriptions are for things significant to the story.
I think Chekhov's Gun applies more to the novel--to the story itself and the content contained within it. You wouldn't keep mentioning the name of a God or a Town you've created unless it was relevant to the plot. But Worldbuilding is different--it's not necessarily FOR the reader, it's for YOU the Author. YOU need a world--you need it to be something you like and WANT to explore--if you want to have any hope of creating stories in it. It's one of those things where you do it because you want to, because its fun, and so that, if the reader WANTS to venture off the beaten path of the novels to explore that world, it's there for them to dive into. It's not a gun on the wall, it's the universe you're in. It exists whether or not you mention it in the story at all, and you HAVE to have it, because without it you literally don't have a stage to perform your story on. Now, all of that said, how much of the world you focus on in the story IS the gun, and you shouldn't draw attention to anything that isn't important to the progression of the story within the confines of the story. But if you want your protagonist to have to journey through the Canyon of Imminent Danger, you have to have worldbuilt that canyon in the first place, you know?
World-building is a supercategory: "introducing elements of the world" Chekhov's Gun is a subcategory: "introducing elements of the world that will become specifically and directly relevant to the plot later on" Some world-building falls under Chekhov's Gun, some world-building doesn't
That's perfectly put. Something that's inherently unusual and noteworthy and out of place...something that will eventually 'earn its keep.' What's tricky for the writer is making the reader notice (and remember) this part of the setting (or character development, or odd event), without making its eventual purpose too glaringly obvious.
Chekhov's Gun is just the need to have a gun present somewhere in the story before people start shooting each other in Chapter 15. For example, in LOTR we have Gollum introduced as a treacherous character who would do anything to get back his Precious. That's the Chekhov Gun. After a while, Gollum betrays Frodo exactly because he's treacherous and would do anything to get back his Precious. So that gun fires and although we're kinda surprised (because we sort of expected Gollum to change and become good for a little bit) we're also expecting the treachery because we knew it was there and might come in play. Worldbuilding is everything else, the kingdoms, the reasons Gollum became who he was, the races of creatures and their conflicts, the source of Precious etc etc.
I think you've got it flipped around. The original "rule" from Checkov was "'If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired." You've flipped it to "If a pistol is fired in the second act, you should have hung the pistol on the wall in the first." I don't think your rule is a bad one, but it's not Checkov's gun.
I think it depends on what you mean by Checkov's gun and also how the items are introduced. Most readers can tell when you're trying to orient them to your world and when your not. It's like in a drama though where an mc opens a desk and stares at a gun -- it better have more meaning than purely an item in his desk. And if you did it the same in a world building sci fi -- a robot wakes from hibernation to find someone has shoved a gun in his compartment -- it too should have some meaning to the plot. If you build up an item/person/magic trait (isolate and showcase it) then it should have some resolve/climax in the story. Imagine if Roald Dahl never addressed the special button in Charlie and the Chocolate factory.
Gollum could be considered a Chekov's gun in that he's mentioned with some importance and follows the characters but doesn't show up a lot until Two Towers.
I don’t see that the two would conflict. There are plenty of things in a story of no particular significance. Just because it’s there doesn’t denote some hidden meaning; a chair in the corner doesn’t have to lead to some climatic happening. But, should you make special mention of the chair, some kind of allusion to something special about the chair; the strange bulge in the upholstery of a chair belonging to a suspected bank robber about the size of a bundle of dollar bills, then you can’t just leave it a dusty chair in the corner, something has to come of it. In that regard, I would think the two could be used to further and deepen each other.
