Indeed, thou speakest true. ‘Tis folly to speak in such a way improper, for it doth entertain many to call thine bluff.
Thou art thine own, not thy brother nor sister; alas, prithee listen a while, for I would speak unto thee.
(You are your own, not your brother or sister; alas, I pray that you listen a while, for I would speak to you.)
Too many speak Thou for yours and Thee for mine, and know not what they speak of. Many amongst them believe all else is untrue.
‘Tis almost as bad as those that believe there is but one O in too (to them, the truth is to many) or Type Like They Are Speaking A Title, All The Time. Beginning with no beginning. They speak with periods and no comma.
“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.” –Anton Chekhov
But Alfred Hitchcock described suspense thusly:
You show two guys talking in a diner. Under the table, you show a bomb. Anyone can have the bomb go off, it’s what the audience expects. But showing the casual conversation, then the bomb, building anxiety and anticipation in the audience. Then you have the characters get up and leave without having the bomb go off. THAT is suspense.
Chekhov is talking about minimalism, Hitchcock about suspense. When working on a stage, you don’t make a prop unless you’re going to use it. That doesn’t mean that you have to use it the way everyone thinks you will.
Furthermore, Hitchcock actually uses the bomb by not using it. Chekhov was talking about not wasting time on elements that detract from the story by their unimportance.
A gun hanging on a wall in a hunter’s lodge and never being fired, for example, is not an example of failing to apply Chekhov’s Gun if the purpose of the gun is to establish that the scene takes place in a hunter’s lodge as decor.
Chekhov also was speaking of the theater, and not movies or such. In the theater, things that aren’t a part of the plot can distract from the goings-on, as everything is on a fixed plane of vision; in movies, if they want to get your eyes off of the guy in the back of the restaurant picking his nose in the previous scene, all they have to do is jump to another camera angle.
Some reckon it may also be due to the fact that a firearm should always be considered loaded (even when you yourself have removed the magazine and/or rounds therein), and keeping a firearm (be it loaded with blanks or empty) hanging over the fireplace in the theater may well be a safety hazard if it’s not there for a particular reason.
Chekhov’s Gun also applies heavily to literature. It does not make sense for an author to take the time to establish parts of an environment if they are not to be relevant. That was the folly of Tolkien, if he had one.
In literature, everything is automatically ‘relevant’ the moment you write it. It’s not possible to use words which don’t change the meaning.
“The magician removed his hat” implies that the magician is probably going to perform a magic trick (assuming the correct context).
“The magician removed his black hat” implies that the magician may be a little sinister, because we’re drawing attention to the ‘blackness’, often the colour of evil or corruption in literature.
“The magician removed his black hat with a flourish” indicates either that the magician is egotistical and showy (the black hat could be grey otherwise), or that he enjoys manipulating the audience, or both.
Even if the magician turns out to be your average performer, then we understand that this projected air is part of his performance, which tells us more about him as a character – and when we know more about the characters everything they do becomes further enriched with meaning, as we experience whatever transpires in the novel through the eyes of the characters (but not only through the eyes of the characters).
There are many well-known minimalists in literature. Actually, there’s no-one in literature who isn’t a minimalist – some are just more minimalist than others. To give more detail or more environmental factors, even when they’re not relevant to plot, is useful, because they are relevant to the story as a whole. In the theatre it’s slightly different; something must have relevance to the plot if it is to be relevant at all.
@Tucker
LotR was a story Tolkien made up to go with his world, which he had already spent many years on (and arguably, the world was just something he made up to give his languages a place to exist). I other words, it isn’t the background detail that is irrelevant, it is the story that is irrelevant.
Anyway, if you want irrelevant detail (and I do!), go read The Wheel of Time Series.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t shitting on Tolkien per-say. All I meant is that there was a lot of detail that wasn’t immediately relevant to the plot. Especially the first chapter of the Hobbit with the lengthy descriptions of Hobbit holes (which only appear a few times). They’re very interesting, but don’t necessarily fit into Chekov’s Gun. That said, the level of detail was hugely helpful to Jackson when doing the film adaptations, where films can (and typically do, even if by accident) have much extraneous detail that has no immediate relevance to the plot.
Chekov’s gun does apply to literature, but if you are describing a room in detail and making it look like somebody lives there, I see no reason why you can’t have, say, a rifle hanging on the wall even if it’s not going to be fired. It’s descriptive, which helps with realism (It makes it feel more like somebody lives there), it sets the scene a bit better (maybe a hunting lodge), and it adds characterization (whoever owns the room might be a hunter).
Chekov’s gun taken literally applies better to theater, while considering the meaning—don’t include things that don’t do anything for the work except make it longer–applies very well to everything.
And I consider adding detail to apply in many cases as doing something for the story, although you should obviously be sparing with the details when limited by things like a budget (in terms of money and time, as well as polygons/memory on video games/animations and the like).
Most deft writers, rather than describe every square inch of a room, will instead give a vague idea of the room and then a deep understanding of the character inhabiting said room. This allows for the reader, understanding the character well, to populate the room with their imagination, increasing the immersion (making the space make sense to the reader, as opposed to the writer). With the preceding methodology, only relevant plot devices would be deliberately placed into the prose.
“For what?” “Yeah, for what?” “For teaching Walky how to survive being buried alive, something he WILL need in life, and for teaching you how to dispose of a body.”
Blah blah blah blah, creepy description of the disturbing things I want done to people, yadda yadda, horrible discussion of snuff fantasies, yammer yammer, definite signs of my mental disabilities, umbrella in the peanut butter.
Billie, think about it. Even if you force Walky to admit his feelings for Dorothy, they’ll just date awkwardly for a month or so before breaking up. No one likes being forced into relationships, you have to let them develop naturally.
David intends to live to be nearly centenarian status in order to finish freshman year. DOA renewal for sophomore year is about as likely as underGRADS.
Oh, I’m not trying to poop on them; but no “Half-Life 3” or even “Half-Life 2 Episode 3” makes me sad about the (non-)possibility of “Portal 3” or “Left 4 Dead 3.”
It’s going to be Half-Life 3, it’s going to be at E3 2012, and most indications point towards a new engine (or very heavily augmented Source) – however, I’m not married to the engine assertion. Gabe will walk the stage at E3, and it will be about Gordon.
I’ll restate: does anybody want a piece of that? =P
I would like to cryptically state that, speaking from experience, there are some factors that could significantly intensify the embarrassment in the situation you suggest. I would like that statement to remain cryptic.
Actually, this might end very well. Dorothy and Walky now get to spend a little time together – while Walky is buried in sand, a straw in his mouth, unable to move or speak.
Ladies and gentlemen, good friends and neighbors, we are gathered here today to witness the interment of an innocent, naive soul taken from the prime of his life.
Walkie Walkerton was a man of simple pleasures. McNuggets, Mountain Dew, fashionable nylon faux jeans, and a bit of sunshine were all it took to leave him content. He was also a man of great cheer, always trying to spread laughter and joy to those around him.
It is thus that Walkie’s passing leaves us with heavy hearts (and a heavy corpse), and a void in our lives which can never be filled (except by the profits he brought to his local McDonalds). He will be dearly missed.
Pebbles to pebbles, sand to sand, we now commit to burial this beloved man. May the Lord ever watch over His child, and yea, may Walkie enjoy the countless nuggets and barbeque sauce packets that await him in the Heavenly Realm. Amen.
Since I can’t reply to your fog comment, I will do so here. I’ve never found it all that foggy here to be honest, I can only assume you got here for a bad couple of days, or maybe it’s just where you are.
You can keep replying, it’s just the end of the horizontal shift. In order to get in underneath you’d just apply to the last comment with a reply button. It’s how we get these massive threads going!
Loading ...
Billie’s got a plan.
“I love it when a plan comes together.”
cue the A-team music
“I pity the foo’ that don’t wanna bury Walky.”
Like Waspinator?
PLANS!
WHY UNIVERSE HATE WASPINATOR?
Yeah, but it looks like a pretty bad plan.
Suspiciously Specific Denial
I was about to say, that was oddly specific.
Wasn’t it thou…
Nay, ’twas not I. It must have been thou. Or them over thither. :3
People use words like ‘thou’ these days don’t they?
Usually incorrectly.
Indeed, thou speakest true. ‘Tis folly to speak in such a way improper, for it doth entertain many to call thine bluff.
Thou art thine own, not thy brother nor sister; alas, prithee listen a while, for I would speak unto thee.
(You are your own, not your brother or sister; alas, I pray that you listen a while, for I would speak to you.)
Too many speak Thou for yours and Thee for mine, and know not what they speak of. Many amongst them believe all else is untrue.
‘Tis almost as bad as those that believe there is but one O in too (to them, the truth is to many) or Type Like They Are Speaking A Title, All The Time. Beginning with no beginning. They speak with periods and no comma.
It’s enough to drive a learnéd man to insanity.
Stay a while, and listen.
The THOU I use doesn’t rhyme with shall (thou shall not commit murder), it’s the shortened version of though (isn’t it thou)
Moral of the story:using the correct word is worth two more letters.
Yes it is. However, if Plas had used proper spelling, we would not have been treated to a Shakespearean spelling lesson. ^_^
I was under the impression that was spelled tho or sometimes tho’…there are rules to improper spelling, you know.
As often as people have mentioned that truck, I never expected it to be noticed by the characters. I’m just glad there wasn’t a gun on the mantle.
Note that the absence of a gun on the mantle is not proof positive of the absence of a gun.
…I don’t get it.
Wait, maybe?
“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.” –Anton Chekhov
But Alfred Hitchcock described suspense thusly:
You show two guys talking in a diner. Under the table, you show a bomb. Anyone can have the bomb go off, it’s what the audience expects. But showing the casual conversation, then the bomb, building anxiety and anticipation in the audience. Then you have the characters get up and leave without having the bomb go off. THAT is suspense.
So do we believe Hitchcock or Chekhov?
They don’t contradict, really.
Chekhov is talking about minimalism, Hitchcock about suspense. When working on a stage, you don’t make a prop unless you’re going to use it. That doesn’t mean that you have to use it the way everyone thinks you will.
Furthermore, Hitchcock actually uses the bomb by not using it. Chekhov was talking about not wasting time on elements that detract from the story by their unimportance.
A gun hanging on a wall in a hunter’s lodge and never being fired, for example, is not an example of failing to apply Chekhov’s Gun if the purpose of the gun is to establish that the scene takes place in a hunter’s lodge as decor.
Chekhov also was speaking of the theater, and not movies or such. In the theater, things that aren’t a part of the plot can distract from the goings-on, as everything is on a fixed plane of vision; in movies, if they want to get your eyes off of the guy in the back of the restaurant picking his nose in the previous scene, all they have to do is jump to another camera angle.
Some reckon it may also be due to the fact that a firearm should always be considered loaded (even when you yourself have removed the magazine and/or rounds therein), and keeping a firearm (be it loaded with blanks or empty) hanging over the fireplace in the theater may well be a safety hazard if it’s not there for a particular reason.
Chekhov’s Gun also applies heavily to literature. It does not make sense for an author to take the time to establish parts of an environment if they are not to be relevant. That was the folly of Tolkien, if he had one.
In literature, everything is automatically ‘relevant’ the moment you write it. It’s not possible to use words which don’t change the meaning.
“The magician removed his hat” implies that the magician is probably going to perform a magic trick (assuming the correct context).
“The magician removed his black hat” implies that the magician may be a little sinister, because we’re drawing attention to the ‘blackness’, often the colour of evil or corruption in literature.
“The magician removed his black hat with a flourish” indicates either that the magician is egotistical and showy (the black hat could be grey otherwise), or that he enjoys manipulating the audience, or both.
Even if the magician turns out to be your average performer, then we understand that this projected air is part of his performance, which tells us more about him as a character – and when we know more about the characters everything they do becomes further enriched with meaning, as we experience whatever transpires in the novel through the eyes of the characters (but not only through the eyes of the characters).
There are many well-known minimalists in literature. Actually, there’s no-one in literature who isn’t a minimalist – some are just more minimalist than others. To give more detail or more environmental factors, even when they’re not relevant to plot, is useful, because they are relevant to the story as a whole. In the theatre it’s slightly different; something must have relevance to the plot if it is to be relevant at all.
@Tucker
LotR was a story Tolkien made up to go with his world, which he had already spent many years on (and arguably, the world was just something he made up to give his languages a place to exist). I other words, it isn’t the background detail that is irrelevant, it is the story that is irrelevant.
Anyway, if you want irrelevant detail (and I do!), go read The Wheel of Time Series.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t shitting on Tolkien per-say. All I meant is that there was a lot of detail that wasn’t immediately relevant to the plot. Especially the first chapter of the Hobbit with the lengthy descriptions of Hobbit holes (which only appear a few times). They’re very interesting, but don’t necessarily fit into Chekov’s Gun. That said, the level of detail was hugely helpful to Jackson when doing the film adaptations, where films can (and typically do, even if by accident) have much extraneous detail that has no immediate relevance to the plot.
Tom Bombadil is the biggest Chekov’s gun in the series. A nigh all powerful being whose only task is to rescue them from a tree in the first book?
Chekov’s gun does apply to literature, but if you are describing a room in detail and making it look like somebody lives there, I see no reason why you can’t have, say, a rifle hanging on the wall even if it’s not going to be fired. It’s descriptive, which helps with realism (It makes it feel more like somebody lives there), it sets the scene a bit better (maybe a hunting lodge), and it adds characterization (whoever owns the room might be a hunter).
Chekov’s gun taken literally applies better to theater, while considering the meaning—don’t include things that don’t do anything for the work except make it longer–applies very well to everything.
And I consider adding detail to apply in many cases as doing something for the story, although you should obviously be sparing with the details when limited by things like a budget (in terms of money and time, as well as polygons/memory on video games/animations and the like).
Most deft writers, rather than describe every square inch of a room, will instead give a vague idea of the room and then a deep understanding of the character inhabiting said room. This allows for the reader, understanding the character well, to populate the room with their imagination, increasing the immersion (making the space make sense to the reader, as opposed to the writer). With the preceding methodology, only relevant plot devices would be deliberately placed into the prose.
It’s Robin’s truck. She’s taking a page from Scott Brown.
So of course there’s a gun.
Trucks don’t have mantles.
They have dashes.
And firearms are normally not kept there, but in a rack on the back window of the cab, or (in the case of my truck) in a case behind the seat.
Oh, I realize, but the dash does most resemble a mantle, does it not? =P
Nevermind the shovel, where’d you get the straw?
I suspect that Walky got it from the same place as his mcnuggets.
From his pants.
With his penis?
And now it’s in his FAAAACE.
Or it’s Walky’s hollowed-out femur. Note that the legs aren’t completely showing.
Not his femurs. He needs those to live!
“For what?” “Yeah, for what?” “For teaching Walky how to survive being buried alive, something he WILL need in life, and for teaching you how to dispose of a body.”
“For that beer stash comment from a while back. He deserves to be buried alive for that insult!”
“For crossing the line from ‘Antics’ to ‘Bad Touch’.”
Sweat, baby, sweat, baby, sex is a Texas drought
Walky better hope that it won’t end up being a Texas funeral.
Wait, they’re nowhere near Texas… Oh.
Ooooohhhhh…….
NOOOOOOW you get it! >:D
I’m gonna be honest, at first I was thinking, “…because Davan would be there?”
Me and you do the kind of stuff that only Prince would sing about
Blah blah blah blah, creepy description of the disturbing things I want done to people, yadda yadda, horrible discussion of snuff fantasies, yammer yammer, definite signs of my mental disabilities, umbrella in the peanut butter.
Umbrella in the peanut butter!? This will not stand!
Sure it will, if it’s very thick peanut butter.
Two drums and a cymbal fall off a cliff…
For her starting the hook up between you and dorothy duh!
… i need friends like billie lol
Openly being friendly to Walky? Billie’s softening up sooner than I thought. That poll option suddenly doesn’t look so far off.
Not openly enough for either him or Dorothy to actually realize it, though.
Billie, think about it. Even if you force Walky to admit his feelings for Dorothy, they’ll just date awkwardly for a month or so before breaking up. No one likes being forced into relationships, you have to let them develop naturally.
This is the comics. Nobody said there would be realism.
A month in DoA time, I’ll be sending my kids to college.
You have kids?
Expect them to be conceived Thursday of next week in-comic time, and born on Friday.
Luckly his wife’s pregnancy won’t be in DoA comic time, otherwise they won’t be born until she’s in a nursing home.
David intends to live to be nearly centenarian status in order to finish freshman year. DOA renewal for sophomore year is about as likely as underGRADS.
Wow. Even Willis is making jokes about his Webcomic Time.
Willis-time is like Valve-time, but without JK Simmons doing voice over.
Yeah, the thing about VALVe Time is that occasionally it is early.
Only when zombies are involved. Well, actual zombies, not headcrab zombies.
Headcrab zombies go to the BACK of the line.
If anybody wants to put some value on this, I’m willing to assert with certainty that there will be Half-Life news in some form at E3 2012.
Does anybody want a piece of that? =P
I would bet on this, but all I’d have to do is make a “Gabe Newell is fat” joke and it would get pushed back.
Aww – sadface =[
Silly Tucker, Valve doesn’t know how to count to three. ;P
Don’t poop on VALVe =[ My original run, Vivendi Universal, Half-Life 2, Gordon Freeman box-art is sad.
When I was at VGL a couple of years back, Gabe [Newell] was super impressed I had one of those =P
Oh, I’m not trying to poop on them; but no “Half-Life 3” or even “Half-Life 2 Episode 3” makes me sad about the (non-)possibility of “Portal 3” or “Left 4 Dead 3.”
It’s going to be Half-Life 3, it’s going to be at E3 2012, and most indications point towards a new engine (or very heavily augmented Source) – however, I’m not married to the engine assertion. Gabe will walk the stage at E3, and it will be about Gordon.
I’ll restate: does anybody want a piece of that? =P
Wait… straw? Most people usually leave the HEAD out of the sand, Billie.
Hardcore.
Because Billie is cool like that.
Walky’s head gets buried so that when the inevitable hot girl-on-girl action ensues, he won’t be able to see it.
I saw that first as a cigarette, which seemed out of character, so then I thought lollipop. Straw makes more sense but is less amusing.
“By the way, there might be some very upset Canadians heading our way eventually. If they ask, I didn’t take their beer, either.”
You can’t handle our beer XD
Hooray, beer!
That’s why a case of Elsinore has those convenient little handles on the sides.
No Billie, You bury him without the straw.
Walky smokes unfiltered. :p
Can’t be too much like Sal after all
Matchmaker from hell
Because the one from Heaven was occupied with “losing” catch.
David seems to be posting more frequently these days. It’s kind of exciting.
So the plan is to have dorothy feeling up walky through sand, thus giving him an erection, and causing a VERY embarrassing situation all around?
I would like to cryptically state that, speaking from experience, there are some factors that could significantly intensify the embarrassment in the situation you suggest. I would like that statement to remain cryptic.
Was it your cousin burying you? >.>
Zababcd said: I would like that statement to remain cryptic.
Your dog?
Your mom?
Faz?
This gravatar approves the preceding message.
@Usayasha
Okay, you win the Creepiness Contest.
And it’s true–she didn’t steal it from a pickup truck.
She stole it from Dina’s Backpack of Holding.
Or her S-A-C?
Muchos cookies to anyone who figures out what game that’s from.
Pretty sure the plan is for Walky to see some of Dorothy’s boobage while she’s burying him.
Uh-oh…Billie’s playing matchmaker now. This cannot end well.
Actually, this might end very well. Dorothy and Walky now get to spend a little time together – while Walky is buried in sand, a straw in his mouth, unable to move or speak.
All in all it’s the ideal situation.
animal, for once we agree!
She stole it from a sedan.
They’re going to kiss through the straw, aren’t they?
I don’t think there will be much kissing if Animal gets his way. More like selective digging.
I get it! It’s like really kinky BDSM!
Then again, he may just mean that he’ll be in a state of shutting up and not throwing things.
Either way, it’s the perfect position for THINGS to happen.
That’s diabolical!
Billie trying to get in good with Sal? 0:
Ladies and gentlemen, good friends and neighbors, we are gathered here today to witness the interment of an innocent, naive soul taken from the prime of his life.
Walkie Walkerton was a man of simple pleasures. McNuggets, Mountain Dew, fashionable nylon faux jeans, and a bit of sunshine were all it took to leave him content. He was also a man of great cheer, always trying to spread laughter and joy to those around him.
It is thus that Walkie’s passing leaves us with heavy hearts (and a heavy corpse), and a void in our lives which can never be filled (except by the profits he brought to his local McDonalds). He will be dearly missed.
Pebbles to pebbles, sand to sand, we now commit to burial this beloved man. May the Lord ever watch over His child, and yea, may Walkie enjoy the countless nuggets and barbeque sauce packets that await him in the Heavenly Realm. Amen.
I think I love you.
That delivery was amazing, you really nailed the facial expression.
Fukken saved.
I am currently reading this, and I am in Canada. I have now made Google Stats redundant. As long as people leave comments like this all the time.
lolwut?
I get it, but what? XD
What part of this fine, igloo and polar bear laden country do you reside?
Toronto
Vancouver Island.
How is it there?
Very green. Sub-zero at night and acceptably above during the day. No snow for us. but still icy windshields.
There?
About the same, but with less green.
More fog I imagine, though. Or does that subside in the winter? I’ve only been in the great lakes region in summer.
I doubt it generated that much traffic, but I definitely linked you over in a “what are you reading” thread at the LAWLS comic forums.
In reference to Tumblr, in case anybody is super confused.
Turns out it was StumbleUpon!
Utterly fantastic! More fodder for comment trolling! (I mean that with love, of course).
Since I can’t reply to your fog comment, I will do so here. I’ve never found it all that foggy here to be honest, I can only assume you got here for a bad couple of days, or maybe it’s just where you are.
You can keep replying, it’s just the end of the horizontal shift. In order to get in underneath you’d just apply to the last comment with a reply button. It’s how we get these massive threads going!
That’s Ryan’s shovel. give that back.
Yes. Give it back to him. By shoving it in his skull.
My new Gravatar – who is she? I don’t recall seeing her, and I can’t really just go to Walkypedia and search for “black chick.”
That’s actually new on me too… Spoilers?
*Takes back what I said*
Okay, Billie is officially NICE again. XD
And no, not THAT kind of ‘Nice’.