Everything in Story Has Meaning

Well, Maybe Not Everything?

Recently a writer I was working with wrote a scene in which the antagonist (in their POV) was waiting for the protagonist to return. During this period of waiting, the writer introduced a threat that didn’t materialize, and when I asked about it, the writer said, “I wanted to make something happen. Not just have the character sitting around.”

Okay that made sense but when the threat petered out, I questioned whether this was the right way to handle the scene.

The old principle, called loosely “Chekhov’s gun”, came to mind. As did my own belief that in story (unlike in life), there are no coincidences. And this random encounter felt like a coincidence.

First, Chekhov’s Gun

Attributed to Chekov, S. Shchukin quotes Chekhov as saying this: "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first act that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third act it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."

This translates to: never put something/someone in a scene unless it matters. Not every craft analyst or writer agrees entirely with this principle, but in general it serves as a good guide.

There are exceptions to the rule. Throwing a red herring into a story is crucial for mysteries. A gun that shows up in Act 1 might indeed just be a distraction for the reader, leading them to sit on the edge of their seat until someone drops it into the well in the back yard in Act 3. And a MacGuffin is a particular kind of meaningless object, serving only to motivate characters to action, but irrelevant in and of itself.

In my own work I try not to introduce something odd or point something out in detail unless I’m going to bring it back later, or unless I’m conscious of its status as a red herring or MacGuffin. When I write a mystery, I often will go back in and add the “gun” that’s finally fired in Act 3 so that no reader is left saying, “Where did that come from?”

Which Leads Me to Coincidence

Story is not verbatim life. If we wrote stories as we live life those stories would be extremely boring. (Think about it – life is usually rather dull. Thank heavens, or we’d all be completely crazy. Which may explain our feelings about current events………..)

Everything in story happens as a result of what precedes it. The main character must have agency, must make the story things happen, and with each event, the dominoes tip in a given direction.

What this means for the storyteller is that lining up events and objects isn’t just about creating a haphazard list. Everything in story happens for a reason having to do with character actions. It’s not about a particular object (like the gun) but about actions around the gun.

As To the Scene at the Top of This Post…

Because the antagonist is waiting impatiently, that impatience should lead to actions, especially after the threat is introduced. I would write the threat and character impatience as an impetus to action that would make something happen for the worse. Maybe the antagonist turns the threat into a dangerous consequence for themself. Maybe the character cleverly manipulates the threat to turn it against the protagonist.

The threat isn’t a Chekhov’s gun; but it also shouldn’t be just something that happens without effect. Even a MacGuffin is a motivator, and even a red herring forces character actions. There are no random actions in story, no coincidences, no slowly drinking tea while musing and staring at the garden.

Unless, of course, the tea is poisoned.