SilverStars

MILF of the Year

✨ 26 yrs ✨ aroace lesbian ✨ illustrator ✨ childcare professional ✨art only account is @SilverStarsIllustration


eatthepen
@eatthepen

A question I think about sometimes for writing projects is 'what is the minimum viable chekov's gun?'. Like, if you conspicuously put the proverbial gun on the mantlepiece in act 1, what's the least use you can put it to that will pay it off? Can you put the proverbial gun on the mantlepiece and pay that off without firing it? Without anyone getting shot? Not necessarily in a subversive way ('haha! the gun is loaded with blanks!' or 'haha! the gun isn't loaded, but a secret message from the wife's lover is concealed in one of the chambers!') but in a way where someone noticing, picking up, interacting with the gun pays off something significantly less dramatic than violence or the threat of violence?

Today I'm thinking about this in the context of alien megastructures, which apparently I'm just coming up with as settings for everything these days. If I have a story set in a cool alien megastructure because that's a cool place to put a story, how little can I get away with explaining or revealing about the alien megastructure and have it still be enough that people feel the alien megastructure is more than just set dressing

Idle thoughts, conversation starter, tell me about cool books/plays/stories that have deflationary payoffs (which, I guess, implicitly there's a spoiler risk in the comments, I don't mind being spoiled on stuff but I know some people do)


SilverStars
@SilverStars

I second the comment suggesting thematic relevance; whenever I need or want to include a certain scene, conversation, character, etc, but need to "pad it out" somehow so that it doesn't feel sparse or out of place, I ask myself "how can I make this thing reinforce the theme?" Or, "how can I use this to support the characterization of my protagonist, the people around them, or the world they live in?"

According to the theory of Chekhov's Gun, every story element should have an answer to the question, "why was this included?". Sometimes the reason is to set up a more specific question, and sometimes it's to answer a question – like Chekhov's loaded gun, which asks "when will this be shot?" and may later answer "how will this violent conflict end?" Personally, I think "because I thought it would be fun" is often a good enough answer, because entertainment is the whole point of much media in the first place. But the more reasons you have to include an element, the more efficient, effective, and interesting the element is.

As @garak said, the alien megastructure could contribute to a theme of "living in the shadow of something large and unknowable, or completely alien". Another theme could be "being a small part of something much larger than you", either for good, like contributing to an underground resistance, unable to see the full effects of your actions but praying that your piece is helping to make a difference; or for ill, like being a cog in a capitalist machine that will grind you up and then keep going. There's also "being trapped in a maze of options" or "an emptiness so large that nothing could ever fill it up" or "who cares about the big things, honestly, it's the little close things that matter" or "stop blocking out the world and leave your comfort zone for once already". Or even a couple of these themes on top of each other!

The megastructure could contribute to characterization. Maybe the protag's mom is so controlling because she grew up somewhere much smaller, and in this big mysterious place she can't help but try to carve out a home that is hers to know and control in its entirety. Maybe a best friend's plot-contributing technical skills were learned during their work maintaining the megastructure's anti-gravity lines. Maybe the government is prone to excess, huge flashy projects that don't actually might life better – or maybe it used to be capable of such great vital good but is currently too scattered and polarized to muster the effort.

Some questions the megastructure could ask or answer: "Who built it? Why was it built, and is it still fulfilling that role? Why do people live in it now? How does it affect day-to-day life? What is it made out of, and where did those resources come from? Do people still have access to the level of technology/resources/labor necessary for such a project? If not, why not? What do the people who live here know about and think about aliens? How do people travel? Where do they work and where do they live, what are their jobs and their hobbies? Why are these people here, either in general, or the specific characters we're focusing on?" And any of those answers could then, in turn, be relevant to theme or characterization or plot or more questions and answers.

It's hard to say where the line is, of how much of this you need... When I'm reading a story, I'm happy to see any kinda cool shit, even if it's fairly irrelevant – though I'd be disappointed if a cool thing was mentioned, but then I didn't get to actually see any of its coolness. But I do also find it extremely satisfying when story elements become relevant over and over again, in different ways, from different angles, asking or answering new questions each time, punching you in the gut with renewed significance and context.

So I suppose my answer would be: If you want to put something really cool in the story then fucking put it in there, no matter what - but keep an eye out for opportunities to tie it in to the rest of the story and do so wherever you can, whether that ends up being only once or twice, or in new ways every single scene. It's just even more cool that way!


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @eatthepen's post:

So in the Inform interactive fiction programming language family's world model, there's a notion of some objects as scenery — objects can be flagged as such (to the best of my recollection) to automatically supply a number of stock responses to IF attempts to verb on them, so that, say, you can have a "sunset" scenery that it's possible to LOOK AT and be furnished a description, but be gently and automatically brushed off as doing something The Game Engine Does Not Allow if you try to TAKE it.

I once read a summary of various peoples' criticism of Niven's Ringworld — a book I haven't read — that, basically, neither the author nor characters really comes to any grip with, nor finds any use for, the titular megastructure beyond strolling round gawping at it for being Really Big.

It is, in a sense, a scenery object. Which I think illustrates that the failure mode of "Wow, cool megastructure" is expecting that to carry the story on its own. Your story's gotta do its thing, whether that's via Chekov's Halo or by establishing cool scenery and then doing something interesting-in-itself with it as scenery.

(I dunno, I'm rambling.)

For something an alien megastructure, I think you can get away with almost completely under-explaining it so long as living in the shadow of something large and unknowable, or completely alien, is thematically relevant. It could also just be something mundane like a corner store, or unfinished, to give an explanation of why it's non-reactive.

For something kinda-sorta similar, I would point to Roadside Picnic. It's not exactly a megastructure, and the stuff sure as heck does things, but I think it still qualifies. Borderline-magical, outright miraculous things are emplaced onto Earth in the intro, and revelation is that there is no higher purpose, they are simply left uncaringly and the interaction with humans is beneath concern.

i read a lot of mystery stories and the form chekov's gun takes is most often is clues about the mystery, but writers often have to go to lengths to describe scenes and clues without giving away everything so its still a mystery by the end, even if the audience is correctly following the trail. a way i see it done often is through misdirection or obfuscation, or polar opposite of singular hyperfixation. that sounds kind of contradictory, but in the book "salvation of a saint" the consulting detective is very fixated on a water filter in the apartment at the scene of the crime as related to the method of the crime, meanwhile the police detectives are more concerned with the motive and social aspects of the crime. both become equally important to the solution, but much more of the book is dedicated to uncovering the motive, while cutting back occasionally to the water filter after it is researched and developed more and eventually becomes the hinge of the entire mystery.
in the context of exploring a setting as a chekov's gun, the same concepts could still be applied, where there are probably more important things going on while being in an alien mega structure, but a character focused on some inconsistency or has a question about the location that can't be answered at the moment, but through the narrative it will be built up and revealed. it'd probably be most effective if it's not contradictory to the other intention of being in the space, like the main mission is "find treasure in the center of the labyrinth" but this one character only has a half translated warning about something from the entrance, but needs to also delve into the labyrinth to gain more data for their translation efforts, and they are still there to aid the original mission as much as possible by reading signs inside the labyrinth. that way the "gun" is not an offhand comment or clue, but something that is building in the background in direct parallel with the main action but it's not entirely focused upon until enough intel is gathered to do something about it.
sorry if this is a lot lol, but i do recommend looking at mystery stories for more ideas since they are the most finely focused version of "set up, build, reveal."

The City in Blame is barely explained but it influences the entire mood/aesthetic/everything the characters do.

like three different plotlines go on because "the city is trying to kill you," is the operand problem [Blon and the bois hacking, the silicon creatures, Sanakan].

and there was the big response post someone made. intentionality is the main thing.

and the ez way to have it more than just set dressing is like, have stuff/plots/sequences happen that can ONLY happen in a story set in YOUR alien megastructure.

also chekhov was a playwright and a short story writer. with only so many props/words, you better make sure whatever detail you add is there for a reason.

I like the concept of a thematic payoff. don't fire the gun, talk about the gun, why it exists. ideally create some sort of parallel to the real action of the story. the alien megastructure commemorated an interstellar treaty that later fell apart, and the breakup that actually happens in the story feels like the sudden failure of a binary star system, launching stars and planets in all directions. all that remains intact is a wilting vase of flowers in a defunct megastructure, a monument within a monument.