In defence of Fluff

[Svrtnsse]

Chapter 2 or 3 seems a bit prescriptive - give me until chapter 10 at least will you, Chekhov? Geez.

I've got three guns in the second or third chapter. One of them gets taken down in the 11th chapter, and the remaining two are left hanging.

Edit: this is one of the things I'm considering changing for the next draft, but I'm waiting on reader feedback for it.

 

[acapes]

I've got three guns in the second or third chapter. One of them gets taken down in the 11th chapter, and the remaining two are left hanging.

Edit: this is one of the things I'm considering changing for the next draft, but I'm waiting on reader feedback for it.

I reckon you'd be fine For me, chapter 2 or 3 feels quite arbitrary - even hyperbolic in order to make his point, you know?

 

[Svrtnsse]

Yeah, I don't remember which of the chapters the "guns" are in. In the original version I didn't have any guns at all and the end result was that the test readers didn't have a clue what the story would be about until they'd gone very far into it. I don't think most casual readers would have gotten that far without me asking for feedback.
There are a few less obvious guns in the first chapter - more like hunting trophies than actual guns really.

 

[Devor]

I reckon you'd be fine For me, chapter 2 or 3 feels quite arbitrary - even hyperbolic in order to make his point, you know?

It is. Chekhov's original quote refers to acts in a play.

 

[Ireth]

I'm working on hanging a "gun" in chapter 4 of a fanfic I'm working on. ^^ It's going to be fired a fair few times before the end of the story.

 

[Penpilot]

I reckon you'd be fine For me, chapter 2 or 3 feels quite arbitrary - even hyperbolic in order to make his point, you know?

Yes and no. To me it's just about if you introduce an element as important by spending significant story time one it, then it should prove significant later on in the story.

But I also think that there's another point to be made, sometimes authors introduce a mystery early on in the story, and they keep that mystery for a big reveal that they keep delaying until really late in the book. They think it's going to be this hug bomb dropped into the story, but it turns out to be a firecracker.

You could take the chapter 2 or 3 detail as knowing when to pay off something, and knowing the story should be paying things off on a regular basis. Keeping all the mysteries till the end results in a readers giving up and readers being disappointed because the reveal wasn't worth the wait. It's one of the reasons I gave up on the TV show Lost.

 

[cupiscent]

There's nothing wrong with fluff. It can be fun. But I'm of the belief that the writing is stronger if every scene - even every word - adds to the piece, whether by furthering plot, character, world or theme. Even stronger still if it builds more than one element. Discussions about music that show character are great. Discussions about music that show character and are later revealed to have plot-critical information? Even better! The more you layer into your scenes, the better, imho.

I'm also a big believer in the inversion of Chekov's gun: if a gun goes off in act 3, we'd better have seen it in act 1! (For fluid values of "gun" - sometimes the important thing is not the weapon itself, but the capacity for violence within the character who fires it.)

 

[skip.knox]

This feels like a non-issue to me. One man's fluff is another man's colorful background. I can barely make it through Dickens, yet I enjoy Thomas Mann. Go figure. Or, to take another example, few would accuse Ian Fleming of writing fluff, but some of his books have whole pages of meaningless technical background or side-tracks. Some of them are quite revealing (James Bond contemplating how precarious is an airplane ride) while others are just irksome. For a third example, how about our revered JRRT and his poems? My brain glazes over and my eyes slide right down the page. If it's important, the next lines of dialog will pick it up. Fluff? Or brilliance? Potato, potato.

The only time I'll object is if someone comes along claiming there's such a thing as Universal Fluff. Nope.

 

[ThinkerX]

This feels like a non-issue to me. One man's fluff is another man's colorful background. I can barely make it through Dickens, yet I enjoy Thomas Mann. Go figure. Or, to take another example, few would accuse Ian Fleming of writing fluff, but some of his books have whole pages of meaningless technical background or side-tracks. Some of them are quite revealing (James Bond contemplating how precarious is an airplane ride) while others are just irksome. For a third example, how about our revered JRRT and his poems? My brain glazes over and my eyes slide right down the page. If it's important, the next lines of dialog will pick it up. Fluff? Or brilliance? Potato, potato.

I too thought of Tolkien and LOTR when reading this thread. Foundational fantasy work, introducing more than a few themes now considered 'stock,' yet by modern standards, lots of 'fluff' as well.

What I have to watch in my own writing is the wide blurry line between necessary and unnecessary world building. The more worldbuilding I include, the fluffier it gets and the more obscured the story becomes.

 

[Hainted]

"Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. 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." — Chekhov

First off, Mister Chekhov needs to concentrate on his duties as navigator and leave the writing to professionals.

Secondly, I like the loose ends and fluff as it adds a certain unpredictability to the story. Isn't that better than reaching the climax of the book and having the readers think "Why doesn't he check the phone he found on page 2? I'm sure it not only has the nuclear launch codes on it, but it's also conveniently open to a webpage that will walk him through every step of the launch sequence."

 

[ChasingSuns]

Personally I don't mind fluff when building character, driving the plot, or even building the setting. Some fluff when describing a particular setting can (at times) help paint a beautiful picture. But yeah, as long as it serves some sort of purpose, then it's awesome. If not, then it should probably be cut out. At least, that's how I personally see it

 

[acapes]

It is. Chekhov's original quote refers to acts in a play.

Exactly! Which is why we have to be careful, as writers, to be critical of the advice we find. I do personally like the general thought behind it though

 

[acapes]

Yes and no. To me it's just about if you introduce an element as important by spending significant story time one it, then it should prove significant later on in the story.

But I also think that there's another point to be made, sometimes authors introduce a mystery early on in the story, and they keep that mystery for a big reveal that they keep delaying until really late in the book. They think it's going to be this hug bomb dropped into the story, but it turns out to be a firecracker.

You could take the chapter 2 or 3 detail as knowing when to pay off something, and knowing the story should be paying things off on a regular basis. Keeping all the mysteries till the end results in a readers giving up and readers being disappointed because the reveal wasn't worth the wait. It's one of the reasons I gave up on the TV show Lost.

Good point, and I agree re: Lost for me, it's easily up there with some of the worst writing I've ever seen on TV - so much potential squandered. Production pressures perhaps?

 

[Penpilot]

Good point, and I agree re: Lost for me, it's easily up there with some of the worst writing I've ever seen on TV - so much potential squandered. Production pressures perhaps?

My impression was the show hit big and the writers hadn't plan ahead, so they really didn't know how to pay things off. They just kept introducing more mysteries. Now, I've only watch about a season and a bit, so my opinion only applies to that.

 

[Hainted]

Some of the writers have admitted to having no plans for Lost. Others say there was a plan and they followed it. To me the most telling quote came from Lindelhof in an Entertainment Weekly article about the shows biggest moments. Talking about the pilot scene of Jack standing up and asking "Where are we?" he said:

"I panicked, because I suddenly realized we were going to have to answer that question one day."

 

[spectre]

I agree with you, I have yet to read a story where there isn't a decent amount of fluff and info dump. I thoroughly enjoy it, and when it get's old I've trained my brain to read it at the speed of light and move on to the next point in the plot. I'm not going to cut out the fluff because it helps show the environment, simple objects create sensational cues, and it's a way of making readers feel as though they are in a real place as real as their kitchen.

 

[acapes]

My impression was the show hit big and the writers hadn't plan ahead, so they really didn't know how to pay things off. They just kept introducing more mysteries. Now, I've only watch about a season and a bit, so my opinion only applies to that.

That sounds right to me yeah - and I know I gave up around s3 due to that very issue.

Some of the writers have admitted to having no plans for Lost. Others say there was a plan and they followed it. To me the most telling quote came from Lindelhof in an Entertainment Weekly article about the shows biggest moments. Talking about the pilot scene of Jack standing up and asking "Where are we?" he said:

"I panicked, because I suddenly realized we were going to have to answer that question one day."

Wow, that certainly puts it into perspective, thanks Hainted

I don't mind a show or film that makes things up as they go - sometimes - Casablanca worked well