What Checkov's Guns have you found in the Honorverse

Here's a possible technological Checkov's gun which has not been fired yet:
* It was stated early on that, in theory, it should be possible to transit directly from one terminus to another without going through the central junction.

Annachie wrote:

Master.Mind wrote:Just in case if anyone was wondering what he is refering to http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... inYourLife ... you're welcome

The person quoted on that page, David Morgan-Marr, has a doctorate in Astro physics and currently works as a researcher for Cannon. Every time detecting the stealthed MAlign ships has come up, I've wondered if he reads this series because that's right in his ball park.

I am not sure why would you think that, i'd be surprised if anyone beside teenager Was able to delve in more than a couple of books deep.

SWM wrote:...snip...

There is one Checkov's gun which I suspect won't be fired:
* The grav lance was introduced in OBS as a flawed system. David hinted early on that it might come back. But that mummified horse has been dug up and beaten to pulp so many times that I doubt it will come back in text.

One could argue that with all the advances with compact fusion bottles, beta²-nodes and such that you could theoretically fit a grav-lance into a big honking missile and it's probably Ms. Foraker that'll come up with a practical solution...

Please, please! Don't hit me!

...

...

Just joking.

IIRC, and I don't because I can't recall his name, but I remember mention of a specialist that may be able to help Emily, and because of it, I always awaited Emily's recovery yet caught no joy.

Can anyone help me with this mystery doctor's name?

Oh, and this is the first I"ve ever heard of a Chekov's gun. But it seems there are occasions it is used as plot misdirection.

cthia wrote:IIRC, and I don't because I can't recall his name, but I remember mention of a specialist that may be able to help Emily, and because of it, I always awaited Emily's recovery yet caught no joy.

Can anyone help me with this mystery doctor's name?

Oh, and this is the first I"ve ever heard of a Chekov's gun. But it seems there are occasions it is used as plot misdirection.

If the author uses something to distract or misdirect the reader from where the plot actually goes (as contrasted with where the reader expects it to go), it isn't a Checkov's Gun, it's actually a Red Herring.

Vince wrote:

cthia wrote:IIRC, and I don't because I can't recall his name, but I remember mention of a specialist that may be able to help Emily, and because of it, I always awaited Emily's recovery yet caught no joy.

Can anyone help me with this mystery doctor's name?

Oh, and this is the first I"ve ever heard of a Chekov's gun. But it seems there are occasions it is used as plot misdirection.

If the author uses something to distract or misdirect the reader from where the plot actually goes (as contrasted with where the reader expects it to go), it isn't a Checkov's Gun, it's actually a Red Herring.

Yeah, there are a number of related concepts to distinguish.

Actually, when Checkov talked about the gun on the wall, he intended to say that a writer should not include extraneous details unless he intends to use them (as plot elements or red herrings or whatever). Essentially Checkov was espousing a form of minimalism in writing (he was specifically talking about playwriting). "If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."

The phrase Checkov's gun has often been misused to refer to almost unnoticeable background elements which become important later in the story. This is simply a form of foreshadowing, just a bit more subtle than usual.

So technically, the original poster was not talking about Checkov's gun, but about background elements that might foreshadow future events. But Checkov's gun has been misused this way so often that it doesn't really matter (I've used the phrase that way myself numerous times). Minimalism works well on the stage, but is not used as often in literature. David Weber puts in lots of background details. Some of it is intended to engage the reader deeper into the universe. Some of it is to appease the fans who want to know all the details. Some of it is red herrings, to distract attention from the direction he is really taking the story. And some of it is foreshadowing. As long as we all understand what we are talking about, I've got no problem if we keep calling that last element Checkov's gun.

But you're right, Cthia--it can be hard to distinguish between red herrings and foreshadowing in Webers's books. He does love to throw us off.

On your other question, Cthia, I don' recall any mention of a specialist who might be able to help Emily. There has been speculation on this forum about the possibility of new developments that might help, but as far as I recall, there is nothing in the text.

Vince wrote:

cthia wrote:
IIRC, and I don't because I can't recall his name, but I remember mention of a specialist that may be able to help Emily, and because of it, I always awaited Emily's recovery yet caught no joy.

Can anyone help me with this mystery doctor's name?

Oh, and this is the first I"ve ever heard of a Chekov's gun. But it seems there are occasions it is used as plot misdirection.

If the author uses something to distract or misdirect the reader from where the plot actually goes (as contrasted with where the reader expects it to go), it isn't a Checkov's Gun, it's actually a Red Herring.

SWM wrote:
Yeah, there are a number of related concepts to distinguish.

Actually, when Checkov talked about the gun on the wall, he intended to say that a writer should not include extraneous details unless he intends to use them (as plot elements or red herrings or whatever). Essentially Checkov was espousing a form of minimalism in writing (he was specifically talking about playwriting). "If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."

The phrase Checkov's gun has often been misused to refer to almost unnoticeable background elements which become important later in the story. This is simply a form of foreshadowing, just a bit more subtle than usual.

So technically, the original poster was not talking about Checkov's gun, but about background elements that might foreshadow future events. But Checkov's gun has been misused this way so often that it doesn't really matter (I've used the phrase that way myself numerous times). Minimalism works well on the stage, but is not used as often in literature. David Weber puts in lots of background details. Some of it is intended to engage the reader deeper into the universe. Some of it is to appease the fans who want to know all the details. Some of it is red herrings, to distract attention from the direction he is really taking the story. And some of it is foreshadowing. As long as we all understand what we are talking about, I've got no problem if we keep calling that last element Checkov's gun.

But you're right, Cthia--it can be hard to distinguish between red herrings and foreshadowing in Webers's books. He does love to throw us off.

On your other question, Cthia, I don' recall any mention of a specialist who might be able to help Emily. There has been speculation on this forum about the possibility of new developments that might help, but as far as I recall, there is nothing in the text.

Thanks to you both. I've never heard of Red Herring either, other than a favorite Native American dish. Smoking a herring turns it red.

SWM, I think I remember a discussion between Caparelli and Whitehaven. Thomas inquired about Emily and I think the particular doctor was brought up then. It was discussed briefly in a thread ... somewhere.

cthia wrote:Thanks to you both. I've never heard of Red Herring either, other than a favorite Native American dish. Smoking a herring turns it red.

Which actually has rather a lot to do with the phrase as a literary idiom.

Wikipedia:Red Herring wrote:The origin of the expression is not known. Conventional wisdom has long supposed it to be the use of a kipper (a strong-smelling smoked fish) to train hounds to follow a scent, or to divert them from the correct route when hunting; however, modern linguistic research suggests that the term was probably invented in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, referring to one occasion on which he had supposedly used a kipper to divert hounds from chasing a hare, and was never an actual practice of hunters. The phrase was later borrowed to provide a formal name for the logical fallacy and literary device.[citation needed]

SWM wrote:We have already seen a few Checkov's guns fired in the series. A couple big ones:
* OBS mentions that according to theory, the Manticore Junction should have at least one more undiscovered terminus.

* HotQ emphasizes the fact that so far no ship has survived transit above the theta band, but implying that it was theoretically possible.

* Early text noted that opposition to genetic slavery was one of the few topics on which Manticore and Haven agreed.


There is one Checkov's gun which I suspect won't be fired:
* The grav lance was introduced in OBS as a flawed system. David hinted early on that it might come back. But that mummified horse has been dug up and beaten to pulp so many times that I doubt it will come back in text.

Ooh! ooh! You mentioned it! Boy, you are so in for it now!

dr

Mor wrote:

Annachie wrote:The person quoted on that page, David Morgan-Marr, has a doctorate in Astro physics and currently works as a researcher for Cannon. Every time detecting the stealthed MAlign ships has come up, I've wondered if he reads this series because that's right in his ball park.

I am not sure why would you think that, i'd be surprised if anyone beside teenager Was able to delve in more than a couple of books deep.

What?!