#but god dammit if i dont love narrative conventions and applying them to my hyperfixation

[pinkeoni]

Writing Byler into the Narrative: Chekhov's Lie

Am I making a post about a topic that has already been talked into the ground and needs no further explanation? Yes! Because it's my blog and I get to talk about whatever I want.

So when discussing whatever the biggest "byler proof" is, the easiest and best answer is simply "the narrative." But what exactly does that mean?

Well aside from the characterization and themes tending to point in that direction, there's also a major literary rule at play— Chekhov's Gun

So this is Anton Chekhov.

Famous Russian playwright. Prolific short story author. Very important to the dramatic and literary world.

Chekhov sees one of his colleagues plays and writes him a letter that says "Hey, if you're gonna go through the effort putting a gun on stage, just make sure it goes off, okay? Otherwise, don't put it there." or something to the effect of that.

"Chekhov’s gun is a dramatic principle that suggests that details within a story or play will contribute to the overall narrative. This encourages writers to not make false promises in their narrative by including extemporaneous details that will not ultimately pay off by the last act, chapter, or conclusion. Chekhov’s gun has become a highly influential theory of effective writing that mandates noticeable details are integrated into the plot trajectory, character development, and mood of the work."

Here's a simple example of Chekhov's gun used in the show:

Chekhov's Purple Palm Tree Delight

While burying Hero Agent Man in the desert, Argyle get's stressed out and Jonathan tells him in supposedly a throwaway line to smoke some Purple Palm Tree Delight to help him feel better.

And then later in the Piggyback when they need to distract the Argyle clone in the Surfer Boy Pizza, BAM. Jonathan pulls out a fresh Purple Palm Tree Delight.

What serves as a small detail in one episode, serves a larger purpose in a future episode. It's a very simple yet effective plant and payoff. The gun has been Chekhov'd.

What happens if the gun does not Chekhov?

For this I'll use an example from a different show, here's a scene from Euphoria season 2. (spoilers, btw)

At the start of the scene, the character Nate loads a gun from inside of his car as he is going to confront his dad. We have seen this gun before. Oh my god, is Nate going to kill is dad? The audience may wonder.

Nate then puts the loaded gun into his right pocket as he enters the building where his dad is staying.

Later in the scene, we see Nate reach into his right pocket and pull out the gun he just loaded.

We then see Nate put the gun away into his left pocket, reach back into his right pocket, and pull out— a flash drive?

Granted this flash drive does have pre-established importance, but why the fuck did Nate have that gun with him, if he wasn't going to use it? The most basic rule of a Chekhov's Gun?

I know that it was likely there just to build suspense for the audience, but considering that Nate's gun has already been established (and used) earlier in the season, the show didn't need to build-up the importance of the gun earlier in the scene if it wasn't going to payoff. If we saw Nate putting his hand into his pocket in a threatening way, there might be enough there for the audience to suspect he has his gun in there before doing the twist with the flash drive. It would have given the same effect of suspension and subversion of expectations without it feeling like a shitty non-payoff.

I can only speak for myself, but when this happened I was just baffled and annoyed. What was the point of all that? When a Chekhov's Gun doesn't go off, it feels super unsatisfying.

Another good example of a gun that never Chekhov'd is the Jules-cheating storyline that became inconsequential, was not the reason Jules and Rue even broke up, was seemingly forgotten and forgiven by the end, and did nothing but give fans a reason to hate Jules.

And Now: The Van Scene

We've all seen it and we all know it. Will gives Mike the painting we saw earlier in the season, the one that's supposed to be for someone that he likes, which was a Chekhov's Gun in itself. We saw the painting earlier in the season and now it's being revealed. The gun is Chekhoving.

Really the painting itself has already payed off, but what this scene does is establish a new Chekhov's Gun that has yet to go off, and that's the lie that Will told Mike— that the painting was from El, not him.

Even if this wasn't the "friends don't lie" show, I mean, a lie in a tv show that goes undiscovered and has no major consequences? I mean come on. It's almost too obvious.

Did this gun already Chekhov?

Technically there is still somewhat of a payoff to this lie being told, even if the reveal that it was a lie hasn't happened yet. We see the consequences of Will's lie in this scene here:

Ah yes, the monologue. You know the one, where Will is over Mike's shoulder the whole time, the one spawned by Will remarking "your the heart" which is a reference to the van scene we all just witnessed in which Will pours his heart out to Mike under the guise of it actually being El's feelings? Yeah that monologue.

Contrary to popular belief I am of the opinion that Mike's monologue is NOT the reason El lost to Vecna, however Mike finally confessing immediately followed by El losing does not make it look any better for them. I don't think that the lie had world ending consequences, but it definitely had emotional ones.

The reveal of the lie can lead to one of two things happening (not all once)

Mike finds out that Will lied to him about El commissioning the painting. Mike and El stay together despite it all, Will accepts that Mike doesn't love him back.

Mike finds out that Will lied about El commissioning the painting. El and Mike do not stay together because the feelings of love are not genuine. Mike and Will, despite Will's expectations, end up together since that what Mike's feelings of love are in response too.

The biggest difference between the first scenario and the second scenario is that the first one is already happening right now.

Mike and El are still together by the end of the season, and Will already thinks that he doesn't have a chance with Mike.

Why cock the gun if setting it off is just going to keep things the way they were?

Of course this Chekhov's gun isn't the only "proof" working in byler's favor, and I wouldn't have suggested the second scenario if the show didn't also give Mike an arc where he couldn't say I love you to his girlfriend, make him act weird around Will, actively push themes of non-conformity, among other things.

Combined with everything else, I do still consider Chekhov's Gun to be the biggest proof of byler. Not following through with one of the most popular rules of dramatic writing just to hold together a weak relationship? OK

tl;dr: Byler canon because a Russian playwright said so