Have you ever heard of Chekhov's gun? If you followed the L'Manburg saga on Youtube, you've at least heard about it, even if you don't understand it. If you haven't heard of it, it's not too difficult to understand. It's basically the principle in stories that every element mentioned or shown has some sort of significance in the plot. You'd think this would go against red herrings but I believe that red herrings may not have significance in the plot necessarily, they do have a very significant role in storytelling. Anyway, it's believed that, due to this principle, elements should not be included in a narrative without having some sort of use.
Does that make any sense? No? Well, here's an example.
In the series I previously mentioned, Wilbur Soot has... mentally deteriorated. Despite this, Wilbur is the storyteller of the series. At this point, he has built a country, 'L'Manburg' by hand, won independence and lost the country to democracy. He believes that the only thing he can do is destroy what L'Manburg has become under the joint rule of a drunk and a stoner. Manburg. As he is explaining how he has placed a country worth of dynamite underneath the land, his confidant, Tommy, is trying to talk him out of it. This is where Wilbur references Chekhov's gun. He has been talking about blowing up the country for so long, it's almost worse to not. He is aware of his audience, those who stood beside the plan for destruction, and knows that he has indirectly made a promise to them that something will be blown up.
Just by mentioning the mere idea of the plan, you then expect said plan to be thought out. Why would a storyteller mention, and describe, a plan, without running it through?
Why show a gun without the intention of firing it?
