Talk:MacGuffin

I have proposed a change from limiting the discussion of MacGuffins "in fiction" to their use "in a story." The edit was refused. Dictionary.com defines story as "a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse, or instruct the hearer or reader." An alternate would be "in a narrative."

The way the article now reads, a user might assume that MacGuffins are found only in fictional narratives. This is not supported by the Merriam-Webster definition of MacGuffin as a device found in either film or story. Fiction, while often interchanged with story, is a very limited range within story or narrative (which are equivalent). (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) My attempt to edit comes from the awareness of MacGuffins in scriptural narratives. One of the editors of this page, Anita, seemed to discount the identification of MacGuffins in that genre because it was not fiction. Perhaps my concern could be dealt with by a footnote that informs the user that MacGuffins are also found in all forms of narrative? Or by the creation of another page that addresses MacGuffins in non-fictional narratives? Jeanninegrimm (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I rewrote the first line of the lead because I think it is about time someone cited the definition accurately. The sources indicate the term originated in film and was extended to fiction in general. This is a relatively recent term and has not yet been applied to nonfiction.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The opening of the article seems too bald and imprecise to me. You can't just say a MacGuffin is "unimportant" in itself. The Maltese Falcon, one of the examples given, is supposed to be worth a fortune. That's important to the characters, and would be to me if it was mine. The definition needs to be fuller, so that it can be more precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbown (talk • contribs) 21:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC) (Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment to sign please.)

Currently the first sentence says:

In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin) is an object, device, or event that is necessary to the plot and the motivation of the characters, but insignificant, unimportant, or irrelevant in itself.

What would you suggest we change it to? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

First of all, this is the definition in the sources. Second, the Maltese Falcon may have been important to the characters, but its specific nature was not important to the plot. If it could have been replaced by something else, it was a McGuffin; if it had been truly important to the plot, it was not a McGuffin.—Anita5192 (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I thought we would hear what changes the OP would like to make before we going on the defense or offense. You mention in above the conversation above you recently changed the lead sentence. for consideration here is what it was before:

In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin) is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation. The MacGuffin's importance to the plot is not the object itself, but rather its effect on the characters and their motivations.

I do see your point about the difference between importance to the characters vs importance to the plot. But if the OP did not get that difference from the sentence as written, perhaps we should see if it can be made more clear. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the sentence is unclear, it is just that the concept itself is somewhat difficult to grasp. The OP argues that the Maltese Falcon is worth a fortune and therefore is important to the characters, but the sentence he is criticizing specifically says that a MacGuffin is "necessary to the motivation of the characters", so that is simply a mistake on the OP's part, not a lack of clarity. The object is always important to the characters, but its specific nature in itself is not important. That is, the Maltese Falcon could have been 'the Peruvian Condor', or 'the French Sparrow', or 'the English Lesser Spotted Grebe', or 'the Norwegian Elephant', and the movie would have been essentially the same, as long as it had the same significance to the characters, although admittedly the title would lack a certain mystique in the last two. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've considered Richard-of-Earth's question put to Willbown, "What would you suggest we change it to?". I'd like to eliminate either "insignificant" or "unimportant" from the first sentence. Having both there at the start of the article draws attention away from the adjective "irrelevant" which seems to me to be the most common one of the three, across all MacGuffins. A typical MacGuffin is simply irrelevant, i.e. it's otherwise unimportant to the viewer/reader. The current opening sentence pulls us towards thinking it has no intrinsic value. It's not that the opening sentence is wrong, it's just a little misleading. Mebden (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I disagree and don't think it should be changed. "Insignificant," "unimportant," and "irrelevant" mean three different things and are quoted from the sources.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Anita5192: Are you able to give examples of MacGuffins that are insignificant but important? And examples that are unimportant but significant? Mebden (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

What should it be changed to? Given that we are agreed that the MacGuffin is not unimportant to the characters, I think you have to qualify the statement by saying to whom it is unimportant/irrelevant/insignificant/etc. Personally, I can't think of anybody to whom it is these things. And the word "intrinsically" should be deleted because it is in this context just an intensifier. Willbown (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Would it be enough to say it's irrelevant to the audience? What it is will almost always be important to the characters (except in cases such as a thief hired to steal an item for someone else) but the audience doesn't need to know and in some cases never does. The briefcase in Pulp Fiction or the Rabbit's Foot in Mission Impossible for example - the audience is never told what it is or why it matters, and not knowing that doesn't affect the plot. Both could be replaced with different objects without significantly changing the plot from the audience's perspective. 2A00:23C5:E71F:2101:405A:2E6C:2EBF:8BBF (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

One of the sticky points here is how much to base the opening line on fallible encyclopedic references. I recently visited seven books (the five cited in the first sentence of the article, plus two I encountered nearby in the library), and found them mutually contradictory and often wrong (e.g. three of them claimed that Hitchcock invented the word himself).

One of the references simply defined the original meaning. Here is an excerpt:

1. "A plot device created by [Hitchcock] as a 'demented red herring' which was pursued by the characters in his films but which in the end had absolutely no relevance to the plot or its outcome."^[1]

Two demonstrated evolution in the term. Excerpts:

2. "A word invented by [Hitchcock] to describe something that starts off the action... but subsequently turns out to be irrelevant. It later spread to the general language, meaning something that sparks off a course of action or process but loses its importance as events proceed."^[2]

3. "A name devised by [Hitchcock] for an object or event, of little interest in itself, such as secret plans or stolen papers, that serves to trigger the action. The term was later extended to a similar device in fiction."^[3]

The other four references define a MacGuffin in a way that neglects a possible evolution in meaning. In other words, the authors imply that there's one everlasting definition. Key excerpts from their definitions:

4. "A term, originated by Angus MacPhail but most often associated with Alfred Hitchcock, for any pretext in itself not very important or relevant but necessary to get a plot moving."^[4]

5. "A narrative element needed to motivate a plot, but in itself insignificant."^[5]

6. "An object or device in a film or a book which serves merely as a trigger for the plot."^[6]

7. "A means of keeping a narrative moving by introducing a detail that later turns out to be insignificant or irrelevant."^[7]

The seven definitions can be grouped in other ways as well. Ping me if you want to see my photos of the full definitions (I'm not typing them up here!) including how each of the seven interpreted Hitchcock's role, etc. Or is someone now ready to write a more suitable opening line for the article? Mebden (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Setting aside the concerns of experts in pop-culture, let's not forget: the key feature of a narrative may be character (e.g. bildungsroman), or comedic wit (e.g Adams, Heller, Pynchon), or pure style (e.g. Finnegans Wake). And so on, and on. Literature is peppered with vague motivations and mechanisms for why character X does action Y rather than action Z. Analysis of the McGuffin is like asking why does Monet's Vetheuil 1880 hint at poppies rather than realise them in detail. The answer is: he just doesn't—and simply because that detail is not important to the work (particularly within the style being used). Regarding the genre of Realism, concerns with the McGuffin may be legitimate; but since most art is not Realism, any focus on the device needs to be taken in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.105.179 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following source is oddly formatted ('Dr.'s for example) and I cannot find it on Google Scholar:

Dr. Marjory T. Ward, "King Arthur Revisited" in Dr. Andrew Keen (ed.) "​Proceedings of the Second History/Literature Conference on Medieval Literature"​

Also there is no date given! Google Search shows "Marjory T. Ward" only in reference to this article; ditto for "​Proceedings of the Second History/Literature Conference on Medieval Literature"​

I am removing it. If it can be found, please put back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3902:b10a:e14d:2b32:6670:9a60 (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've twice had my example of "The Gold Bug" by E. A. Poe reverted. The first time it was because there was no reference so it was considered OR. I've found many many "examples" in Wiki without references, where the example is obvious. That the scarab beetle in The Gold Bug is a MacGuffin seems to be as obvious as stating that the protagonist of the story is unnamed. However, I went and looked, and found a reference. I re-reverted the reversion, giving a reference for a website. This website is a description of a series of games based on various works of Poe. In the description of each, there is a statement of how the game relates to the particular story. In the discussion of The Gold Bug, there is a bullet point labeled "MacGuffin Title" (described as a title containing a MacGuffin) and the statement that "there is an actual gold bug in the game". Isn't this a statement that Gold Bug, whether used in this game or in the short story, is a MacGuffin? There is no other explanation in the web article, no doubt because the writer felt like nothing else was required. Why would this be a MacGuffin if this writer didn't find it obvious that the original Poe title contained a MacGuffin? Anyway, another editor (Anita5192), reverted this and wrote "This reference says nothing about a MacGuffin in The Gold-Bug". I'm left to wonder if she actually drilled down on the article to find the MacGuffin discussion. Yes, the article is about the game, but there is no difference between how the game uses the title "The Gold Bug" and how Poe did. I wish to give a great example, from a classic piece of literature, of something utterly obvious (that the use by Edgar Allan Poe of the Gold Bug is a MacGuffin). This is so obvious that I doubt anybody else is going to explicitly state it in another reference. Practically ALL references to MacGuffins in the literature are like this, merely stating the fact of a MacGuffin instead of giving explicit details. How is this original research? Unfortunately, I don't know WP well enough to directly address this editor, but I'm hoping they will read this and undo their reversion.Roricka (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Wikipedia does not operate on the principle that things automatically belong because they are obvious. Every claim must be able to be supported by reliable sources that are, ideally, secondary sources. Not every claim in Wikipedia is supported by such a citation but just because something exists elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't mean it should be there and that we are therefore free to ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines and do the same. Wikipedia is a constant work in progress and we should be working to fix these problems when we see them.

The source you linked to might be considered reliable for certain claims, but in this case they are not the kind of academic or critical source we are looking for to support your claim. They are just stating it without providing any depth to their claim. It's entirely possible that other editors will think that source is enough, but, personally, I would definitely want something better. I haven't looked at all the resources used for this article, but the ones I glanced at appear to be secondary published sources (books, essays, etc) that deal with the subject in greater depth.

It sucks when something is "clearly" true but we can't find a good, reliable source to back up that claim. It's happened to all of us. Having access to a library and/or published papers helps tremendously in this effort and results in better articles.

Whether it's worth the effort for you to find such a source is up to you. If not, maybe someone else will come along, see this discussion, and know just where to look. Or, like I said, maybe other editors will think your source is sufficient. SQGibbon (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reasoned response. I guess the core of the disagreement concerns the term “claim.” Help me out here. I mentioned (by way of example) the lack of a name for the story’s narrator. If this were an article about “Nameless Narrators,” would WP rules demand a reliable source for stating TGB’s narrator is nameless? I.e., in that context, would that be considered a “claim?” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roricka (talk • contribs) 03:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that would be a claim also. If it happened in the TGB article without a citation, one could probably get away with mentioning it. If the article was about "Nameless Narrators" then I would want there to be a reliable source cited for supporting that claim.

Let me go into more detail. Wikipedia's editor have reached a consensus that the plot of a book, film, etc, does not need to be cited. Readers can verify those claims themselves by viewing/reading the subject and all people are doing is reporting what is there. But any analysis needs to be cited. For example, if we claim that story X is an example of an allegorical tale, we would need to provide a secondary source for that claim.

With nameless narrators, if we are just noting that the narrator of a story is nameless then we could do so without a citation as that is just reporting what is in the story. If we were to say that this story is an example of the literary technique of "Nameless Narrator" then we would need a citation for this.

The word "MacGuffin" isn't really a generic term like "nameless narrator" could be. It is only ever used in reference to the narrative technique and would require a citation when used to describe the plot of a story (as it would be a type of analysis). And just like above, the article on MacGuffin would need citations to support any claim that a narrative uses this narrative technique. SQGibbon (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am suggesting adding Character as MacGuffin as a subtopic for this article with the example of the Krista Taylor character in the movie Tar (sorry I don't know how to make the accent over the "a" in this editor). The plot revolves around the decline in popularity and social standing of the main character Lydia Tar which is caused mainly by her interaction with the character Krista Taylor who is never seen except from the back of her head in a couple of early scenes, and KT's suicide. Interactions such as emails between LT & KT, KT's character assassinations by LT and gifts from KT to LT are central to the story, though the KT character is never explored otherwise. Looking for feedback and if acceptable some suggested narrative for the article. Chandoga (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

What sources would this be based on? See WP:V. You need one for each person and the source needs to say specifically they are a MacGuffin. Anything else would be WP:OR. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply