If the author does not tell us...

[ReloadPsi]

...then the answer is "nothing".

That's my personal take on it: if a story has a mysterious box in it, and the author never tells us what is in the box, and no clues exist, then it's empty. If there's a door, and throughout the entire story nobody opens it, nor reveals what's behind it, and no clues are left, there's nothing.

What do you think? (I mean the whole "totally unexplained plot mystery" idea, not the way I just jumped straight to the point with no explanation).

[I Took the Red Pill]

Have you ever seen Pulp Fiction? That's a pretty ridiculous thing to assume, especially in situations when the characters react to what's in the box. Like, y'know, Pulp Fiction.

[ReloadPsi]

Have you ever seen Pulp Fiction? That's a pretty ridiculous thing to assume, especially in situations when the characters react to what's in the box. Like, y'know, Pulp Fiction.

The reaction is a clue.

[rubah]

well, reactions are clues

[Bunny]

Are reactions clues?

Alternatively, I like to make up my own stories about what is in the box.

[Tallulah]

A boat's a boat, but the mystery box could be anything, even a boat!

Tickets to a crappy comedy club would be my main guess... :(

[Heath]

Yeah, I'd agree with the consensus here that especially in Pulp Fiction, the fact that the characters react to what's in the briefcase leaves some room for interpretation.

Though even if no clues are provided, that's not to mean it's empty. There's no way to really prove if your speculation is correct or not, but it doesn't necessarily mean there's nothing in there. I suppose you could argue that there's nothing 'essential to the plot' there for that particular film/book which I might be more inclined to agree with.

[Madame Adequate]

If the author doesn't tell us, then he's lazy and inept, unable to think of something really worthwhile as a plot device and thus resorting to a cackhanded mystery.

[Zante]

The author might actually know what is in the box, he just doesn't want to tell us. So yeach, I don't agree with the statement.

[silentenigma]

Unless the clues to what's in the box make it very obvious as to what is in the box, it is assumed that the author wants to leave it up to interpretation from the reader.

[Nominus Experse]

Have you met our friend MacGuffin?

[Miriel]

Unless the clues to what's in the box make it very obvious as to what is in the box, it is assumed that the author wants to leave it up to interpretation from the reader.

Yes.

There are plenty of times when an author leaves something ambiguous, not because they haven't conceptualized something or they're lazy, or they're stuck and need an easy way out, but because they want to leave it up to the reader.

[Tavrobel]

Sometimes the most appropriate thing is the product of the reader's imagination. Reactions are usually clues.

[Madame Adequate]

I don't read novels or watch movies to tell myself a story. There is no good reason to leave out important imformation - you're either lazy, or you're unable to think of something which will intrigue your audience half as much as a mystery is.

Now granted, most of the alternatives are MacGuffins. Doesn't mean that you're avoiding the easy way out just because you take a different easy way out.

[BG-57]

Generally MacGuffins are explained, even if they have no inherent value in of themselves, only by what people are willing to do to get their hands on them. Like the letters of transit in Casablanca or the Maltese Falcon in...well, you know.

My guess is the MacGuffin in Pulp Fiction, by not being explained, is reminding the audience that it is only a MacGuffin, and the contents don't really matter. It's a sly wink to the audience, as it were.