![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aquabeanEarlier today, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
khirsah wondered if she was using, "threes," too much in her writing. The question brought to mind a rule of thumb I haven't heard tossed around much since joining the online writing community, and as a kind of encouragement, I wanted to tell her about it.
My "encouragement" has become something of an English essay, and so, for those interested, I give you...
The Rule of Three
Khirsah asked, "I always wonder whether it's getting annoying or if I'm the only one who consciously notices it."
The answer to both these questions would be, no. Whether we realize or not people respond on a fundamentally subconscious level to the "rule of three."
Mentioned in most creative writing (screen play, poetry, playwriting) and theatre courses (directing, acting, design) you might encounter, the rule of three, dictates that something is funny/scary/interesting/memorable if it is used or mentioned or built upon, three times. In theatre you spend a lot of time trying to put a "button" on a scene.
The first time something is used, a particular play on words for instance, it sets up the idea that this thing/action is important. The second time it is used reinforces that importance and alerts us to the fact that we should pay attention to the information that the thing/action may give us. The third time is the pay off. The punch line of a joke, the revealing of a piece of information, the closure of some question or idea that your audience (be it a reading or watching audience) has been waiting for.
To build your audience up by not completing the three-cycle leaves them feeling slighted. Starting with the most simple example possible, let's use your example from before,
He was so slick, so hot, so *wet*...
How would the sentence have sounded if you'd left out one of the descriptors?
He was so slick, so hot...
You loose something. Even if the sentence is broken up by using the word "and" in place of a coma, it lacks the power that comes with the third adjective.
To go past the number three, can also cause problems, however. Again, with the same sentence,
He was so slick, so hot, so *wet*...
Vs.
He was so slick, so hot, so *wet*, so alive...
While this sentence works on a basic level, it's lost a measure of the momentum that made it worthwhile in the first place. To add too much to a scene or sentence is to take away value from whatever it is that you were trying to emphasize.
Perhaps this over extension is most noticeable in comedy, where after three times a joke generally ceases to be funny. Watch an episode of SNL, you'll rarely see any one specific gag, be it physical or verbal, used more than three times in a given skit.
Example: Hagrid in the first Harry Potter film. At three different points in the film he makes a statement along the lines of, "I shouldn't have told you that."
In every instance he has revealed to Harry and his friends some piece of information that he shouldn't have, and each time it is done by accident. The first time this happens the inclination is towards, "Oh! Look what he's done!" The second time, "Hee! He's done it again," and the third, "Good! The kids got that last bit of information they needed! Now they can save the day!"
If, however, he had done it a fourth time, the audience would have begun to doubt Hagrid's value. Why would Dumbledore have trusted a man who was that incapable of keeping a secret? This, in turn, would devalue not only our acceptance of Hagrid and a worthwhile friend and confidant for Harry, but also Dumbledore and his ability to make choices that are for the best. But set at three this is a small gag that not only remains amusing, but also gives the audience vital expository information in the form of entertainment.
As you can see, your inclination toward the use of "threes," is not only correct, but a positive impulse. Instances that ignore this rule tend to do so over a longer period (sets of three, mingled together) or aim at another odd number (fives can work as well, but in more expository form, rather than comedic), with which to pass information along to their audience.
Most of us, as writers, tend to do this numbering unconsciously. It is, however, something worth noting when looking over a work as a whole. A particular statement doesn't flow with the rest of story, why? An idea that you've gone over, and over no longer carries the emotional impact you thought it should, why? Paying attention to how ideas and situations repeat themselves in a story can be infinitely helpful -- that joke might be funnier if you take to an extreme the third time. Making someone cry four times, might just turn them into a cry baby rather than an character who is struggling with a great deal of emotion.
Small rules like these, generally left unspoken, are one which time and experience have taught us, and as such are worth learning about and from. And by following them we are not limiting ourselves, but are, instead, acknowledging those things which have been learned by artist who came before us and using those techniques to tell our own stories, and maybe teach something to a new generation of storytellers.
khirsah wondered if she was using, "threes," too much in her writing. The question brought to mind a rule of thumb I haven't heard tossed around much since joining the online writing community, and as a kind of encouragement, I wanted to tell her about it.My "encouragement" has become something of an English essay, and so, for those interested, I give you...
The Rule of Three
Khirsah asked, "I always wonder whether it's getting annoying or if I'm the only one who consciously notices it."
The answer to both these questions would be, no. Whether we realize or not people respond on a fundamentally subconscious level to the "rule of three."
Mentioned in most creative writing (screen play, poetry, playwriting) and theatre courses (directing, acting, design) you might encounter, the rule of three, dictates that something is funny/scary/interesting/memorable if it is used or mentioned or built upon, three times. In theatre you spend a lot of time trying to put a "button" on a scene.
The first time something is used, a particular play on words for instance, it sets up the idea that this thing/action is important. The second time it is used reinforces that importance and alerts us to the fact that we should pay attention to the information that the thing/action may give us. The third time is the pay off. The punch line of a joke, the revealing of a piece of information, the closure of some question or idea that your audience (be it a reading or watching audience) has been waiting for.
To build your audience up by not completing the three-cycle leaves them feeling slighted. Starting with the most simple example possible, let's use your example from before,
He was so slick, so hot, so *wet*...
How would the sentence have sounded if you'd left out one of the descriptors?
He was so slick, so hot...
You loose something. Even if the sentence is broken up by using the word "and" in place of a coma, it lacks the power that comes with the third adjective.
To go past the number three, can also cause problems, however. Again, with the same sentence,
He was so slick, so hot, so *wet*...
Vs.
He was so slick, so hot, so *wet*, so alive...
While this sentence works on a basic level, it's lost a measure of the momentum that made it worthwhile in the first place. To add too much to a scene or sentence is to take away value from whatever it is that you were trying to emphasize.
Perhaps this over extension is most noticeable in comedy, where after three times a joke generally ceases to be funny. Watch an episode of SNL, you'll rarely see any one specific gag, be it physical or verbal, used more than three times in a given skit.
Example: Hagrid in the first Harry Potter film. At three different points in the film he makes a statement along the lines of, "I shouldn't have told you that."
In every instance he has revealed to Harry and his friends some piece of information that he shouldn't have, and each time it is done by accident. The first time this happens the inclination is towards, "Oh! Look what he's done!" The second time, "Hee! He's done it again," and the third, "Good! The kids got that last bit of information they needed! Now they can save the day!"
If, however, he had done it a fourth time, the audience would have begun to doubt Hagrid's value. Why would Dumbledore have trusted a man who was that incapable of keeping a secret? This, in turn, would devalue not only our acceptance of Hagrid and a worthwhile friend and confidant for Harry, but also Dumbledore and his ability to make choices that are for the best. But set at three this is a small gag that not only remains amusing, but also gives the audience vital expository information in the form of entertainment.
As you can see, your inclination toward the use of "threes," is not only correct, but a positive impulse. Instances that ignore this rule tend to do so over a longer period (sets of three, mingled together) or aim at another odd number (fives can work as well, but in more expository form, rather than comedic), with which to pass information along to their audience.
Most of us, as writers, tend to do this numbering unconsciously. It is, however, something worth noting when looking over a work as a whole. A particular statement doesn't flow with the rest of story, why? An idea that you've gone over, and over no longer carries the emotional impact you thought it should, why? Paying attention to how ideas and situations repeat themselves in a story can be infinitely helpful -- that joke might be funnier if you take to an extreme the third time. Making someone cry four times, might just turn them into a cry baby rather than an character who is struggling with a great deal of emotion.
Small rules like these, generally left unspoken, are one which time and experience have taught us, and as such are worth learning about and from. And by following them we are not limiting ourselves, but are, instead, acknowledging those things which have been learned by artist who came before us and using those techniques to tell our own stories, and maybe teach something to a new generation of storytellers.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-16 04:08 pm (UTC)[ Paying attention to how ideas and situations repeat themselves in a story can be infinitely helpful -- that joke might be funnier if you take to an extreme the third time. Making someone cry four times, might just turn them into a cry baby rather than an character who is struggling with a great deal of emotion. ]
You can manipulate the three times = comfort zone rule, though, and poke and prod at certain bits of the subconscious. For example, the Dresden Doll's Coin Operated Boy. In one bit, the lyrics repeat "And I'll never be alone-go" five times. Three times was alright. Four times was disconcerting. Five times makes the listener uncomfortable. Great , in my opinion, way to break the rule of three.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-16 04:59 pm (UTC)Ah, yes, very good point. The thing, I think, that gets missed, though, is that you have to know how to use a rule before you can break it effectively.
On a regular basis I begin sentences with words like, "and," or "but," words I was taught from the very beginning were never to be used in that fashion. But (yes, irony intended), as I've grown as a writer I've learned the times and places to ignore those rules and use the language to make the point I want to make.
With so much fiction flooding the net it's interesting to see how many people follow these conventions and how many disregard them all together. There's a huge number of writers out there, many of them young (And no, if you're some random young writer reading this, I'm not saying this because you're young. You just happen to make a good example. Old people do this too.) or inexperienced, who look at "rules" and say, "Why? If I'm just going to break it, why bother learning it?" It's not to say, either, that we need to start giving out some kind of writing test in order to be able to put writing out on the web, but that we should encourage the learning of these rules. And then we should encourage breaking them.
*stepping off soap box* Um. Yeah. Heh.
Also, thanks. It's hard to gauge who's actually going to care about an essay written about the semantics of literary convention. *grins*
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-16 05:25 pm (UTC)and isn't it interesting how other aspects of life play this way--the tripartite soul, the tripartite psyche, the three branches of government, the triangle composition in art--
something about three is a powerful psychological motivator
(and no, Sanzo, we're not speaking of you)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 10:05 am (UTC)(also, who wouldn't consider Sanzo a powerful psychological motivator? Heh.)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-06 08:53 am (UTC)All in all, it made me realise a bit how writing should work :) Great essay! Thank you for sharing :)
(Sorry for the mistakes... should write in english more -_-)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-06 09:57 am (UTC)Glad you liked the essay too. *grins* Don't even worry about making mistakes! Your English is great as far as I can tell.