The rule of three clearly does not only apply to comedic literature and media and is present in all sorts of literature. It is so common that it almost seems second nature to many writers and readers. I remember freshman year of high school, my English class read the Gettysburg address to see how Lincoln utilizes the rule of three. For example, he says “But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate [1] -- we can not consecrate [2] -- we can not hallow [3] -- this ground.” This pattern of three, especially with the pauses in between, creates a beat that sounds rhythmic, poetic, and natural (notice my use of the rule of three).
When I learned about this tactic in high school, it was only in the context of dramatic or solemn texts. I find it interesting how it can also be used in comedy and even helps prove the outlier theory of why we laugh. One of my favorite television shows, Modern Family, also uses the rule of three. In one episode, “Fizbo”, Phil is trying to prove how brave he is, despite being afraid of clowns. He state, “I am brave. Roller coasters? Love ‘em [1]. Scary movies? I’ve seen Ghostbusters, like, seven times [2]. I regularly drive through neighborhoods that have only recently been gentrified [3]. So yeah, I’m pretty much not afraid of anything… Except clowns.” The first two of these are fairly common things for people to be afraid of, but the third example is especially strange. The final item on this list about gentrified neighborhoods shows how the rule of three can enforce the outlier theory. In comedy, the final item in a list of three may be odd and our acceptance of the difference makes us laugh and enjoy the joke.
This is a great point that maybe the rule of three is simply a comedic variation on a premise that actually applies to other kinds of literature. This would raise the question of what the logic of the original rule of three is. Perhaps it has to do with pattern recognition, and then of pattern disturbance or incongruity.
ReplyDelete