*Insert Literary Blog Name Here* (noun): a small corner of the blagosphere dedicated to books, writing, and kidlit. Come for the book lists. Stay for the coffee.
Yesterday, I had a session with my critique group (lovely ladies full of fantastic feedback*).While we were discussing submissions, I realized that a lot of criticisms come down to the rule of three.
So what’s the rule of three? It’s lots of things.
1. Weighing feedback.
Ever had a manuscript where the same issue is flagged by more than on person in a critique session? I have (it’s usually a word choice thing). If it’s just one opinion, I usually leave the manuscript as is (unless the feedback really resonates with me). If it’s two opinions, I flag it as something to think about. Three is the magic number–when I have a three opinion issue, I know it’s a big one, and I have to make a change.
2. Repetition
I have a couple of rules about repetition–I learned them from my 10th grade English teacher. One is that you should never start consecutive paragraphs with the same word. The other is to avoid using the same word too close together (e.g. “Are you going to head over soon?” I begin to shake my head, then think better of it.) And while they work for me most of the time, things change when the repetition comes in threes.
Why? Three is a natural number for emphasis. Many speakers reiterate important points three times during their speeches. Picture books tend to use three repetitions of an event when building to a climax. Fairy tales use three magic objects, or grant the hero three attempts at saving the princess.
When I see I’ve repeated a word three times close together (or started a paragraph with the same word three times), I know I’m trying to say something important. Usually, this means I end up expanding the point. Sometimes, it means I play with the relevant lines, but leave the word in to create a certain tension, or atmosphere.
3. Reacting to an information dump.
Everyone has information dump scenes. It’s part of storytelling. Of course, the best authors write information dump scenes such that the reader isn’t really aware of them. How? One way is to include a lot of character reaction, to let the reader see inside the protagonist’s head (Ursula K. LeGuin does this really well). But it’s easy to overdo the reactions and frustrate the reader–after all, an information dump is the reader’s chance to gain information, and most of us want to skip the shilly-shallying and just get to the point.
Here, the rule of 3 applies a couple of ways (sadly, not 3 ways; I can’t pull off a meta-rule). First: I don’t let information dump scenes exceed three pages. If I need more than three pages, I need to tighten up my writing. Second: no more than three character reactions in the section unless the responses drive the discovery (like an interrogation) or direct the scene to the next point.
Don’t think three is enough? Reactions don’t include descriptions, such as the information dump character pausing, getting up, etc. More importantly, though, remember that character reactions can be quite detailed. Use them to give more insight into a character–don’t fall into the yes-no trap. Instead, detail the character’s physical reactions (picking at a hem, chewing on hair, stomach churning, goosebumps) and thoughts/emotional reactions. Try to make them play off each other–if something frightens your character, then it makes sense for her heart to be pounding, or her skin to be covered in gooseflesh. (Watch out for cliches, though).
Do you have any 3x rules of your own?
(*Curious about my group? Check out fellow critiquers Amitha and Livia’s blogs.)
Do you have any rec’s for good Ursula Le Guin books? I tried Wizard of Earthsea but couldn’t get into it.
@Amitha – Gifts is a pretty strong YA, and you might find it loosely relevant just now. It’s part of a series, but I’ve only read the first so far.
I think the books after Wizard of Earthsea are stronger. Tales from Earthsea is short stories you might like, though The Farthest Shore is probably the most relevant to this post. It’s very metaphorical in parts–I don’t know how you feel about that. I think I know where both my copies are, so I can drop them ’round sometime if you like. (Gifts is still on loan, otherwise you could have it, too.)
Since we’re such a small group, I tend to go by the rule of 2. If two people (50-75% of my critiquers)say the same thing, then I’ll give it serious consideration.
Orson Scott Card had some good advice for avoiding an information dump while still conveying information in How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy.
@Livia – I love his “how to write” stuff. I attended a couple of sessions with him at Harvard year before last and learned So Darned Much.
We are a pretty small group, so 2 might be a better number. I count a few of my outside readers, too, though–I have 3 others plus group, sometimes 4.
I find I’m more likely to take something on board, though, if I can (a) see how to fix it straight away (b) the critiquer can explain their issue a bit. I’ll look at things regardless, but (a) and (b) make it much easier for me to work out what’s wrong, so I’m more likely to find a fix.
[...] ruined my work. Yes, ruined–because the story was no longer mine. Nowadays, I work by the rule of three, [...]