That's a really, really good question. I never actually considered it before...which is kind of odd, because I thought I'd seen everything.
The three (a-ha!!) examples you give represent different eras of human history. And of course, there's the "Holy Trinity" viewpoint (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) that some writers may have had in mind.
The Three Musketeers, for example, was part of a series of short stories by Alexandre Dumas. The series was published in (around) 1844; and it turns out that Dumas had "borrowed" the character of D'Artagnan from another source. Dumas' version of D'Artagnan was much more popular than his predecessor, and the resulting stories were eventually collected (by popular demand) and assembled into chapters/books.
The Musketeers represented a "triumvirate" of cohesive characters; they were a team, although each could act independently if the need arose. And together, they fought for a "common cause", freeing people from oppression, indignity, etc.
In "The Three Little Pigs", the same idea applies; although the pigs work independently (each pig builds his own house, out of straw, wood, or bricks/rocks), in the end they unify. They manage to subdue their oppressor (the Big Bad Wolf), or at least elude him.
In "Goldilocks", the tables are turned, as far as the "triumvirate" goes. The bears (in this story) appear to be the aggressive ones. Poor Goldilocks...all she was doing was looking for a place to sleep (and some porridge to eat), and these bears gave her a hard time. In some versions of the story, Goldilocks is scared away by the bear family; in other versions, the bears eat her (there may be other versions, too).
But when you consider the facts: Goldilocks is the intruder. She probably means no harm, but how are these simple bears supposed to know that? All the bears know is that there is an intruder in their home. This person has eaten their food, and slept in their beds! (and in some versions, sat in their chairs, etc) The bears (as is the common thread) are acting on behalf of the "whole"; reacting/defending in the name of the common good.
2006-08-16 15:12:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by jvsconsulting 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Three is used in all forms of art and design, as well literature. It's a balance issue. When writers write a series, they usually write three books, not four, creating a trilogy. Yet, JK Rowlings is writing seven Harry Potter books. Why not eight, or six? You always use an odd number in lieu of an even number to create interest. In the examples of the literature that you speak of, it's simply a matter of...simplicity. In art and design, it's for form and balance. When you see a still life, you never see an even number of items on a table, it's always an odd number. When a designer stacks books on a coffee table, there are always three or five.
The same can be said for literature. Check out the number of chapters in the next book you read. Literature is also an art form.
2006-08-16 22:53:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
It just seems that 3 and 7 are magic numbers in such situations. Maybe it's three just because that's the lowest number that's truly a group. Two people can agree or disagree over certain situations. Three people can actually get more complex interations. Any more characters don't add much depth, and you have to provide more character personalities. Three seems to be the most effective and efficient number. Beats me where the 7 comes from.
2006-08-16 22:41:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Phil 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Three has always had spiritual significance. It's rounded and perfect and representative of the higher power).
2006-08-16 22:54:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by Bonapartess 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
three! AS IN 3 PEOPLE,3 BEARS
2006-08-16 21:48:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋