The Three Body Problem is a 2008 science fiction novel by Liu Cixin. I read it as part of a little project to look at the rule of three, the idea that groups of three seem to resonate with people. In terms of writing, the rule of three refers to three part structure – as in beginning, middle and end – and the portrayal of groups of three characters.

The Three Body Problem describes a conundrum in physics, where it is possible to predict the orbits of two objects circling each other, but almost impossible to do this when a third body is introduced. In Cixin’s book, the three body problem is presented as the Alpha Centauri triple star system. A planet called Trisolaris bumbles along in the vicinity of this triad of stars orbiting chaotically. The planet’s inhabitants have a dreadful time, their climate alternating between roasting heat and deep cold, with occasional equable periods in-between, depending on where the suns are at any particular time. The Trisolarians are looking for a steadier life. After trying and failing to work out a way to predict their suns’ trajectories and adapt accordingly, they decide moving elsewhere is a better option. Their hopes are rewarded when they pick up a message from a secret Chinese facility dedicated to the search for extraterrestrial life. The inhabitants of Trisolaris soon realise this message comes from a very pleasant planet with a nice stable orbit, and a lovely mild climate. And all of this might be theirs, as long as they get rid of the annoying creatures who already live there…

The book is interesting in exploring the philosophical ramifications of the Three Body Problem. Stability is attractive, but can become a lifeless stasis. Introduce a third body and suddenly you have a situation where anything can happen, exciting or terrifying by turns. Perhaps this contradiction informs the rule of three generally. The rule of three might also be considered an anti-rule, a well worn path that can lead anywhere.

As far as the structure of the book itself was concerned, it did follow the rule of three in its division into three sections, and in its use of three main characters. Students of the rule of three have pointed out that trios of characters often embody a basic set of psychological types – the instinctive types, the thinkers, and those who mediate between the two. Some have drawn parallels with Freud’s division of human psychology into thoughtful superego, instinctive id and mediating ego – a bit like Spock, McCoy and Kirk in Star Trek working together on the bridge of the Enterprise. In The Three Body Problem, theoretical physicist Ye Weinjie, practical researcher Wang Miao, and tough-guy policeman Shi Qiang fit these roles. So you could say the book’s form has a clever agreement with its content.

This is an interesting book, particularly if you are pursuing an eccentric interest in the rule of three.

A tornado strikes a Kansas farm, blowing a young girl called Dorothy off to the Land of Oz. Here she meets three characters who are searching for various attributes: a scarecrow wanting brains, a woodcutter made of tin yearning for a heart, and a lion desperate for courage. They all decide to follow the Yellow Brick Road to the Emerald City to find the great wizard Oz. Apparently only Oz has the power to send Dorothy home, and provide her companions with what they desire.

The journey begins and, ironically, it soon becomes clear that each character already has the qualities they feel they lack. The scarecrow, for example, having straw for brains, sees things in a straightforward way. When Dorothy describes the home she is so keen to find again, he wonders why anyone would want to go back to a grey place like Kansas. Dorothy dismisses such nonsense, but on the journey to the Emerald City, it is the Scarecrow who generally does the thinking and comes up with ways out of scrapes.

It’s the same with the Tin Woodman who, not having a heart, is always worried about acting in a heartless way. This means he compensates by always behaving with great sensitivity. When he has a heart, he muses, he won’t have to worry so much.

And then there’s the cowardly lion, who performs many brave acts on the journey. As Oz eventually tells the lion, courage cannot really exist in the absence of fear. The lion’s fearfulness is actually part of his courage.

Which brings us to Oz himself, who turns out to be a circus promoter blown in by accident from Omaha, just pretending to be a wizard. He ‘grants’ his visitors’ wishes, using theatrical flimflam – pins for the scarecrow’s head for example, to make him ‘sharp’. And though Oz gives nothing, he is at least wise enough to realise his limitations.

While he provides Dorothy’s companions with the confidence to believe in what they already have, Oz can’t send Dorothy back to Kansas. For that, he suggests that the homesick girl visits someone with proper magical power, Glinda the Good Witch of the South. But Glinda merely informs Dorothy that she already has the ability to go back to Kansas. It had been there all along in the pair of magic slippers which she inherited from the Wicked Witch of the East, when Dorothy’s wind-borne house fell on her.

This is a fairytale relevant to modern times. Dorothy doesn’t do the usual fairytale thing of waiting around to be rescued by a knight, who in this case seems to have been taken down a peg or two to become a tin man, who is actually rescued by Dorothy. There is also the fact that in praying for rescue, the godlike presence Dorothy seeks turns out to be a mirage. Oz, using showbiz smoke and mirrors, appears in the form of a beautiful woman, a huge face, or a ball of fire, maybe recalling gods, goddesses or sun worship. But these authorities are merely Oz, who has no supernatural power to answer prayers. All of the things we wish for have to be found within ourselves. And yet, even if old forms of omniscient assistance are shown to be a fraud, this modern-feeling story still presents its sources of actual help in terms of ancient religious symbolism. For example, there’s the trinity of helpers assisting Dorothy. Religions often have a group of three central figures, and Dorothy is helped by a group of three. The idea of a helpful trinity also crops up with the powerful Flying Monkeys, who grant three wishes. And Dorothy has to click the heels of her magic shoes together three times to get back to Kansas. There are other possible religious parallels, in the Yellow Brick, which some critics portray as Buddhism’s golden path to enlightenment, and in the cyclone, representing death and rebirth.

Written in 1900, The Wizard of Oz remains a fascinating modern fairytale, accepting the new while continuing with a sense of long established reassurance. Historian William R. Leach summed it up nicely when he said that The Wizard of Oz meets “the particular ethical and emotional needs of people living in a new urban, industrial society. The Wizard of Oz was an optimistic secular text: it helped people feel at home in America’s new industrial economy.”

Small Prophets is a BBC series written and directed by MacKenzie Crook, released in February 2026. The following article might contain spoilers, so watch and enjoy first.

Michael Sleep is a middle-aged man living a lonely existence in a house full of cardboard boxes, with a living room recreating a 1970s Christmas Day. The neighbours nag him about his overgrown garden. He works in a DIY superstore, making fun of customers, and his boss, who focuses on issues like whether the vending machine has enough beef flavour Discos.

He visits his father, Brian, in a care home. Brian has forgotten that Michael’s partner, Clea, disappeared some years previously. When Brian remembers Clea’s disappearance, he offers to help his son by sharing an alchemical recipe taught to him in Egypt by an Italian mystic. This recipe apparently creates small, magical people – homunculi – in water filled glass jars. These creatures have the power of divination and will be able to answer Michael’s questions about Clea.

What’s going on here then? Initially, I assumed the homunculi recipe was just a symptom of Brian’s declining mental state. But no. I was soon confronted by small people in glass jars.

After watching the whole series I had a think. And there seemed much to think about. There’s the fact that this story about fortune-telling homunculi begins with confusion about the past. What happened to Clea? Brian has memory issues. So the past is as enigmatic as the future, into which the homunculi are supposed to provide a glimpse. The present exists between two mysteries it seems. Michael, with the help of Kacey, a young friend from the DIY store, continues to work on his homunculi, developing them towards the stage of divination when they will be able to answer questions. And questions about the past – what happened to Clea? – are wrapped up with questions about the future – will she ever come back?

Is it a coincidence that Michael’s surname is sleep? When Michael first goes to the care home, his father is asleep, as are most of the other residents. Michael himself is shown sleeping a lot. He has strange dreams where he is on a beach holding a large egg, with seagulls flying around his head. Is there a suggestion that we live in a sort of dream state, between a past we are not sure of, and a future we plan for but cannot ever see? In the dream, the egg and all those birds could suggest the chicken and egg conundrum. Which comes first? Or do they exist in a cycle where past and future are part of each other? It is interesting that Michael’s companion in his effort to create the prophets is Kacey, a young woman. Older and younger are working together. Clea, lost in the past, may live on. There could be a chance that Micheal will find her again one day in the future.

Of one thing we can be sure. If Michael does find what he is looking for, it will not be like locating a bucket in a DIY store, or seeing your road illuminated by those pointless security lights, serving only to wake up neighbours with their annoying on and off routine. True answers are revealed in a way that is more like Clea’s name, with its hidden reference to the word ‘clear’, which at first you might not notice. Interesting mystery remains in the clarity.

This is a lot for BBC 2 on a Monday evening in February. Small Prophets is a fascinating, thought provoking and clearly brilliant piece.

Peter Benchley’s Jaws published in 1974 was a massive bestseller, and the Steven Spielberg film version invented the summer blockbuster. Over fifty years later I thought I’d have a look.

I found a story that was a kind of morality tale with no specific moral – an amorality tale if you will.

The shark is the ultimate bad guy of the piece, arriving off the beach of the American resort town of Amity and causing mayhem. An uneasy team gets together to fight the beast, Amity police chief Martin Brody, oceanographer Matt Hooper, and Quint, a local sports fisherman.

As a character the shark is amoral, Hooper explaining that the animal is simply acting instinctively in attacking people. But ideas of morality swirl around the human reaction. Is it immoral to keep the beaches open so that the tourist town of Amity can survive? Should they be closed to protect people from possible shark attack? And while Hooper the scientist, is rational, he can appear cooly unprincipled in his detachment. Look, for example, at how he behaves when Brody’s wife makes a pass at him. Let’s just say he acts on instinct, and doesn’t trouble himself too much with scruples. And Quint, the shark hunting fisherman – a cynical figure who insists on double pay for shark duty, with no care for bathers eaten if the stretched Amity police department can’t meet his demands – hardly a heroic St George saving the kingdom from a dragon.

And then there’s the final section where Quint, Brody and Hooper are hunting the shark. On each side of him, in the characters of his two companions, Brody seems to face a different kind of amorality – Hooper’s scientific detachment, and Quint’s brutish, animal cruelty. Brody has to somehow cobble together a sense of decency in the middle.

Admittedly I did find the writing in Jaws clunky, particularly in its awkward point of view shifts. And the final battle with the shark loses momentum when our heroes take a night off in the middle of the action – which of course didn’t happen in the film. Even so, this remained an interesting and thoughtful read, especially if you think of it as a modern fairytale, where sharks take the place of dragons.