In The Princeton Guide to Historical Research (p. 280), I note that many historians structure their works in three parts (plus an introduction and conclusion), allowing for a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. I borrowed this idea from drama and cinema.

Now I learn from Elliott Kalan’s Joke Farming: How to Write Comedy and Other Nonsense that jokes can work the same way. He writes:

Let’s look at a joke from the all-time great stand-up Rita Rudner:

I broke up with my boyfriend. He wanted to get married, and I didn’t want him to.

You could break it down as “setup/punchline” structure, like this:

Setup: “I broke up with my boyfriend.”

Punchline: “He wanted to get married, and I didn’t want him to.”

Or this way:

Setup: “I broke up with my boyfriend. He wanted to get married,”

Punchline: “and I didn’t want him to.”

But to me, it feels more elegant to break down the structure like this:

Act 1: “I broke up with my boyfriend.” (establishing a premise)

Act 2: “He wanted to get married,” (bridge, providing new information)

Act 3: “and I didn’t want him to.” (payoff, with surprising, but logical, information)

It’s nice to think I have something in common with great comedians!