Deus ex Machina vs. Strong As They Need To Be

Darth Angelus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
477
Hi, all!

Upon reading this other ongoing thread about magic systems someone brought up how magic can be used as Deus ex Machina, which made me think about this trope, and how it sort of relates to another trope (I believe), namely when characters in a story are as strong as they need to be.
The reason I am opening this thread is that I think this topic is different enough from the topic about magic systems that I didn't want to borrow that thread for it, but I wanted to give credit to someone else for making me think of this. So thanks for that!

A previously unknown spell or magical power, suddenly given to a magic user protagonist in order to resolve a difficult situation, was correctly called (I think) Deus ex Machina in that thread. At the same time, I think the other trope is clearly used as well, because there is little or no doubt that said magic user protagonist is indeed strong as they need to be in such a situation.

Upon more careful thought, I have come to the conclusion that the two tropes seem to be rather closely related, at least in the worst cases of the latter, when it is used to suddenly upgrade the skills, powers or abilities of the hero in order to enable them to resolve a difficult situation (rather than the opposite, in which their abilities are downgraded in order for them to be challenged by opposition that should be trivial, according to previously established internal story logic). They both boil down to a situation in which the good side or the protagonists, as they have been established, are (or should be) too overmatched to have any chance of winning **, so some new force needs to be introduced late in the story in order to enable the typically required triumph of the good side.
The main difference seems to be that while Deus ex Machina introduces this new force in a new package, the strong as they need to be tropes puts it into a character that already exists. Because magic powers can be viewed as being either inside or outside the user (they are abilities of the user, but at the same time, they belong to an external system in the fictional world), it seems that the two tropes can actually overlap in that particular case.

So, which of these two tropes is the worst (in cases where they don't overlap, obviously)? In general, I think most readers would like Deus ex Machina the least. After all, almost all speculative fiction uses the strong as they need to be to some extent (I would argue), and a limited amount of it can become suspended disbelief. Where the line (of how much is too much of this trope) is drawn is subjective, I guess. However, personally, I think if the magnitude of the latter is severe enough for it to be comparable to the former, it is actually worse. Aside from making somewhat more sense from the perspective of internal logic, I think Deus ex Machina is at least more honest, because it does admit that a new force is being introduced rather than trying to hide it and pretending that nothing is even slightly off. Of course, in ideal cases, neither is used.

What do you think? Does this make any sense at all? Are these two tropes related? Do you agree with me that they are originating from the same problem? I am not sure, because they do not seem to be linking to each other as related tropes would typically be on that site, so maybe I am missing something.



** Just to develop this further, I would say that (as we would all know) with very few exceptions, any story in speculative fiction, or any other type of adventure or action story in which the drama boils down to a struggle between the good (protagonists) and bad (antagonists), the following two conditions are expected to be fulfilled...
1. The good protagonists are overmatched or at least severely challenged at some point, which means that the bad guys will generally have more or less the upper hand in a major part of the story. If this is not the case, the drama will tend to fall flat.
2. The good guys will ultimately come out of the conflict triumphant, as anything else is unsatisfactory if not unpalatable to the typical audience.
In short, the heroes beat the odds.

Writing any good story like this is largely about coming up with clever ways to fulfill both in a way that makes sense, which takes quite some imagination on the part of the author and is frankly rather difficult. On the other hand, fulfilling either one by itself is easy, if the other can be ignored. The good guys being clearly overmatched and then lose would fulfill 1 but not 2. The good guys being clearly undermatched and then win would fulfill 2 but not 1.
It is the weaker side winning that is harder to explain, for obvious reasons. The stronger side winning typically requires little or no explanation, but lacks drama.

Anyway, I would typically say that both of these tropes generally come down to the author attempting to fulfill both 1 and 2, but failing to come up with satisfactory explanations for how the two can both be true. This could be due to lack of imagination, or that they have fulfilled 1 a just bit too much.



Finally, I wasn't sure whether this thread belonged here or in the SFF lounge, so if some moderator feels it belongs elsewhere, I won't mind at all if it is moved.
 
Just to say that magic isn't the only Deus ex Machina out there; I had a character who came in late (because the geography of the story changed to where they were) who came across as such, and it took a fair bit of work to get to the point where they had their own character arc to support their role in the story. So as a term it refers to any device which comes without warning in order to bring about a resolution.


So, which of these two tropes is the worst (in cases where they don't overlap, obviously)?

I'm not sure it's a case of worse. In fact, if you suddenly up a character's potential to being as strong as they need to be without the background to support it, then that's really just a deus ex machina. If, on the other hand, you've managed to create a character well enough that your readers are prepared to suspend disbelief and believe they are as strong as they need to be, that's different. That's good storytelling.



2. The good guys will ultimately come out of the conflict triumphant, as anything else is unsatisfactory if not unpalatable to the typical audience.
In short, the heroes beat the odds.

I think there is room to play around with this. What you're describing is one trope of sff hero, one that's cliched a lot in the genre. Yes, we want the good guys to win, but I applaud anyone who can avoid the hollywood ending. After all the best emotional pull isn't always the happy one.
 
Just to say that magic isn't the only Deus ex Machina out there; I had a character who came in late (because the geography of the story changed to where they were) who came across as such, and it took a fair bit of work to get to the point where they had their own character arc to support their role in the story. So as a term it refers to any device which comes without warning in order to bring about a resolution.
Just for clarification, I totally agree. It is just one of many possible types of Deux ex Machina.
The reason magic was brought up is that is was the case that made me think about the possibility of Deus ex Machina overlapping the other trope.
 
It seems to me that this isn't a question for writers so much as a bit of general philosophising/navel-gazing, so I'm moving it.
 
I agree that they are essentially the same trick - pulling a rabbit out of a hat that hasn't been properly shown before it is used. TV Tropes is an entertaining read (after all, they have a page about my book!) but it suffers from too many names for similar things (I also find it hard to take seriously putting Anime before Literature in the examples box. I know it's alphabetical, but still). I'd say the bigger the interruption to the story, the worse it is, so the Deus ex Machina is often the less bearable of the two, although it can change.

As regards the problem of the underdog heroes winning, there are lots of ways to get around it. The enemy can have a particularly nasty reputation, or to have destroyed their enemies so far as a result of the heroes being badly-prepared or so on and only now face opponents who are ready for the fight and not intimidated. Alternatively the villains can make a bad decision owing to some inherent weakness in their command structure (lunacy will suffice - I can't imagine a democratic leader getting "let's invade Russia!" part his generals). Or there's the simple matter of arrogance against cunning. Early success makes the villains believe themselves indestructible, which renders them open to attack. Although stated plainly some of these may look a bit crude, they do all work provided the writing is good enough.
 
Think this thread is a credit to me, so hooray! ;)

It's a difficult debate. I personally think deus ex machina with regards to fantasy is an example of a writer's poor planning. In my experience, a couple of my characters have gained certain 'powers' as a result of me being like, 'Right, I need this to happen, what could make this happen?' and a lightbulb going off in my head being like, 'Ah, but what if so-and-so can read people's minds...' IMO, deus ex machina is when you leave it at that. Expanding on it makes a good plot point and a good story.

Also, I think this 'strong as they need to be' is just an extension of deus ex machina. In the page it's a 'power previously unhinted at' which for me is as bad as d. ex m. I love giving my readers clues, I love picking up clues in books, I just think it's lazy to whip out 'this fabulous, yet hitherto unmentioned power that will DESTROY/SAVE THE WORLD!!1!!11'
 
The two tropes are related in that they're finding solutions to problems that seem insurmountable. The difference is that we see examples in every day life of the "strong as they need to be" heroism and so can relate to it more than a deus ex machina that just stinks of lazy writing. If a person consistently turns out to be as "strong as they need to be" then it'll again seem lazy because the conflict in the story becomes immaterial.

What you want to have to overcome the lazy aspect of conquering a problem so easily is to have repurcussions that impact the characters involved.
 
springs, I am also all for unconventional endings. However, I think the happy ending by far predates Hollywood. Fairy tales seem to have had them for centuries. Granted, I haven't carefully researched the subject.
Basically, what I meant was that the antagonist's grand evil master plan (or whatever passes for it in the plot) is expected to be foiled at the end. Other than that, the protagonists can indeed suffer severe hardships and major setbacks.

Toby Frost, I think we are mostly on the same page. It may indeed seem like TV Tropes are splitting hairs sometimes. However, in the defence of that site, I didn't really think of this similarity until today, so I wouldn't say it is too obvious, and even though the two tropes seem to do basically the same thing, they do it in different ways that are superficially dissimilar. Maybe they should be subtropes of a common supertrope. Still, TV Tropes seems to be a sort lighthearted site that doesn't take itself too seriously, so I won't nit pick. I really like it for what it is, and have had major fun reading its articles.
As for the underdog hero winning, I agree it isn't too difficult to make it work of and by itself. Any one of those explanations you brought up can work. As you say, though, they can look crude unless they are well-written. Perhaps it would have been better to say it takes some writing skill to pull this off without making it crude.:cool: Also, I think that while it can certainly be done in the scope of the overall story arc, it can become too late. The writer can be cornered (by what they have written earlier) by the time the story is to be resolved.

Think this thread is a credit to me, so hooray! ;)
Aye, it was indeed inspired by your post in the other thread. You made the comment that made me see a connection between these two tropes. Cheers for that! :)

It's a difficult debate. I personally think deus ex machina with regards to fantasy is an example of a writer's poor planning. In my experience, a couple of my characters have gained certain 'powers' as a result of me being like, 'Right, I need this to happen, what could make this happen?' and a lightbulb going off in my head being like, 'Ah, but what if so-and-so can read people's minds...' IMO, deus ex machina is when you leave it at that. Expanding on it makes a good plot point and a good story.
Yeah, agreed. Both tropes are about the writer's poor planning. Of course, if earlier parts of the story have not yet been published, I guess one does not neccessarily need to leave it at that. In the best case scenario, only a few small adjustments in places are required to fix the underlying problem. Of course, in the worst case scenario, the required adjustments would be major and have far-reaching consequences to the overall story. I guess it is best to plan ahead as much as possible to prevent this.

Also, I think this 'strong as they need to be' is just an extension of deus ex machina. In the page it's a 'power previously unhinted at' which for me is as bad as d. ex m.
Yes, indeed, the worst cases seem to basically be sneaky versions of Deus ex Machina.:)

I love giving my readers clues, I love picking up clues in books, I just think it's lazy to whip out 'this fabulous, yet hitherto unmentioned power that will DESTROY/SAVE THE WORLD!!1!!11'
Yes, readers will feel cheated if the story is not planned out well, no doubt.

Dozmonic, agreed, in small doses "strong as they need to be" is indeed not as bad as Deus ex Machina, as it is possible to relate to it to some extent. However, repeated usage (as you bring up) or severe cases makes it just as bad, in my opinion.;)
 
It's a difficult debate. I personally think deus ex machina with regards to fantasy is an example of a writer's poor planning.

Agreed. Used widely by those writers who subscribe to the "Indiana Jones School of Writing", i.e., "I'm just making this up as I go." If you need the cavalry to rescue you at the end, You might need to rethink your whole story approach. But of course, the Greeks did it a lot anyway.
 
This is one reason why I don't tend to like magic in books - it becomes a deus ex machina device on its own. When faced with any kind of adversity, simply a wiggle of your wrist and adversity is removed. The character does not triumph through skill, merely having the abilities of a demi-god that makes them an effective walking deus ex machina. I think this is a far serious problem in fantasy, than a swordsman who suddenly finds the willpower to fight to triumph with a chief antagonist (cf, the Spnish swordsman in The Princes Bride).

I find it very telling indeed that in Lord of the Rings, magic is very much a background power, used sparingly and incidentally. Gandalf can produce a light on his staff in Moria, which is wondrous, but he certainly does not unleash a firestorm on the attacking goblins.

Perhaps a greater problem with magic is that any powerful character can become a form of wish-fulfillment for the author. A fantasy of being an indestructible alpha male is bad enough - a fantasy of being a walking god is far more lamentable.

Also, for suspension of disbelief, a world in which demi-gods walk the world destroying what thou wilt is not believable for myself. Put a mage in front of an army to destroy another and wipe them out, and immediately you have just destroyed a major agricultural foundation for that faction; in doing so, potentially wrecked their economy. Somehow magic comes with no practical problems for the survival of civilisation.
 
So, which of these two tropes is the worst (in cases where they don't overlap, obviously)?

I don't know, and I think sometimes it's hard to separate them. A 'Strong as they need to be' can easily become a 'deus ex machina'. I agree with allmywires on this.

I'm not fond of either - and so I like best those authors who either avoid them, or disguise them well when used. As long, that is, as the writing is good, the characters strong, the plot and subplots in general imaginative and gripping. I suppose I enjoy best the kind books where the outcome is uncertain, where you are lost as to which side to be on, where realism in characterisation and inter-personal politics is paramount.

In traditional 'good versus evil' wars - where everything is clear cut. The heroes have to look as if there's a chance they might lose, as you say.

1. The good protagonists are overmatched or at least severely challenged at some point, which means that the bad guys will generally have more or less the upper hand in a major part of the story. If this is not the case, the drama will tend to fall flat.

But this does not mean that the only options are the two tropes you mention. To use one is unimaginative and cliched imo.

However, some people don't want to be challenged by what they read. They want some cosy, predictable thing they can fall asleep to at night, where the expected always happens and they don't need to worry too much about the characters.

A writer who does this all the time, whom I don't like, is David Eddings. You can never believe, for one single second, that any of his characters are in any danger, despite being up against mad gods and universal evil from the dawn of time. And you can tell exactly what is going to happen right from the first chapter. But his books sell really well.
 
This is one reason why I don't tend to like magic in books - it becomes a deus ex machina device on its own. When faced with any kind of adversity, simply a wiggle of your wrist and adversity is removed. The character does not triumph through skill, merely having the abilities of a demi-god that makes them an effective walking deus ex machina.

But, as in LOTR, magic need not be a deus ex machine device.

It may be a lot harder to use and have more far-reaching consequences than a wiggle of the wrist and whatever it is that the hero needs to do is done. It, too, can be a skill, and one hard won at that. A Wizard of Earthsea is largely about dealing with the consequences when a young wizard over-reaches himself magically without thinking about the force he is unleashing.

There are books where the magicians don't use their powers because they are thinking of what it will mean for the survival of civilization, or at least the world as they know it.

In The Rune of Unmaking trilogy, I started out with a world where people are still dealing with the outcome of such a reckless use of magic, and that's why, in the current conflict, the magicians on both sides have to hold back and won't challenge each other in a body. As a result, the conflict hasn't been resolved, and the war (which is largely being fought by ordinary means) goes on and on.
 
This is one reason why I don't tend to like magic in books - it becomes a deus ex machina device on its own. When faced with any kind of adversity, simply a wiggle of your wrist and adversity is removed. The character does not triumph through skill, merely having the abilities of a demi-god that makes them an effective walking deus ex machina.
Agreed. If magic is overused, and the system isn't well constructed, this can happen quite easily and It has happened a great deal in this genre indeed.
I guess this can be mitigated somewhat by clearly defining the magic system. If there is a set system of rules, it can become almost like a science, and it leaves less room for the author to play around. On the other hand, this approach only mitigates the problem. It doesn't eliminate it. Also, it does this at the cost of reducing the mystical quality of magic.

I think this is a far serious problem in fantasy, than a swordsman who suddenly finds the willpower to fight to triumph with a chief antagonist (cf, the Spnish swordsman in The Princes Bride).
Again, agreed. I haven't seen The Princess Bride since I was a child, so I don't remember the scene, but I can imagine the situation. I think that "as strong as they need to be" only becomes a real problem when they go a bit beyond that.

I find it very telling indeed that in Lord of the Rings, magic is very much a background power, used sparingly and incidentally. Gandalf can produce a light on his staff in Moria, which is wondrous, but he certainly does not unleash a firestorm on the attacking goblins.
I have also been thinking about the fact that magic plays a very small role in Tolkien's works compared to a lot of other fantasy, and almost none in the major, large scale battles. Gandalf may use it against the balrog, but he certainly doesn't use it to wipe out masses of enemy foot soldiers (goblins and orcs). It is explained why this is so, in one of his other books.

Also, for suspension of disbelief, a world in which demi-gods walk the world destroying what thou wilt is not believable for myself. Put a mage in front of an army to destroy another and wipe them out, and immediately you have just destroyed a major agricultural foundation for that faction; in doing so, potentially wrecked their economy. Somehow magic comes with no practical problems for the survival of civilisation.
Yes, and in worlds where the magic is very destructively potent, it makes you wonder about what the point is in training conventional armies.


But this does not mean that the only options are the two tropes you mention. To use one is unimaginative and cliched imo.
Indeed, it is often when this failure of imagination has occured (or when the planning is poor, as allmywires added) that a problem is created, and the author pulls out one of those tropes. That is what I wanted to say, anyway.

However, some people don't want to be challenged by what they read. They want some cosy, predictable thing they can fall asleep to at night, where the expected always happens and they don't need to worry too much about the characters.

A writer who does this all the time, whom I don't like, is David Eddings. You can never believe, for one single second, that any of his characters are in any danger, despite being up against mad gods and universal evil from the dawn of time. And you can tell exactly what is going to happen right from the first chapter. But his books sell really well.
I can only agree with you on David Eddings. He is not one of the better fantasy authors out there. I only read the first series, years ago, but I do remember that there was never any sense that the protagonists might fail.
But, as you say, such stories sell, so they must appeal to a certain demographic. I don't think it is the most respected type of fiction, but there is no denying some people like it.
 
Magic should (in my opinion) be non-deterministic. I.e. if you repeat exactly the same spell in exactly the same circumstances, you are not guaranteed to get the same outcome

All too often, magic ends up getting codified and turned into a system, at which point it stops being magic and instead acts as an alternative set of the laws of physics.

This leads to discontinuities in the internal consistency as the author then has to selectively break the rules they just made to allow what they actually want to happen (the underdog heroes beating the powerful overlords or whatever)

If you treat magic as a system, a machine, then it's no surprise when it winds up as the Deus Ex variety
 
The difficulty of making the magic random, James, is that it is no such thing: you, as the author, are actively deciding what will happen (unless you really are tossing a coin each time a character requests the use of magic). In a funny sort of way, it's another example of deus ex machina, just one where the needs of the book (and its author) are served rather than those of the characters.

One way round this might be for the magic to follow rules, but rules of which those trying to wield the magic are (mostly) unaware. That way, authorial integrity is maintained, while magicians don't get it easy.
 
Non-deterministic doesn't necessarily mean random, though in this case I'm being a little pedantic.

It's more how you conceptualise magic. If you hold magic in your hand, it is a tool (a machine). This is often literally the case in fantasy writing. The magic wand or mages' staff or legendary sword of zor.

But if you consider magic as an event, then since time is constantly moving forward and the world constantly changing, no two sets of circumstances will ever be quite the same. Even if the spell cast is identical, even if it has the same outcome or can be categorised by a type of event, all magical events are intrinsically unique

That's why when the kids show their parents where the magical portal to the fairy kingdom was, it has disappeared. The moment has passed and that's part of the appeal. In real life, you think of the times when you thought "wow, that was magic!" and you can never quite replicate it. It was a certain time and place, "you just had to be there"
 
I like your explanation, James.

But it could also be like the Olympic athlete who is able to do the triple jump or execute a specific difficult dive only part of the time. He or she knows how to do it, has the capability, but is not able to execute it on a specific occasion when it matters.

Of course, if that is why the event (or non-event) occurs, the writer would have to make it clear that it is not the magic that has failed, but the magician as vessel for the magic (or, alternatively, as the one who shapes the magic) who was unequal to the task.

Other people are not expected to be infallible, so why should the magician trying to perform a difficult and delicate procedure be any different?
 
What I was trying to point out, James, was the danger that what you mean to be the non-deterministic behaviour of magic in your story may turn out to be too convenient to the needs of the plot.

All that has happened is that you, as the author, want a certain effect, but you've not given the power to your characters to request it directly (not with much hope of getting exactly what they're asking for). With that comes the risk of drifting into deus ex machina. In effect, you've discarded your disguise - the character requesting something magical and getting it (something that the reader could be persuaded was the result of the magician using their skill, training and learning to come up with an answer) - and revealed that your authorial hand alone is delivering the goods.
 
That can be true at any time a capable character fails to do what he or she sets out to do, Ursa. It is, of course, always the writer who decides if that character or any other succeeds and the reader knows this perfectly well. Whether or not a character's success or failure will be credible to the reader -- whether the writer manages to temporarily convince the reader to forget that the writer is in charge of what happens, and not simply chronicling events -- depends on how the situation is prepared for and presented, and how willing the reader is to go along with whatever the writer says. Win a reader's trust early, and they are likely to believe there is a good explanation for everything that happens. Once you lose their trust, they question everything, no matter how trivial.
 
Very true, Teresa.

I'm just suggesting, in my roundabout way, that the fewer opportunities readers have for seeing the strings being pulled, the better (if only because some of us can't always rely on our writing to do the trick :eek:).
 

Similar threads


Back
Top