Deus ex machina

[Drakai]

What are your thoughts? Is it possible to use this in a way that complements the story and does not provide an easy way out?

I personally think it can be used sometimes to show the powerlessness of main characters or the power of the person or object that acts as deus ex machina. Also, using it early might be better.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I think it only works in a very short story for a humorous unexpected ending to a whimsical tale.

 

[JG Martin]

I loath deus ex machina. Stretching believability is okay, but the characters should get themselves out of the situation. Otherwise it seems like lazy writing in the cavalry comes riding over the hill to save the day trope. Why care about the peril the characters are in if they always get saved by a stroke of luck or act of god? One exception is if god or a god is actually intervening, but you need to have a reason for it.
Stargate Universe was a horrible violator of deus ex machina. Probably part of why it was canceled even though the premise and many of the characters were good.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think it's a fine balancing act between building what is needed to resolve the story and not actually spoiling...

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Co-coincidently this evening I just finished Daughter of the House by Catherine Gaskin. (c) 1952, 1st published 1952.

Spoiler: Oh dear!

Maura (a part "Irish" Catholic born in England) falls in love with American Johnnie who is married to Irene. He also falls in love with her. His beautiful wife suddenly turns out to be 1/8th African American and 3 months pregnant. So she jumps in front of a bus so Johnnie can marry Maura and because the child might be coloured and she never told Johnnie about her background.

After this totally unexpected revelation and event the book staggers on for another 70 odd pages

Spoiler: Arrrgh!

because though earlier he told Irene he was divorcing her, now he refuses to marry Maura. Of course he changes his mind on the last page. ... due to the start of the Korean War! Apart from sailing to Ostend and a visit to a Race in Ireland almost nothing else happens in the book. Mostly Maura musing about stuff interspersed with dialogue and maybe three kisses. Perhaps Maura and Johnnie were more intimate overnight on the yacht trip to Ostend, but no mention of it

I'm assured Catherine Gaskin has written much better books. This one didn't work for me from beginning to end. There were a couple of minor events. But the single major event was unexpected and seemed pulled out of a hat.

 

[Warren_Paul]

True Deus ex Machina is just poor story telling.

but like the clichés/tropes/archetypes argument, we have to consider what defines Deus ex Machina? I've found times where the groundwork is made for the resolution, it's just that some people don't notice it, which makes them think "that's Deus ex Machina!" when it really wasn't. I agree with Jo about the balancing act. We have to hint at it without spoiling it, but the problem comes that some people need bigger hints than others that can only be solved by spoiling it for those who already noticed the hints.

 

[Drakai]

I don't know, it seems unrealistic to me if people get out of everything by their struggle all the time. In life there are a lot of times that something magical happens for no reason and it solves a problem we had for a while. Why can't the same be viable for a stroy?

 

[tinkerdan]

I'm not sure if Ironic twists at the end could be considered Deus ex Machina.
But I think anything that surprises the reader at the end can be troublesome.
Even leaving breadcrumbs throughout the piece you can go over the head of the reader and they will still be surprised so you just have to measure out how much you want to keep certain things a mystery or an unknown and hope for the best.

Even with a POV where it couldn't have advanced knowledge of the event ,it still leaves a bad taste; though it might logistically be improbable that the POV could have known that the event might occur. You would have to invent clues that they could see yet not decipher and make that believable in order to warn the reader through the clues and that would still run a risk that some readers would miss it just as the POV has missed it..

Or you could just break the forth wall and say unbeknownst to me or them...

It all still seems bad form.

 

[Mad Alice]

I am all for instilling magic in our work. But there must be limits, or you run the risk of having the reader think "they could have done that in the beginning and save umpity-blinking pages, I had to read through!".
Its like the Eagles argument in Lord Of The Rings. I mean, the Eagles could have dumped the One Ring directly in the mouth of Mount Doom, spit spot, right after the council meeting. Sha-boom! Book is done. But that wouldn't have been much of a story, now, would it?

Look at it another way. We write books to solve a problem. One that our readers are drawn to because it reflects a situation or frustration of their own lives. What kind of message are we giving them with Deux Ex Machina? That there is no hope for them, no way to solve the problems extant in their lives outside of the intervention of a god? That they are powerless to affect the course of their own lives? That all we exist for is to be the pawn of destiny?

 

[Wanderlog]

We write books to solve a problem. One that our readers are drawn to because it reflects a situation or frustration of their own lives.

Exactly. No book can exist without a conflict that the protagonist struggles to settle or a problem (s)he has to solve. It reflects the real life.

Deus Ex Machina makes the plot and the protagonist look stupid and invalidates the entire story. The author must have really serious reasoning behind the sudden appearance of such an omnipotent deity, and it's better to use such mental efforts for better thinking over the plot.

 

[LittleStar]

Wile I agree with the whole thing being a bit of a downer, I personally don't use it, I also think that drakai does have a point, sometimes things just happen. Maybe that doesn't leave the best taste in the mouths of readers, but you can turn it all around and still have both the struggle to survive, in the cavalry over the hill example, with the soldiers fighting and doing their best, maybe they are going to win maybe they are going to lose. But when reinforcements arrive the sense of the scene changes from their already massive struggle and personal conflict to a relief, their battle has been won, they survived until reinforcements.

Is that just not a shift of goal for the scene, instead of pure deus ex machina?

So yeah, uh, balancing act...

 

[Ray McCarthy]

solves a problem we had for a while. Why can't the same be viable for a stroy?

Real Characters are boring in a story.
Real transcription of a dialogue is unreadable.
Co-incidence that happens in real life is unbelievable in a story.
Unexpected out of nowhere salvation or disaster is unbelievable in a story.

People want a certain level of logic. That's why they have some aspects of religion, superstition and science to explain it.

"Did the Tower of Siloam kill the people because of their sin?"
- "No, stuff happens."

Stories need on one level, even if absolute fantasy, need an internal logic and narrative progression that doesn't exist in the real world. That (and entertainment) is one reason we like them. We want to believe our dreams (or nightmares), but want the characters to "win" or "fail" without obvious plot-hole filling by their unseen and unknown God (the Author).

 

[farntfar]

What kind of message are we giving them with Deux Ex Machina? That there is no hope for them, no way to solve the problems extant in their lives outside of the intervention of a god? That they are powerless to affect the course of their own lives? That all we exist for is to be the pawn of destiny?

Well you're right of course, but aren't super heroes filling this need all the time?
And even the super heroes need unreasonable misuse of their power from time to time.
Superman loses Lois down a seismic fissure, so he zooms round the world so fast he goes back in time and saves her? (and incidentally at the same replayed time saves everyone else that he was too busy saving to save her. Duh!)

We want these logical inconsistencies all the time, they just ain't Deus shaped and don't come out of the machina.

Then of course we need to create some baddy gods to redress the balance and give Thor someone decent to fight.



Actually, time tavel is the biggest deus ex machina of the lot.

 

[Maieius]

Its like the Eagles argument in Lord Of The Rings. I mean, the Eagles could have dumped the One Ring directly in the mouth of Mount Doom, spit spot, right after the council meeting. Sha-boom! Book is done. But that wouldn't have been much of a story, now, would it?

I'm not sure if I read this somewhere or if this was how I went came to this myself (pretty certain I read it somewhere) but I always got past that by saying if the eagles did just fly into Mordor, the nazgul would intervene before they could get to Mount Doom. The eagles would have been seen before they even got to Mordor, most likely.

I, personally, think a deus ex machina only works if it's been somewhat foreshadowed. The great plot twist needs to be there somewhere for the reader to not feel cheated and yet not expect it at the same time. I think, in certain stories, that it would help for the reader to think of their own solution and to think of how they might conquer. However, this means leaving many different, but difficult, options for the character depending on their goal. There also has to be an equal amount of conflict - at the minimum, it must be equal. But it entirely depends on the story as well.

In fact, the entire concept depends on the story itself. It's a very tricky one and I think if there are deus ex machina's in a story, there has to be consequences.

 

[Drakai]

Look at it another way. We write books to solve a problem. One that our readers are drawn to because it reflects a situation or frustration of their own lives. What kind of message are we giving them with Deux Ex Machina? That there is no hope for them, no way to solve the problems extant in their lives outside of the intervention of a god? That they are powerless to affect the course of their own lives? That all we exist for is to be the pawn of destiny?

I think that's not a bad message to give. No matter how much you try, you are going to fail at something and will need help.

On another note, I'm not sure if our understanding of deus ex machina is the same. Would you call a character appearing and helping the protagonist out of an impossible situation a deus ex machina for example? I would, but that sort of thing happens in life and I've seen it done in stories without ever bothering me.

 

[MWagner]

Deus ex machina happens all the time, even in highly popular and highly regarded novels. I cast aside The Golden Compass in frustration after the protagonist was abducted not once, but twice by snowmobile-riding raiders who appeared out of nowhere and couldn't be stopped. It seemed like incredibly lazy writing to me, but evidently it didn't bother most people.

 

[Ogma]

My understanding is that deus ex machina is that the resolution is abrupt and has no basis in the story up to its appearance. If the resolution is foreshadowed then it's not a DEM. For instance, I wouldn't count the Superman example as a DEM because (if I remember right) his time travel power was foreshadowed. In fact, he was warned not to use it.

Would you call a character appearing and helping the protagonist out of an impossible situation a deus ex machina for example?

For me, it would depend on the credibility of the character's presence.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I, personally, think a deus ex machina only works if it's been somewhat foreshadowed.

If it has been foreshadowed then is it a deus ex machina? The modern literature definition is that: a conflict arises in the narrative and is then resolved by suddenly introducing a god-like character, or unexpected force, or event. If you've foreshadowed it then it's no longer unexpected but becomes something else, no?

To give an answer to your question @Drakai , unless an author is making some sort of major point about the hopelessness of humanity's position or something thematically grand like that, then they just frustrate and make it more likely I will not read any more of that author's work. Particularly if a deus ex machina is injected to solve simple and small plot points. (Everyone bangs on about the Eagles in LotR, but what about the two bands of orcs practically wiping each other out at the tower of Cirith Ungol, giving Sam a more or less free run to rescue Frodo?)

I was trying to think of good and bad examples. (IMHO I will add!)

Good - the end of the novel Lord of the Flies when the Naval officer finds the boys on the shore - a neat ending that adds another layer to the themes explored in the book.

Absolutely gawd-damn awful - Christopher Reeve making the Earth spin round the opposite way to go back in time and save Lois Lane and everyone else in Superman I. Even as a 6 year old in the cinema I had problems with this ending - I mean if he can do that, then that solves all problems from then on, right?* And also - if he'd been able to go so fast to make time change - he was zipping around the earth pretty fast - then he seemed to be fast enough to catch both nuclear missiles, no? So why didn't he get his speed up then?

I think that film might have sown the seeds that have grown into my moderate dislike of the whole superhero genre...

---------------------------------------------------

*Ogma - I don't remember any foreshadowing whatsoever- but, hey, I could be wrong. All I can see on the interweb is his dad telling him 'not to interfere with human history' which doesn't equate in my book to 'don't go back in time', I see that as 'don't use your power to make humanity do what you want'.

 

[Maieius]

If it has been foreshadowed then is it a deus ex machina? The modern literature definition is that: a conflict arises in the narrative and is then resolved by suddenly introducing a god-like character, or unexpected force, or event. If you've foreshadowed it then it's no longer unexpected but becomes something else, no?

This is what stopped me from posting this before, but I just thought I'd say it anyway! I think it depends on the foreshadowing itself, something can foreshadowed but not necessarily expected. If it's keeping strict to the definition of a new saviour out of the blue, then I don't think it's a good way of storytelling. I think it's very cheating and quite lazy. I personally wouldn't be pleased if I'd read about the growth of a character, wondering how he's going to overcome, if he does, to then have all the work done for him.

 

[Venusian Broon]

This is what stopped me from posting this before, but I just thought I'd say it anyway! I think it depends on the foreshadowing itself, something can foreshadowed but not necessarily expected. If it's keeping strict to the definition of a new saviour out of the blue, then I don't think it's a good way of storytelling. I think it's very cheating and quite lazy. I personally wouldn't be pleased if I'd read about the growth of a character, wondering how he's going to overcome, if he does, to then have all the work done for him.

I did ask it as a question, rather than a fact, because I started to think that what you've said above might be allowable

Do you have a good working example of something that is foreshadowed but is not necessarily expected that we could dissect?