Deus ex machina

[Ogma]

*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'.

Hey, I could be wrong too. I had to reach into a very cobwebbed region of my brain to remember.

 

[Maieius]

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?

I'll use an obvious massive franchise for this example: Harry Potter. In Harry Potter, we knew there would be a final showdown, but that's part of the excitement. You had that final moment and it was a great character moment as well as scary. We knew what Harry had to do and that made it much more frightening and exciting. However, there was some form of a deus ex machina with the elder wand. We didn't find out until the showdown that the wand was loyal to Harry because, in the book, the tussle of Harry disarming Draco wasn't very dramatic. It was there but we didn't pay much attention to it. It was foreshadowed but unexpected. This is why here, I didn't feel cheated, considering Harry had done all of the hard work to get Voldemort so vulnerable in the first place.

I've always been in the opinion with writing that rules can be broken depending on how it's done and so I like to keep an open mind. My opinion of foreshadowing comes from how I might accept it if I were to read it and how I would write it. But I'd much rather read and write something that we've built up to. I certainly prefer having an inkling of what's coming without knowing what the outcome might be and have that big "Ooooohhh!" moment .

 

[Venusian Broon]

However, there was some form of a deus ex machina with the elder wand.

Well I'll fully admit to have not read any Harry Potter, although I have watched all the films, so I do know what you are talking about.

But from what you describe, it doesn't really strike me as DEM. The mechanics of the ownership of the wand are spelled out in the book/film and they aren't broken, are they? It seems that JK Rowling is trying to play 'sleight of hand' to provide a twist with the wand at the end. In effect Voldemort is fooled by his incomplete knowledge of the situation.

Still, I think I know what you are saying for the general case, although I will have to ponder on it to get a good example....(don't wait up, it may take some time...)

 

[Maieius]

Well I'll fully admit to have not read any Harry Potter, although I have watched all the films, so I do know what you are talking about.

But from what you describe, it doesn't really strike me as DEM. The mechanics of the ownership of the wand are spelled out in the book/film and they aren't broken, are they? It seems that JK Rowling is trying to play 'sleight of hand' to provide a twist with the wand at the end. In effect Voldemort is fooled by his incomplete knowledge of the situation.

Still, I think I know what you are saying for the general case, although I will have to ponder on it to get a good example....(don't wait up, it may take some time...)

I'll admit, it's a very poor example, but it's really the only one I can think of that might explain my feelings on the matter. As it was pointed out earlier, what defines a deus ex machina? I think it's all relative. A reader feels cheated if something unexplained suddenly comes to save the day. If it ever is explained afterwards, is it still a deus ex machina? Because if something unexplained happens, I think it would be even worse to end the story without explaining what happened. The characters in the story would be forever grateful in life for a miracle that saved them but the reader wouldn't feel that way.

 

[LittleStar]

I'll admit, it's a very poor example, but it's really the only one I can think of that might explain my feelings on the matter. As it was pointed out earlier, what defines a deus ex machina? I think it's all relative. A reader feels cheated if something unexplained suddenly comes to save the day. If it ever is explained afterwards, is it still a deus ex machina? Because if something unexplained happens, I think it would be even worse to end the story without explaining what happened. The characters in the story would be forever grateful in life for a miracle that saved them but the reader wouldn't feel that way.

In my opinion, if it hapens unexpectedly, then it is DEM. if it is explained afterwards it still remains DEM, the only way, to get around it is to explain it before hand at which point I guess it ceases to be a problem of the unexplained and maybe, unless handled subtly enough (like I think your HP example is above) be ones contrived and stands out just as much.

This is something I very much look out for, and literally makes the difference bewteen something being bad and good in some cases, even (especially?) if its not a major plot point. I would prefer to have a single throw away comment on page 5 of book 1 about the baddy who doesn't come into play until page 126 of book three (extreme example perhaps). It shows really well thought out planning and attention to detail, which is really important for me. In fact I suggested something similar in a beta read I'm doing at the moment for exactly these reasons, avoids possible DEM, foreshadows well in advance in a subtle way and tells me that their world is full and real.

I understand that many people will take a differing view, and i will almost certainly world build myself into a corner because of it at some point in my career, but that's the way I like things

 

[Maieius]

In my opinion, if it hapens unexpectedly, then it is DEM. if it is explained afterwards it still remains DEM, the only way, to get around it is to explain it before hand at which point I guess it ceases to be a problem of the unexplained and maybe, unless handled subtly enough (like I think your HP example is above) be ones contrived and stands out just as much.

This is something I very much look out for, and literally makes the difference bewteen something being bad and good in some cases, even (especially?) if its not a major plot point. I would prefer to have a single throw away comment on page 5 of book 1 about the baddy who doesn't come into play until page 126 of book three (extreme example perhaps). It shows really well thought out planning and attention to detail, which is really important for me. In fact I suggested something similar in a beta read I'm doing at the moment for exactly these reasons, avoids possible DEM, foreshadows well in advance in a subtle way and tells me that their world is full and real.

I understand that many people will take a differing view, and i will almost certainly world build myself into a corner because of it at some point in my career, but that's the way I like things

I agree completely. I'd much rather have the information there, whether I remember that specific point or not. It's a lot more interesting and entertaining, especially when rereading or looking back in the book to see how it was laid out. Even if it's something a character's mentioned in a single sentence. I've done a similar thing myself in my own work and it's something that won't be realised until the next book. And again, JKR did it with the Room of Requirement - Dumbledore mentioned it vaguely in the fourth book before it was introduced in the fifth.

Can anybody guess that I've recently finished rereading the series

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Can DEM work well? Yes. But usually it doesn't save to make a comedic point here and there. Because normally the reader wants to read about the hero beating his enemies and ending the challenge and a DEM fairly much denies that and makes the heroes entire journey seem meaningless. But there are exceptions.

I was watching Spielberg's alien invasion telly series recently, and season three (?) ended with a new alien race arriving and fairly much saving the day (seemingly). It actually works in my view. Partly because it was foreshadowed as a possibility, so the main DEM bit of it is the timing. The other thing that helped was that it wasn't a total solution to the problem (The newbies aren't so awesomely powerful as they seem at the end of the previous season) and that it could not have happened without the heroes having fought for so long and so hard. To add to that, in the following season the saviours arriving are transformed into potential baddies themselves, making the watcher wonder whether the good guys have really just jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

I think DEM's are like everything else in writing. There are no hard and fast rules. No absolutes. It's all in how you write it.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Piousflea84]

As far as I can tell, people mainly use the phrase "Deus Ex Machina" to mean "a surprise plot twist that we didn't like". If the plot twist was actually really cool then it's not a DEM, it's a completely understandable plot device. If your 11th-hour plot twist is really cool and fits the style of your story universe, readers will forgive you for it. If it is kinda lame and comes off as an "easy way out" then readers will criticize it as a DEM.

 

[thaddeus6th]

No.

To be strict, I think deus ex machina (god out of a machine) literally refers to a deity being lowered onto theatrical stage by some sort of crane mechanism. It happened in Ancient Greek plays where the playwright had written such a convoluted dead end of a plot the only way a resolution could be found was for a god to descend from Olympus, wave their hands around a bit and magic everything better.

You can have substantial plot twists that dramatically alter the conclusion but they do need certain things to be credible (foreshadowing, or total coherence with the plot and world and so on).

 

[Toby Frost]

Actually, I see Piousflea’s point. Many people don’t use the term in the technical way that it used to be used, but just see it as “clunky authorial intrusion at the end”. I’m honestly unsure whether the end of The Lord of the Flies would qualify, since although the arrival of the grown-ups sorts everything out, it is also the natural resolution of the story, and enables Golding to finish the novel off in a way that doesn’t seem intrusive at all. It has the important point of showing that these are just children, and that the world of children is different in some ways to that of adults. Perhaps it’s just the technique done extremely well.

The problem with it as a technique, for me, is that I can’t imagine why you would want to use it. There’s almost always going to be some better way of ending a story, unless you want the dramatic effect of that change that Golding’s sailor provides (and it’s worth pointing out that, in that example, the outside, grown-up world has been heavily foreshadowed anyway). When some deity-figure shows up and solves anything, the question is surely “Why didn’t this happen earlier? Why did the author do all that stuff with the other people if it didn’t matter?” and, ultimately, “Was this just a big waste of time?”

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Indeed the ending of "Lord of the Flies" is inevitable from the start and nothing like "Deus Ex Machina". It would be disappointing if it hadn't ended like that.
Part of the idea of the novel was to refute the "Noble Savage" idea, that without society and the guidance of older people, children would grow up as savages. The point was made, rescue was an expected by reader resolution, unless the kids had access to weapons of mass destruction, in which case there might have been no-one left.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Actually, I see Piousflea’s point. Many people don’t use the term in the technical way that it used to be used, but just see it as “clunky authorial intrusion at the end”. I’m honestly unsure whether the end of The Lord of the Flies would qualify, since although the arrival of the grown-ups sorts everything out, it is also the natural resolution of the story, and enables Golding to finish the novel off in a way that doesn’t seem intrusive at all. It has the important point of showing that these are just children, and that the world of children is different in some ways to that of adults. Perhaps it’s just the technique done extremely well.

The problem with it as a technique, for me, is that I can’t imagine why you would want to use it. There’s almost always going to be some better way of ending a story, unless you want the dramatic effect of that change that Golding’s sailor provides (and it’s worth pointing out that, in that example, the outside, grown-up world has been heavily foreshadowed anyway). When some deity-figure shows up and solves anything, the question is surely “Why didn’t this happen earlier? Why did the author do all that stuff with the other people if it didn’t matter?” and, ultimately, “Was this just a big waste of time?”

I have to disagree with you Toby, I don't think Lord of the Flies is a children's book telling us that 'the world of children is different in some ways to that of adults', it's a much deeper allegorical work about humanity (Something that was drilled into me when I studied this book in high school, therefore seems pretty clear to me now!). Hence my comment on why this works as a DEM - if the boys on the island are an allegorical look at human society, Ralph the good leader, Piggy - reason and science, Simon the peaceful mystic etc... then what is the naval officer?

As for being the 'natural resolution of the story', well the Greeks sitting in their theatres who believed that Zeus and his fellow gods were floating about Mt. Olympus would also feel it was 'natural' for them to come down and sort out the plot in using deus ex machina, no? The point here was that someone with god-like powers had to come in to intervene to sort it out. If the naval officer had not turned up then Ralph, our protagonist, would have been at the mercy of the savages and likely killed. If this had been a novel 'based on reality' then I would agree that the natural resolution would be that they would be rescued, but in this case, Golding saves 'reason' - the good (if flawed) boy from death by an unexpected intervention.

I'll have to re-read it to see if the grown up world is 'heavily foreshadowed'. However my inclination is that it is not, other than the fact that they set up a signal fire. (You could speculate that it was ironically the savages attempt to burn Ralph out of his hiding spot - by more or less setting the island on fire that alerted the outside world to their presecence...but that is merely speculation.)

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I don't think Lord of the Flies is a children's book telling us that 'the world of children is different in some ways to that of adults'

It's a book for Adults about adults.

see if the grown up world is 'heavily foreshadowed'.

I'd expected they would be missed and eventually there would be a search. I presumed it was due to the war that they were not rescued earlier (a needed MacGuffin to make the initial being marooned and absence of rescue believable).

If they hadn't been rescued then, there was no other ending (resolution) other than gradual extermination of each other. So it seemed reasonable.

The plot solution of "The Daughter of the House" mentioned earlier isn't reasonable on any level. We are in fact mislead about Johnnie and Irene. After the Deus Ex Machina, it's almost an insult that the novel drags on for 70 more pages to the (then) inevitable conclusion.

I suppose if you like a horror story and the point of the story wasn't the important thing you could have a version where more children kill each other till only a few are left. Who probably die of disease and can't breed unless girl Friday turns up.

 

[Toby Frost]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest that that was the overall point of the book: if I remember rightly, the island is a sort of microcosm for a society in general. What I was trying to say was that the sailor represented the return of higher forces (in this case, the adult world, but really some greater law) that could override the boys. It would be like a story set in a prison, where suddenly the guards are all killed and the inmates released, and their disputes over who gets the best cell, however keenly-fought, become almost irrelevant.

I think there was a ship that passed by the island, and the beast was ultimately a crashed pilot. And there was always the idea that rescue was possible and perhaps imminent at points. But I’m probably overstressing the foreshadowing, so to speak. It’s more that the real world is firmly in the background, at least in the first half, because it lingers in the boys’ minds.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

and the beast was ultimately a crashed pilot

I assumed their own dead pilot.

 

[Toby Frost]

I can't remember. I doubt it matters too much.

 

[HareBrain]

I assumed their own dead pilot.

From a jet fighter, wasn't he? Or was that only in the film? Or my imagination?

I doubt it matters too much.

On the internet? Are you mad?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Or was that only in the film?

There is a film?
I bet inferior to my brain CGI.

On the internet? Are you mad?

https://xkcd.com/386/ Hover your mouse
Indeed. Toby must be tired or sick

 

[Toby Frost]

I do like that cartoon. There's another good one of an underground carriage, in which every single person is thinking "I am the only sane person in a world of mindless sheep".

There are a couple of films - one from the 1950s, which is in black and white and wasn't bad, and an American one from the 90s, which I don't remember as being very good. Somehow, it really needs the boys to be British and from the 50's, as if nigel molesworth from Down With Skool had gone "ferel".

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Certain aspects of Public School culture are scarily similar.
It would work fine for me with British kids set in any age, and only British because the kids in the book seem very British.