# Deus Ex Machina



## YohannIan (Jan 21, 2012)

Deus Ex Machina..is it a good thing or a bad thing?

People say the ending to The Lord of The Rings is kind of Deus Ex Machina, because the eagles show up and rescue Frodo.  I don't find that moment bad at all.  I find it very comforting.  I remember thinking that was the end..and then there came the eagles led by Gandalf.  It would make perfect sense that during the battle, the eagles joined the fight and afterwards they searched for survivors.

What people like to ask is, Why couldn't they just fly to Mordor in first place?  I think there's a reason, but I'm not quite sure.  But I do know that it felt right; that the eagles coming in to rescue Frodo and Sam was a good thing.

So is Deux Ex Machina bad? or is it good?
(on a side note..does anyone know why Gwaihir and the other eagles couldn't just  fly Frodo into Mordor? Was it because Sauron was in power?)  

Please and thanks!


----------



## sashamerideth (Jan 21, 2012)

It is considered sloppy writing in my book. If you have to resort to deus ex then you haven't set up your ending, your story arc is wrong and you've been lazy. Generally I think it is a bad thing. It cheapens the hard work and fighting of the characters, and any emotional investment I have in these characters.

Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner


----------



## Ravana (Jan 21, 2012)

In order: 
(1) Bad.
(2) The eagles rescuing Frodo and Sam doesn't qualify–they don't show up and solve all the problems that have been built up over the course of three books; they just clean up afterward. (A better argument could be made for them being a _deus ex_ at the battle, but there's no internal evidence that they would have been near sufficient to turn the tide without the destruction of the Ring. They couldn't even pull off the win at the end of _The Hobbit_ without additional help arriving.)
(3) Answered extensively in the "Tolkien" thread, but essentially that's my belief, yes.

Real _deus ex machina_ endings are the kind that come out of nowhere, have no excuse for existing other than to end the story, and leave you with the feeling that the writer worked his way into a corner, didn't have a clue how to get himself out of it, and was so uncaring about his audience he wasn't willing to put the work into rewriting the story so that it _could_ be ended in some satisfactory fashion. Or even taking another fifteen minutes to try to think up something better. (Admittedly, this is not how they originated in Greek drama. The effect on an audience with normal expectations of gods sorting out mortal problems was probably quite different. Probably. Or perhaps there wasn't anything better showing at the theatres that week.  )

A DeM for _LotR_ would have needed to be something along the lines of the big foot from the Monty Python credits coming down and squashing Sauron… the whole thing had gotten so big nothing less would have done the trick. Or an army of sandworm-mounted fremen rising from the southern deserts to slaughter/eat all the orcs, breach the Black Gates and let everybody else in. Or at least the eagles showing up when Frodo and Sam are staring up at the apparently-impassible mountains from _outside_ Mordor and saying "Well, of _course_ we can give you a lift! Duh! That Gandalf–he's such a kidder, making you walk all this way.…" A DeM for something of lesser scope, say, Robin Hood, would have been, oh, I don't know… King Richard suddenly showing up. (Wait.…) A DeM for _Twin Peaks_ would have been… preferable.

The problem is that, in general, dramatic situations call for dramatic solutions: it's hard to build drama when there's an obvious way out of something. Which means one person's "dramatic resolution" is often another's "came-in-from-left-field." To stick with _LotR_: Elrond raising the river against the Ringwraiths is a good example. (Plus Tom Bombadil, though the hobbits would probably never have wandered into those woods in the first place if Tolkien hadn't wanted to include his favorite proto-hippie-nature-spirit somehow or other.) I'm sure you could find people to argue for counting the ents, the Dead Men of Dunharrow, and the Black Fleet showing up carrying good guys rather than bad–though in all these cases, the groundwork had been laid within the text, which is a far different thing than if they'd simply popped up out of nowhere at the most opportune moment. ("_'Ents'_? What the hell are 'ents'? Have you gone potty, Jack?" "Uhm… yeah. Guess I'd better add something about why they show up, huh? Let's see… maybe if I make it _four_ hobbits, instead of just two, I can have the others–") In none of those cases is it anywhere near as bad as some bowman managing a kill shot through a dragon's lone missing scale with a single arrow–after he's had all the time in the world to put the thing's eyes out.

But blinding the dragon wouldn't be as dramatic, eh?


----------



## TWErvin2 (Jan 21, 2012)

In reference to the eagles and solving the ring problem, I think there's a youtube video out there making this point.  However, the eagles show up after the master of the one ring is destroyed, if I recall, to pick up Frodo and Sam. Mightn't Sauron have had a chance to intercept the ring, one his ring wraiths had been seeking if it were approaching from high in the air and in the open?  Even the video indicates that Sauron would have to be distracted in some way for the mission to succeed.

Beyond that, I agree pretty much with what Ravana indicated about Deus Ex Machina. I'd ask, what was the point of the characters' struggles and even writing the story if a supernatural power simply swoops in at the end and sets things to right.  Rescuing Sam and Frodo with the eagles, I think felt right too (although in the movie, I think they'd have been long cooked and dead from toxic fumes sitting on a rock surrounded by massive flows of lava). The characters solved the problem of the ring on their own, without any out of the blue intervention and assistance.

One thing that can avoid the Deus Ex Machina, if gods or other such powers do play a part, is the use of foreshadowing.


----------



## Telcontar (Jan 21, 2012)

True Deus Ex Machina is pretty lazy. Most times it is used it isn't a pure version of it, because the mechanism _has_ been hinted at - we just haven't been led to believe it would be a part of the resolution. As Ravana mentioned, the eagles are not actually a Deus Ex because they don't resolve any of the real plot conflicts. The climax had already been reached by the time they show up.

A true Deus Ex like that seen in Shakespeare's As You Like It is completely out of the blue. No hint at it beforehand and really rather confusing, cuz it has nothing to do with the plot so far.

Also the game Deus Ex was awesome. Just thought I'd put that out there.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jan 21, 2012)

Ravana said:


> (Admittedly, this is not how they originated in Greek drama. The effect on an audience with normal expectations of gods sorting out mortal problems was probably quite different. Probably. Or perhaps there wasn't anything better showing at the theatres that week.  )



Here's some utter conjecture: I like to think that the decline of the DeM is due to advancement in the techniques of storytelling. Earlier in our history, storytelling was a younger art, and the idea of a huge mess being created and then the gods coming in to Make It All Better was a nice bit of wishful thinking that made everyone feel good. How many times in our lives have we gotten into a mess and we just wish that someone would wave a magic wand and make it all better? Does anyone really say, "This  situation is horrible, and the only way I want it to resolve is lots of hard, character-building work on my part, and I won't accept any easy outs!"?

But people eventually realized that more organic resolutions to stories were even _more_ satisfying, because it's how we wish _we_ could be. It's easier to identify with the character if he _does_ have to struggle, just like in real life -- because in real life, there are very rarely DeMs to solve our problems. So people became more attached to such stories, and eventually DeMs fell out of favor. Not that people don't use them any more (or their inverse, which is to take otherwise intelligent characters and have them do something colossally stupid just to get the plot moving further forward -- see the third act of _Zombieland_), but at least they're universally recognized as bad.


----------



## Devor (Jan 21, 2012)

I would like to think that Deus ex Machina wasn't Deus ex Machina at the time because, like that character who disappeared in the second act to reemerge and save the day in the third, the gods are already presumed to be a part of the story.  But that doesn't matter to us nowadays.  Really using Deus ex Machina, a solution that's from literally nowhere, is just kind of sloppy.

What I find interesting, though, is why having characters disappear early on so that they can save the day later can have a powerful effect if done well, yet pretty much look like Deus ex Machina if executed poorly.  I think it has to do with the elements of surprise, excitement at seeing the character return, and a sense of "oh goodie, the day's about to be saved."  (Of course, you can then subvert that and have something bad happen, also sometimes to great effect.)

You've opened pandora's box on Tolkein; I won't peer much inside that one.  I will say that I don't think the eagles are a problem, except that Tolkein didn't have characters talk address the eagles enough to show you why it wasn't a problem.  I think that's true for a lot of the complaints I see about good stories.


----------



## Ravana (Jan 21, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Here's some utter conjecture: I like to think that the decline of the DeM is due to advancement in the techniques of storytelling. Earlier in our history, storytelling was a younger art, and the idea of a huge mess being created and then the gods coming in to Make It All Better was a nice bit of wishful thinking that made everyone feel good.



You'd like to think that, and I'm sure to some extent it's true. On the other hand, the practice of using DeM was already being criticized as early as Aristotle's _Poetics_, and Euripides was so notorious for using it that his contemporary Aristophanes not only parodies it but has Euripides himself as the _deus_ showing up to instantly resolve all the complications he'd generated for himself in various disguises throughout the play (_Thesmophoriazusae_, translated as "The Women's Festival" or some variant thereon). So I'd have to say that even in its heyday, it was recognized as dubious practice. 

Which didn't stop writers from using it, nor audiences from enjoying the plays. So, yes, sometimes it is nice to have someone else sort everything out. On the other hand, most of the plays it appears in were tragedies, not comedies–the difference in Greek drama not being the presence of humor, but rather that comedies had happy endings (a distinction that continued at least to the time of Dante: _Divina Commedia_ is hardly what we'd consider a laugh riot). So the _deus_ generally didn't "make it all better" so much as make it "right"–that is, apply what was considered justice. Sometimes not even that: the _machina_ in Euripides' _Medea_ is used to allow her to escape after committing murder and infanticide… "solving" _her_ problem, not so much the play's. Which might be why it only took third place in the annual competition it was presented in: even the audience recognized Euripides cheated… certainly that "justice" was.



> But people eventually realized that more organic resolutions to stories were even more satisfying, because it's how we wish we could be.



Agreed. Perhaps more importantly, people eventually realized that the gods _didn't_ show up to sort _their_ problems out: the more organic resolutions pointed up the possibility that mundane personages–the characters the readers are invited to identify with–_could_ solve their own problems… and thus by extension the readers _themselves_ might (or ought to) be able to as well. Very much an empowering statement: "Hey, I don't need to sit around and hope the gods will eventually favor me… I can do something about it _myself_." So it's not just that it's how we _wish_ we could be: it's suggesting that it's how we already _are_, give or take some investment of effort. More satisfying indeed.


----------



## YohannIan (Jan 22, 2012)

Wow! I'm overwhelmed haha! That's quite a breakdown of it. Thanks a lot.
Thing's seem much clearer now with your examples.  
Personally, have you ever (when you were young and didn't know it was bad) used a DeM in one of your stories?

Btw TWErvin2 said 





> One thing that can avoid the Deus Ex Machina, if gods or other such powers do play a part, is the use of foreshadowing.



By foreshadowing, you mean the subtle involvement of the character along the storyline? How exactly do I effectively foreshadow?


----------



## YohannIan (Jan 22, 2012)

Telcontar said:


> True Deus Ex Machina is pretty lazy. Most times it is used it isn't a pure version of it, because the mechanism _has_ been hinted at - we just haven't been led to believe it would be a part of the resolution. As Ravana mentioned, the eagles are not actually a Deus Ex because they don't resolve any of the real plot conflicts. The climax had already been reached by the time they show up.
> 
> A true Deus Ex like that seen in Shakespeare's As You Like It is completely out of the blue. No hint at it beforehand and really rather confusing, cuz it has nothing to do with the plot so far.
> 
> Also the game Deus Ex was awesome. Just thought I'd put that out there.



I agree on your view on Deus Ex Machina...AND Deus Ex the game! Go Adam Jenson!


----------



## grahamguitarman (Jan 22, 2012)

I find the use of the eagles at the end of the story is fine, its well known that gandalf had that ability to speak to the eagles (and other winged creatures) especially if you have read the hobbit where he interacts more fully with them.  And it would be a bit unrealistic for him to not launch a search and rescue mission after the fall of sauron.  Its what any reasonable person would do given the resources.  Though having the hero abandoned at the end of the story could actually make for an interesting way of busting peoples expectations.

my personal favourite bit of deus ex machina is Monty Pythons alien spaceship in Life of Brian, purely because it is deliberately DEM for laughs.

Personallythough, I wouldn't dream of having a solution in my books that cannot be logically explained within the framework of the story.  Or that doesn't allow the main characters to resolve situations using their own abilities.  Thats why the gods in my world have had a bane placed upon them that makes it impossible for them to directly interfere in the lives of men.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 22, 2012)

I wouldn't say deus ex machina is an _inherently _bad thing. Rather, it's one of those things you need to be careful with and only resort to if you know what you're doing. It shouldn't be used just because you wrote yourself into a corner. The only way to make it work, ironically, is by planning it ahead of time.

Also, I'll be honest, I've seen some DeM where I plain didn't _care_ that the writers pulled a lazy solution out of nowhere, because it was done in such a satisfying way in a situation so hopeless that the relief it brought was enough for me to accept it.


----------



## Giant (Jan 22, 2012)

I actually thought the use of the dead army in Return of the Kings was a great example of DEM. Every time I watch that I think "well... here comes the dead army to wipe out all the orcs...because there is no other way to continue the story if this doesn't happen." But, that's just me.


----------



## Ravana (Jan 22, 2012)

Giant said:


> I actually thought the use of the dead army in Return of the Kings was a great example of DEM. Every time I watch that I think "well... here comes the dead army to wipe out all the orcs...because there is no other way to continue the story if this doesn't happen." But, that's just me.



As I said, there are people who might argue for that. In this case, I'd say no: there was an entire chapter devoted to the characters treading the Paths of the Dead; they were given a reason to be there (and to respond to Aragorn's summons); and Aragorn's group still had to race the length of Gondor to get where they needed to be on time. (One can argue about the convenience of that timing, but the author is responsible for the timing of everything in the book, so it would get kind of pointless… if Saruman had attacked Rohan a week earlier, he would have wiped it out, for instance.) By the way: in the _book_, the Dead don't kill anybody.



> By foreshadowing, you mean the subtle involvement of the character along the storyline? How exactly do I effectively foreshadow?



In this instance, it would probably mean giving the gods an actual presence earlier in the story–it doesn't need to be "subtle" at all. If a god shows up in chapter three promising "When you call on me in Ch. XIX, I'll answer," the reader is provided with a reasonable expectation that the god in question might intervene at a later point. (Okay, it doesn't need to be _that_ blatant.…  ) If, on the other hand, there is no mention whatsoever of gods, religion or anything related in the story prior to the divine intervention, the reader will probably be justified in feeling cheated. Split the difference. ("Foreshadowing" is usually taken to be marginally less blatant… perhaps along the lines of "Son, you remember when I told you that Atreus isn't your real father? Well.…" Classic Greek device. Though that could hardly be considered subtle, I think.)

Even then, the god shouldn't just pop up and solve everything. Maybe the "intervention" is nothing more than a disembodied voice saying "Don't go _that_ way. _Never_ go _that_ way." (Of course, if anybody remembers what the line _after_ that is.…  ) Or having the barrage of arrows intercepted by a sudden cascade of lemmings from the cliff above. (Still fairly obviously a DeM, but at least an unconventional one.) Or causing the villain's sword to become hopelessly lodged in the rib cage of the hero's best friend. A few divine favors like that, and the hero will learn it's better to take care of his own problems.


----------



## Konjurer (Jan 23, 2012)

*Never a fan...*

I've never been a fan of Deus ex Machina in any form, no matter how well-written a book is.  I'd much rather kill off a MC or wipe out an entire city if I've written them into an unwinnable situation.  I especially loathe DeM in the movies.  I love LOTR in books, absolutely hate the craptastic movies.  Let's hope they don't try that with The Hobbit.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 23, 2012)

TWErvin2 said:


> One thing that can avoid the Deus Ex Machina, if gods or other such powers do play a part, is the use of foreshadowing.



On the other hand, shouldn't this work in reverse? That is to say, one can use a Deus ex Machina _as foreshadowing?_

For example, suppose I've put my heroes into a situation where they are essentially doomed. They are outnumbered and surrounded and have failed to destroy the McGuffin, which is now in the hands of the villains, who are just about to finish the heroes off and take over the world. Evil has, apparently, triumphed!

...And then this mysterious unidentified third party shows up and just steamrolls the bad guys. Then they say something cryptic, steals the McGuffin and leaves. And everyone, heroes and villains alike, are like: "Wait, what? What the hell was that?"

Wouldn't that be an exciting twist? Suddenly there is a whole new faction that nobody knew about until that point, and everone has to deal with the fact that they no longer have any idea what's really going on.


----------



## SlimShady (Jan 23, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> For example, suppose I've put my heroes into a situation where they are essentially doomed. They are outnumbered and surrounded and have failed to destroy the McGuffin, which is now in the hands of the villains, who are just about to finish the heroes off and take over the world. Evil has, apparently, triumphed!
> 
> ...And then this mysterious unidentified third party shows up and just steamrolls the bad guys. Then they say something cryptic, steals the McGuffin and leaves. And everyone, heroes and villains alike, are like: "Wait, what? What the hell was that?"
> 
> Wouldn't that be an exciting twist? Suddenly there is a whole new faction that nobody knew about until that point, and everone has to deal with the fact that they no longer have any idea what's really going on.



  That would actually be pretty cool.  But, obviously it couldn't end that way.  You'd have to devote a sequel or more chapters of the heroes finding out about this third faction and then saving the day.  Or losing again if you like tragedies.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 23, 2012)

SlimShady said:


> That would actually be pretty cool.  But, obviously it couldn't end that way.  You'd have to devote a sequel or more chapters of the heroes finding out about this third faction and then saving the day.



Well, of course. I'm pretty sure nobody said the god from the machine had to show up at the end of the story, or that he could never make a second appearance. It _would_ make a great cliffhanger, though.

Wikipedia says a deus ex machina is simply: "a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object." That sounds pretty workable to me.


----------



## Konjurer (Jan 23, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Well, of course. I'm pretty sure nobody said the god from the machine had to show up at the end of the story, or that he could never make a second appearance. It _would_ make a great cliffhanger, though.
> 
> Wikipedia says a deus ex machina is simply: "a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object." That sounds pretty workable to me.



Nope. Still sounds like a cop-out to me. Just my opinion, but the very term deus ex machina conjures up images of "divine intervention" and crap like that. Ancient literature is littered with examples of this. Everything from Homer's Illiad to The Epic of Gilgamesh and even into the Bible are just a few examples.  There's no reason that good authors can't write their characters out of "no-win" situations.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 23, 2012)

There is no absolute of this sort in writing. A DeM should be generally avoided. Is it impossible to employ it effectively? I'd say no, particularly if the author has knowingly, and purposefully employed one, rather than doing so inadvertently or because they can't think of another solution.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jan 24, 2012)

I'd say that it's possible to get away with using a DeM, but it is never the most satisfying possible option.


----------



## YohannIan (Jan 24, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> On the other hand, shouldn't this work in reverse? That is to say, one can use a Deus ex Machina _as foreshadowing?_
> 
> For example, suppose I've put my heroes into a situation where they are essentially doomed. They are outnumbered and surrounded and have failed to destroy the McGuffin, which is now in the hands of the villains, who are just about to finish the heroes off and take over the world. Evil has, apparently, triumphed!
> 
> ...



I was going to ask the same thing!  In this case, I strongly believe it isn't wrong and I don't really think it can be considered a DeM..because I would think the story doesn't end THERE and THEN.  I would think that there's a sequel after that.  (Makes a lot of plot expansions possible.)


----------



## Janga (Jan 24, 2012)

I have been rereading The Hobbit and notice that it is full of instances of Deus Ex Machina. It seems in every scene Gandalf saves Bilbo and the dwarves from one certain death or another with his seemingly indestructible magic. I find as I become more and more interested in the fantasy genre, these types of solutions to problems in stories become less and less satisfying.


----------



## Devor (Jan 24, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> On the other hand, shouldn't this work in reverse? That is to say, one can use a Deus ex Machina _as foreshadowing?_
> 
> For example, suppose I've put my heroes into a situation where they are essentially doomed. They are outnumbered and surrounded and have failed to destroy the McGuffin, which is now in the hands of the villains, who are just about to finish the heroes off and take over the world. Evil has, apparently, triumphed!
> 
> ...



It's still Deus ex Machina.  It's still lazy writing.  You should always introduce the supervening element _before_ they save the day and wreck the future.  However awesome you think it is, people will still go, "_What the hell is this?_"  That's what I hear people say when it happens on television.  That's what I think when it happens in a book.  Maybe readers then throw that aside and go with it because you're doing well elsewhere, I don't know.  But unless you're writing comedy, you need to give readers some perspective of who is doing the saving and the wrecking sometime before they actually do so.

I make only one exception.  If the problem you're facing was lame to begin with, people might be relieved to see it just be done with and replaced by a better one.  But if the problem is lame when you're writing a book, you should just go back and fix it.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 24, 2012)

Devor said:


> It's still Deus ex Machina.  It's still lazy writing.  You should always introduce the supervening element _before_ they save the day and wreck the future.



Uh huh? Why? Because someone told you that in a creative writing class or something, and you never thought to question it? 

It's not the eleventh commandment or anything. We don't _have _to foreshadow _everything_, always. Forshadowing is a means to an end, not the end itself. And avoiding everything commonly thought to be "bad writing" does not make you a good writer, either. That's not skill, it's just caution.



> However awesome you think it is, people will still go, "_What the hell is this?_"  That's what I hear people say when it happens on television.  That's what I think when it happens in a book.  Maybe readers then throw that aside and go with it because you're doing well elsewhere, I don't know.  But unless you're writing comedy, you need to give readers some perspective of who is doing the saving and the wrecking sometime before they actually do so.



What's wrong with surprising your readers? What's wrong with shaking them up a bit? If that's enough to make them give up on my story, it probably wasn't very good to begin with.

What I'm trying to say is: Don't blame the plot device. If I write a story with a deliberate deus ex machina, and the readers do not buy it, then that's _my_ fault for not doing my job as an author. _I'm_ the one who failed to make it work. But no plot device is _inherently_ bad. There are no rules that, if broken, will automatically ruin your work.


----------



## Devor (Jan 24, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Uh huh? Why? Because someone told you that in a creative writing class or something, and you never thought to question it?



I've never taken a creative writing class.  I went to college for business.

Also, I already answered the question.  When it happens, I see that people don't react well to it, and neither do I.




> What's wrong with surprising your readers? What's wrong with shaking them up a bit? If that's enough to make them give up on my story, it probably wasn't very good to begin with.



The thing is, by utilizing Deus ex Machina you subvert the problem instead of resolve the problem.  In your specific example, why should I care about the new villains and the situation which arises from their presence when I know that whatever problems are caused, some still nastier villain can just overthrow them.  "Always" is not a word I use lightly, but I'll use it here:  It is always better to resolve a serious problem by using internally established elements than to subvert the problem from the outside.

I already mentioned, though, that readers may stick it out through one weak point if your story is compelling in other ways.

((edit))  I don't know if you've started a response or even intend to, but if you are, what's so hard about introducing the new villains before they erase the intervening conflict?


----------



## grahamguitarman (Jan 24, 2012)

Janga said:


> I have been rereading The Hobbit and notice that it is full of instances of Deus Ex Machina. It seems in every scene Gandalf saves Bilbo and the dwarves from one certain death or another with his seemingly indestructible magic. I find as I become more and more interested in the fantasy genre, these types of solutions to problems in stories become less and less satisfying.



I think that's taking the definition of deus ex machina to a bit of an extreme.  The reader expects that with a powerful wizard travelling along with the party, then he is going to use his magic to help them if he can.  It wouldn't make sense if he didn't, and its not as if his magic suddenly appeared from left field without warning.  

If I recall rightly Gandalf saves the party three times, once by using ventriloquism to trick the trolls into staying past sunrise to be turned into stone, once by dousing a fire and stabbing the goblin king with his sword, and once by casting fiery sparks at the wargs below the tree they are stuck in.  Not exactly examples of indestrucible magic saving the day, and certainly not every scene!  

If you are going to start using that kind of criteria to define deus ex machina then we might as well stop writing fantasy all together!


----------



## Janga (Jan 25, 2012)

grahamguitarman said:


> I think that's taking the definition of deus ex machina to a bit of an extreme.  The reader expects that with a powerful wizard travelling along with the party, then he is going to use his magic to help them if he can.  It wouldn't make sense if he didn't, and its not as if his magic suddenly appeared from left field without warning.
> 
> If I recall rightly Gandalf saves the party three times, once by using ventriloquism to trick the trolls into staying past sunrise to be turned into stone, once by dousing a fire and stabbing the goblin king with his sword, and once by casting fiery sparks at the wargs below the tree they are stuck in.  Not exactly examples of indestrucible magic saving the day, and certainly not every scene!
> 
> If you are going to start using that kind of criteria to define deus ex machina then we might as well stop writing fantasy all together!



I agree, The Hobbit is a bad example for this thread. Sorry about that


----------



## grahamguitarman (Jan 25, 2012)

Janga said:


> I agree, The Hobbit is a bad example for this thread. Sorry about that



no worries


----------



## helderuto (Aug 25, 2013)

Eagles can see a rat one mile away. Apply it to a hypothetical giant eagle and you have a one hundred mile long vision. Add to it the fact that Gandalf knew exactly where Frodo and Sam were (Mount Doom) and the hope that they were still alive and it was not only POSSIBLE but TOO EASY to the Eagles finding the Hobbits.

Therefore stop calling this scene a Deus Ex Machina because it isn't.


----------



## ThinkerX (Aug 25, 2013)

> For example, suppose I've put my heroes into a situation where they are essentially doomed. They are outnumbered and surrounded and have failed to destroy the McGuffin, which is now in the hands of the villains, who are just about to finish the heroes off and take over the world. Evil has, apparently, triumphed!
> 
> ...And then this mysterious unidentified third party shows up and just steamrolls the bad guys. Then they say something cryptic, steals the McGuffin and leaves. And everyone, heroes and villains alike, are like: "Wait, what? What the hell was that?"



I've actually given serious thought to this sort of thing, as a plot twist rather than an ending.

Major Real World historical Deus Ex Machina:

Spanish conquest of Mexico, from the Aztec perspective.  From that perspective, everything had been 'known' for centuries - possibly millenia.  The enemies, the players, the gods, all that.  Then the spanish literally show up out of nowhere and kick some serious butt.  

I've contemplated something similiar: established, major nations pounding each other into pulp, when BAM! out of the sky (maybe literally) a third faction, with an entirely different tech level, of no known race appears out of nowhere with no warning or foreshadowing and clobbers both factions for reasons of their own.


----------



## wordwalker (Aug 26, 2013)

As to Lord of the Rings eagles, I think 10 Deus Ex Machina Moments has it right. They



> don't steal the show nor is it Tolkien’s intention that they should.  The eagles are narrative tools, not the laurels on which the books’ ending or major character/thematic resolutions rest.  They don’t necessarily ‘end the conflict’ so much as shepherd the characters away from final doom once the conflict has been dealt with by the characters.



Some people would say that letting Frodo and Sam survive what they've accepted to be a suicide mission is still cheating the scenario as it's been set up. Still, the key point is that they only change part of the situation, not solve the real problem. Also it's not total DEM since they've appeared before, plus we know it was Sauron's will and Nazgul that were keeping them out of Mordor until now, so with those destroyed they're not coming completely out of the blue. Except, well, literally.


----------



## Jabrosky (Aug 26, 2013)

One of my favorite moments in all the movies I've seen is a Deus Ex Machina if you think about it:






Then again, it does come after the movie's major character arcs have been resolved, so it doesn't do much damage to the plot in the end.


----------



## Addison (Aug 27, 2013)

Deus Ex Machina can be good or bad depending on how it's delivered and by what. As Jabrosky has shown, Jurassic park isn't a bad Deus Ex Machina. We became aware of the T-Rex earlier, it was an inciting incident. Between that scene and the cafeteria we were reminded that it was still running around as we heard it's roar. So we weren't that surprised when a ginat T-Rex head snapped into frame and snatched the raptor out of mid-jump. 

Now if we hadn't known about the T-rex getting loose before it saved the characters, that would be a bad Deus Ex Machina. So if there's going to be something or someone who's existence saves the day, let the reader know it's breathing or running as soon as possible and maybe sprinkle in a few reminders along the way.


----------

