# Steven Erikson / Deus ex Machina



## Steerpike (Sep 18, 2012)

As some of you know, I'm a big fan of Steven Erikson's Malazan books. I've completed six books of the series, and enjoyed them all. I don't really want spoilers for the remainder of the series, but I was thinking about something I've heard people say, which is that Erikson utilizes _Deus ex Machina_ in his stories. Erikson is a pretty careful writer, so this strikes me as odd. I'm wondering if it is actually the case. I haven't seen it thus far.

Referring to the Merriam-Webster definition of Deus ex Machina:



> a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty.



Is this really what happens in the series? As best I can tell, people say Erikson uses this technique because the gods descend and intervene in the resolution of the story. But that in and of itself is not sufficient. The gods in his world are interactive and at war. The events that are taking place are largely due to the activities of the gods. They walk among men, enact their schemes, and interfere. You know starting with book one that there is powerful, dangerous magic at work and that the gods and god-like forces are at play.

Whenever some god-level event happens, I'm not surprised. The stage has been set for them. It would be unexpected to me if they didn't act, given what is at stake and how Erikson has built the story.

If a Deus ex Machina is a "sudden" and "unexpected" interference by the divine or some other powerful force, it seems to me that doesn't describe what is going one in the Malazan world. In my case, at least, I fully expect it and the groundwork has been laid every step of the way.

The other aspect of the definition is that the solution is "contrived." I don't see that so far either, for the reasons stated above.

Thoughts?


----------



## Ravana (Sep 18, 2012)

I normally only hold a _deus ex machina_ against a writer when:

(1) The "insoluble" part comes into play: it's a negation of the mortal aspects of striving, achievement, etc. if it isn't possible for mortals to successfully address the problems no matter what they do. That doesn't mean that they can't receive divine _assistance_–in such cases, it might equally be thought of as the gods receiving mortal assistance–but the mortal participation should be a crucial element, and it should at least be conceivable that they might have triumphed even in the absence of divine assistance. (For the same reason, it should be possible for their opponents to triumph without receiving their _own_ divine assistance: otherwise, it's _their_ problem that's insoluble, and their defeat a foregone conclusion.)

(2) When the gods swoop in at the end and resolve things even when mortals don't need them to. Which not only negates those aspects of mortal heroism, it doesn't exactly redound to the gods' credit either. Were I a character in that situation, I'd be standing there glaring at the gods and saying: "Well, why didn't you show up earlier? You know, back before my best buddy died, my village was burned, my sister was kicked and my dog raped? Back when it would have done some good? We already had it under control _now_.…"

In both cases, I don't especially care if it _has_ been set up, if that's how things turn out in the end.

I have no problem whatsoever with the gods taking part in things–I often use them myself. They may help, hinder, advise, confuse, mislead, mystify, manipulate, deceive, betray, bestow gifts upon, act superior to, mate with and/or otherwise screw the mortals they interact with… or any number of other possibilities. What they _never_ do is take the contributions of mortals for granted. It's part of the logic of the divine/mortal relationship: they wouldn't _bother_ doing any of those other things if they _did_ take mortals for granted. Whatever the gods' motivations are, whatever they get out of the relationship, they have some reason for acting through, or at most alongside, mortals. It's a fairly safe bet that part or all of it accounts for why they don't just take care of things on their own from the word go.

As for whether Erikson commits any sins in this area… I honestly couldn't say, because, well, uhm.…


----------



## Ankari (Sep 18, 2012)

I think the problem with Erikson (and I am a huge fan as well) is that his magic system is so undefined that the reader doesn't know if or when Erikson uses Dues Ex Machina.  I can point to a few characters specifically:

*Paran*:  Master of Decks.  What _can't_ he do?  One minute he's summoning Hounds and the next he's imprisoning gods.

*Icarium*:  His power is only hinted at, but what is known is that he can destroy cities, even nations.  That's a lot of power for a half Jaghut.

*Candle*:  I don't know if you've read the book that he's in, so I won't spoil it.

*Quick Ben:*  He doesn't seem to have _any_ limitation in power.

*Anomander Rake:*  I don't want to give too much away, but needless to say this guy cannot die by anyone's hand.

*Draconus:*  Consort of Night.  Another character that is mentioned in fear by such characters as Quick Ben and with respect by Anomander Rake.  Come on!

So this is the problem.  The reader doesn't know what the characters _can't_ do.  This gives then sense of Dues Ex Machina.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 18, 2012)

@Ravana:

I think I agree with your points generally, but I don't think they work as well in terms of Erikson because they seem to presume that the gods are separate and apart from the characters in the story. In Erikson's books, they are characters in their own right. Some of them are viewpoint characters (one of the first viewpoint characters in the books starts as a normal mortal and become a sort of demigod). They have insufficient information, limited abilities, and they can die. Many are ascended mortals. So, if a god intervenes and does something in Erikson's world, it's really not much different than a second viewpoint character coming to the aid of a second viewpoint character in a normal book. In that world, when the stakes are of sufficient interest to a god, it wouldn't make any sense at all for the god to sit idly by and hope the mortals can figure it out. Many of the mortals are just trying to keep their heads down and not have any gods notice them.

@Ankari:

That's one of my favorite things about Erikson. He doesn't feed you the "rules" to his word, or the backstory, or anything else. You're kind of thrust into with the characters. Paran, for example, has no idea what he can or can't do when he first becomes Master of the Deck. He's as baffled as the reader and you're learning with him. That effect would be compromised if Erikson had some paragraph of exposition that set out the rules of the Deck.

Same with Icarium. He doesn't know the extent of what he can do, he only has hints of his own and he knows it is terrible.

Quick Ben calls up Elder magic when he was trying only to create an illusion of it. He knows he's pretty damn powerful, of course, but he's a big mystery in a lot of ways.

In any event, I don't have a sense of Deus ex Machina yet. Maybe I won't. The one person I know outside of internet forums who has read the whole series says he didn't feel that way, but others have so I'll have to see where I fall. I like the fact that Erikson doesn't set everything out there for the reader, though. The characters don't know this information; there's no reason I have to. I like being in the character's boots as the series goes along.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 18, 2012)

> Same with Icarium. He doesn't know the extent of what he can do, he only has hints of his own and he knows it is terrible.



Icarium doesn't know but so many others do.  You'll see evidence of this in later books.  His epithets is _The Destroyer_ and something along the line of _The Builder._  This hints at vast powers beyond even that of the gods.  The gods fear him!  Also, I forgot to mention Krump.  He is such a mystery and his powers seem to be beyond his character.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 18, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Icarium doesn't know but so many others do.  You'll see evidence of this in later books.  His epithets is _The Destroyer_ and something along the line of _The Builder._  This hints at vast powers beyond even that of the gods.  The gods fear him!  Also, I forgot to mention Krump.  He is such a mystery and his powers seem to be beyond his character.



See, none of this bothers me. Even with Krumpe. It is in keeping with the nature of the story and how it is presented. I don't care if I don't know the limits of what they can do; I don't need to. We'll see if my view changes over the next four books.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 18, 2012)

As I consider it, perhaps its not so much a Deus Ex Machina as it is that _everyone seems so damn* powerful._  I mean, if you have a normal man able to mix it up with some extremely powerful people/gods/ascendants, who do you consider as weak?  I don't know.  I'm glad you brought this up and I change my stance on Erikson.  It's isn't Dues Ex Machina, its the lack of the ordinary hero.  Actually, its the lack of the ordinary to serve as a gauge against the amazing.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 18, 2012)

Ankari said:


> It's isn't Dues Ex Machina, its the lack of the ordinary hero.  Actually, its the lack of the ordinary to serve as a gauge against the amazing.



Yes, I think this is true. When you're dealing with the power levels in Erikson's book, there is no room for an ordinary hero. Ordinary people are ground to a pulp beneath the wheels of events in the universe. In fact, I think a character was just pointing out something similar in book six (it might have been Spite). 

In any event, they're a lot of fun and I like Erikson's use of the stories to comment on various things like the relationship between the writer and readers or artists and critics, and so on. Makes for an interesting series.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 18, 2012)

And that is the paradox.  I love his books so much, I gauge all other fantasy books against it.  when I read a book, I think to myself _On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being crap and 10 being Steven Erikson, where does this book fall?_

As I've said before....Friggen' Steven Erikson.


----------



## Ravana (Sep 18, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I think I agree with your points generally, but I don't think they work as well in terms of Erikson because they seem to presume that the gods are separate and apart from the characters in the story. In Erikson's books, they are characters in their own right. Some of them are viewpoint characters (one of the first viewpoint characters in the books starts as a normal mortal and become a sort of demigod). They have insufficient information, limited abilities, and they can die. Many are ascended mortals. So, if a god intervenes and does something in Erikson's world, it's really not much different than a second viewpoint character coming to the aid of a second viewpoint character in a normal book. In that world, when the stakes are of sufficient interest to a god, it wouldn't make any sense at all for the god to sit idly by and hope the mortals can figure it out. Many of the mortals are just trying to keep their heads down and not have any gods notice them.



Well, as hinted, I can't comment on Erikson's usages… because I haven't read any of his books yet. (Yeah, I know: my failing.) In fact, though, this is what I was gesturing toward: the gods _ought_ to be treated as characters in the story–if they are to appear directly. I have no problem with them possessing immense power relative to mortals–so long as the mortals themselves have a reason to be in the story, alongside the gods. So I imagine I'd approve of Erikson's usage.

Some examples I _am_ familiar with: 
- Steven Brust. I hardly need to go into detail on that one for you, I'm sure. Probably the best example of what I have in mind.
- Tanith Lee's _Flat-Earth Cycle_. Gods (rather, "demons," though the difference is rhetorical) are major PoV characters; they largely regard mortals as their playthings. Their playthings often surprise them, however.
- Glen Cook's _Black Company_ books, especially the later ones. "Gods" are ill-defined; mostly, the ones we see are powerful extra-dimensional beings (whatever the difference between that and "gods" might be), which exert generally indirect influence on the mortal world. Nevertheless, the mortal characters communicate with and receive intercession from one, rescue another and slay a third. Also, some mortals are so powerful they are all but indistinguishable from deities themselves… and, yes, it is at least implied that mortals can "ascend."
- J. R. R. Tolkien. Mortals often score victories over gods, especially in _The Silmarillion_.
- Michael Moorcock's _Elric_ books and Fritz Leiber's _Fafhrd and Grey Mouser_ books. Gods abound, and are most definitely "just" characters where they appear–in Leiber especially (and especially since his characters aren't packing minor deities incarnated as runeblades to make them credible threats).
- Stephen R. Donaldson's _Thomas Covenant_ books. Kill the Devil. A poor rather than good example, because the mortals are given their own _deus ex_ in the form of Covenant's wild magic; it seems they don't have a hope without it. No, this isn't a _deus ex_ in a technical sense: we are not surprised by it, for instance (we are in fact incessantly bludgeoned with it); it's merely representative of what I like least about "genuine" _deus ex_ situations: it can fix _anything_, and is presented as the _only_ thing that can fix things. Still, the obligatory dark lord doesn't have things all his own way, even absent that.

One of my own (unpublished) works includes an extensive history in which gods and mortals interact on a regular basis; the gods are often PoV characters, and at least one is quoted at one point saying "Oops." In fact, the overall tenor of the thing is that the most important role mortals play is fixing what the gods screw up, not the other way around. This, of course, is strongly reflective of my own particular sense of humor–but it also reflects what I said before: if there is to be plausible interaction between gods and mortals, there must be _reasons_ for it. On _both_ sides, though it's usually easier to see (or at least imagine) what the mortals might be deriving from the relationship than what the gods might. I never use a god without knowing what his motivation for poking his nose into the matter might be.

Those guidelines apply as well to situations where the gods are the _only_ PoV characters–which can be fun both to write and to read, if done well. Unless they are interacting exclusively on "god level," i.e. with other divine beings, they need to have reasons for involving themselves in the mortal world. In Lee's work referenced above, they do it mostly out of ennui… it's _something_ to do, and, while they often care about the outcomes, they rarely regard them as presenting long-term consequences to themselves. Also as mentioned, they are sometimes surprised in this. 

For the others mentioned (in which the gods are not generally PoV characters: that doesn't matter for present purposes), most have clearly self-interested motives, be they as clichÃ©d as Tolkien's unfocused "desire to rule" ("And what will you do with it once you've got it? Never thought about _that_, did you?"  ), or as focused and primal as the very _non_-"obligatory" motivations of Donaldson's "obligatory dark lord." Every so often, one of them even appears to be acting out of a sense of benevolence (a certain Maia in Tolkien comes to mind…), though in most cases we learn later on that this is more appearance than fact. The Lords of Judgment seem to genuinely be concerned for the welfare of Dragaera, for instance; on the other hand, they are also concerned with having effective allies against their own enemies.…

It is, as you said, a matter of whether "the stakes are of sufficient interest to a god"–and then a matter of whether the gods swan in and resolve things with waves of their hands, or whether they're an integral part of the striving all along.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Sep 18, 2012)

Another case when DEM is okay is when it makes things _worse_ for the characters.


----------



## Ireth (Sep 18, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Another case when DEM is okay is when it makes things _worse_ for the characters.



That's technically not a Deus ex Machina though. XD It's a *Diabolus* ex Machina.


----------



## shangrila (Sep 19, 2012)

If I can't give you specific examples then it's hard to point out exactly where the DEM comes in. In broad terms it's HEAVILY used in the last two books, and possibly the third last as well (I can't remember that one as well as the others). It's partly a fault of his magic system that's just too damn ambigious; there's no definable limitations, so whenever magic is used it ends up just feeling like an easy out. This isn't Mistborn, where you know pewter can't be used to create a fireball. This is where people just open up doorways to other realms and crazy crap happens.

But the worst thing he does, by far, is just randomly introduce new powers. Characters that are hinted to be powerful will suddenly use some power to overcome a foe or obstacle and then it'll never be used again. Or, worse, it won't be explained. It will just happen, everyone will shrug and mutter something about warrens and then go on like nothing happened. It just feels so damn cheap that it frustrates the hell out of me. His story telling is fine and his writing is good (not the best I've seen, but still good). It's just this lack of boundries that drags everything down.

This is just DEM though. There's plenty more that pissed me off about that series that wasn't related to DEM at all.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 19, 2012)

shangrila said:


> This is just DEM though. There's plenty more that pissed me off about that series that wasn't related to DEM at all.



Really?  What?


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 19, 2012)

Shangrila:

I haven't read the last books in the series, but based on your general comments I have a feeling I'm going to take a different view than you. As I said, above, I have a friend who has read them all and we generally have similar tastes. He liked them all and didn't have any of these problems with the series.

If the books were that distasteful, what compelled you to finish the series? I'm just curious, because they're not exactly short, quick reads.


----------



## shangrila (Sep 19, 2012)

Don't read, Steerpike. Spoilers.



Ankari said:


> Really?  What?


The main one was the fact that none of the "named" characters died. I know that might seem strange, given Whiskeyjack's death, but that's about the only one in the entire series. Guys like Quick Ben and Kalam go through worse injuries than Whiskeyjack and still, somehow, manage to keep on chugging. To me, it just seems like the same rules didn't apply. Not to mention the very end, where they gear up everyone for this tragic last stand...and all of the named characters walk away fine. In fact, despite almost 3 quarters of the marines being obliterated, Fiddler's squad gets out fine with only a couple casualties from people added later anyway. It just ended up feeling cheap. Like, would 300 be as strong of a story if they all survived at the end? No.

I also hated that Crokus and Apsalar's story was summarised in one paragraph at the end. That was one of my favourite storylines and it just got pushed aside. They're lost to each other, struggling to come to terms with who they are, who the other is and their feelings for each other, and they just happen to find each other in the end and make up? Ugh. There was no resolution to that conflict, just a cheap few sentences to wrap it up so Erikson didn't have to worry about it.

I didn't like the random addition of storylines and characters either. I did not care about those children wandering through the desert. I really, really didn't. Because...who were they? Why should I have cared? Of course, they had a point, to let that child manifest powers from the Forkrul Assail warren and conveniently kill one of them (DEM in my opinion), but still. It was just this weird little side story that didn't seem to add much, beside a cheap emotional tug at the plight of orphaned children.

I could probably write more, but I think I'll leave it at that for now.


----------



## shangrila (Sep 19, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Shangrila:
> 
> I haven't read the last books in the series, but based on your general comments I have a feeling I'm going to take a different view than you. As I said, above, I have a friend who has read them all and we generally have similar tastes. He liked them all and didn't have any of these problems with the series.
> 
> If the books were that distasteful, what compelled you to finish the series? I'm just curious, because they're not exactly short, quick reads.


The entire series isn't bad, perhaps I should have made that clear earlier. I loved the first book and the next few were really good as well, with the undead K'Chain, Karsa Orlong and Coltaine. And the later books, while not as good as the first few because they had less 1 book contained story lines, were still not bad. It was the last two that pissed me off, mainly, and then when I think about what exactly it was that annoyed me so much I can find more examples throughout the series.

So, yeah, I loved the first 5-6 books. The next ones after that were good, but I hated the last two mainly because they failed to live up to expectations, in my opinion.


----------

