Do any of you use/ like this plot device?
Or have favorite stories that use it? Or stories that bug you because they used it?
Just an open discussion on this.
He wrote back and told me that it was an excerpt from a novel, and that not everyone liked the same things in stories.
So I figured then that if you are a long-honored, well-established science fiction writer, as Jack Williamson was, you can get away with things that most science fiction writers, even if they are somewhat established, can't.
Algis Budrys, in the workshops he taught, strongly discouraged deus ex machina resolutions, and called them "poith-boinders" (I think that's what he said) after an early science fiction story in which a "poith-boinder" saved the hero from a totally inescapable situation.
Edited to clarify that Stanley Schmidt was editor of ANALOG at the time (as he still is), and that's where the story appeared.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited September 03, 2009).]
I would say that even if one is an established writer, "don't you dare bring in a deus ex machina." It's lazy. Per another thread: It may happen in real life, but don't use it in fiction.
If you want something all-powerful or cool technology-wise to save your hero (or if you fall back on this because you can't think of any other way out of the corner you've written yourself into) then IMHO you need to go back and set up you deus throughout the book, dropping little hints and clues so that it doesn't hit the reader out of the blue when it arrives.
I've no objection to the god in a machine descending to the stage to save a main character. But I do object if I had no idea that god existed, that he/she was in that machine, or that it was possible for that god to act upon the story.
I've made that mistake a few times (with obvious hints--in my mind, anyway) and have been excoriated by critiquers for it.
IMO, a hint isn't enough. In order to work the resolution needs to be solidly worked into the story.
[This message has been edited by Owasm (edited September 03, 2009).]
I recently read a bestselling novel with several deus ex machina resolutions. I do think they are relevant to the story's appeal, but don't think they were especially well done.
I've read stories where a deus ex machina informed a story's ending, seen 'em in movies too. They worked because reaction to a patently obvious deus ex machina that called attention to itself was part of those stories' charms. I don't care for poor usages, nor do I want to encounter a lot of stories with one, or write one. But then of late, I'm of the never say never creative mentality.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited September 03, 2009).]
quote:
I've read stories where a deus ex machina informed a story's ending, movies too.
That's a good point. I recall only one novel that used it throughout the story (and it was so long ago that I can't remember who wrote it, or even the name of it; possibly the Jack Williamson novel that KDW mentions), but the movie I took the quote from definitely uses a deus ex machina precisely because that's what was needed for that particular story. "Informed the story's ending..." as extrinsic put it.
Hmmm. I use a quote from a movie that decries the deus ex machina, and it uses it because the story needed it. Might be time for a drink.
I am lucky to have endings in my stories, let alone something with a trick ending.
Accepting this definition: I firmly believe that Aristotle, and most of academia since him, has treated the Deus Ex Machina unfairly. It is a very useful plot device that does not, necessarily, lead to an inferior story when used properly.
The true power of the Deus Ex Machina lies in enabling you to tell the story you wish to tell -- rather than becoming entangled in unnecessary sub-plots. For the most part, I find stories that use this plot device to resolve the primary conflict to be unsatisfying. However, there are brilliant works of literature that use this device very effectively in order to keep the story moving and focused on what the author wishes to focus upon.
For example, Shakespeare's Hamlet is well known for its Deus Ex Machina. The moment at which Hamlet returns to Denmark, haveing been diverted from his death in England by pirates whom he was able to convince ought to return him home, is entirely unexplained.. yet it is part of one of the most brilliant works in all of Enlgish literature.
How can this be so? Well, it's simple. Hamlet is not a play about fighting, argueing, negotiating or (in any other way) interacting with pirates. It's about the internal politics in Denmark. Thus, we can use the Deus Ex Machina as a plot device to return Hamlet from his exile without undermining the story.
Here's the key though -- that moment where the Deus Ex Machina is revealed does not solve the primary conflict of the piece. It is not the climax. It simply allows the author to avoid getting involved in a story that has nothing to do with the story he wishes to tell. The climax comes later, thus allowing us our katharsis (or whatever satisfaction we get from Hamlet).
Of course, there are examples that violate this rule but retain their brilliance. I love Medea despite its clear use of this device to save Medea's life by whisking her away on a chariot drawn by dragons.. but there's something more disturbing about a woman in that much pain living with it instead of being dead. (War of the Worlds is a more contemporary example if you prefer to avoid classic works.. but I won't get into trying to dissect how it worked)
All the same, in general this plot device is used poorly. It is used to resolve the primary conflict of a work and leaves the audience feeling cheated. However, I am firmly committed to the belief that it is extremely useful in retaining the focus of a work and avoiding entanglements in secondary plots where the author has no desire to tread.
There is extensive use of deus ex machina in these books, however a bit of backstory is necessary to understand why:
The main character, Percy Jackson, discovers early in the first book that he is the son of Poseidon, the sea god (and a mortal mother.) He is a demi-god, a halfblood, a hero.
See, Olympus still exists, it's just moved to be over the center of today's western civilization, which the author places over the Empire State Building (600th floor if you will.)
So when he uses deus ex machina, he is *literally* using gods in machines. There's a war god on a motorcycle, the sun god on a chariot (shaped like a fancy sports car), Aphrodite in a gorgeous limo, Hermes in running shoes with gifts that help the main character scrape out of some trouble spots.
However, the thing the author does is he uses these interventions before the climax, so the main characters aren't escaping from the real danger by the gods, they're not being teleported out of harm's way by the gods, in fact usually when the deus ex machina show up in the Percy Jackson series, it's to further enhance the trouble the characters are in, or further complicate things (sub-plots and the like.) They aren't frequent events in the stories either.
So I've developed a new appreciation for the use of deus ex machina, and I have a particular fondness for this author now because I imagine he was chuckling to himself the whole time writing these books, as he worked out which god could show up in which machine next. Very amusing.
I think it all really depends on the story (as I usually think about most things.)
I think as has been said it can be extremely useful...even maybe necessary some times...to keep your story from getting bogged down and bloated by technicalities that have little or nothing to do with your actual story.
I think it can even work as a climax. On Liberty Hall some folks were talking about "The Stand" and its ending...but I have no problem with it for a couple reasons. One because it was literal...an act of God. Two because also in some ways it wasn't entirely a Deus Ex Machina...the choice made by the characters (the titular choice to Stand) was what allowed it to happen.
Also...I have one story myself that some folks have told me they feel has a Deus Ex Machina ending...and maybe it is in a way. But, I submit also that especially in horror fiction, wherein you often have more or less normal people pitted against powerful supernatural threats some times if you want a story with a positive conclusion for the protaganists, some more powerful force almost has to step in. Although as with the Stand, in many cases its triggered/made possible by some decision or sacrifice on the characters part(s)
A recent book by Nora Roberts used it. I can't recall the name, but it is about a detective chick.
The Taking, by Dean Koontz, sort of does this. The ending was pretty lame.
If the MC doesn't personally triump because of their own abilities, then bleh. 
This type of ending seemed to be very common in ancient greek plays. I'm thinking of "Philotetes" by Sophoclese in particular, but I'm sure there are other examples. Do you think they worked/didn't work there?
Also, I loved the end of War of the Worlds.
Even though the aliens should have brought their own epidemics with them too. Think Spanish + New World.
quote:
I remember really enjoying Lord of the Flies in highschool, but being disappointed with the "deus ex machina" end.
I disagree thatLord of the flies had a "deus ex machina" ending.
quote:
The deus ex machina is also referred to as "oh by the way" (according to wiki, dubious source I know)is when "an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot." (dictionary.com)
The entire book Ralph focuses on the signal fire and fights to keep it burning in hopes of rescue. So the rescue at the end does not come out of nowhere.
In fact the only reason Ralph and Piggy confront Jack's tribe is to get Piggy's glasses back so that they can build a new signal fire.
Ironically, in the end, the fire Jack starts to flush Ralph out becomes the signal that causes the rescue.
So I don't see how something that was central to the entire plot could be considered deus ex machina.
Sorry if I went on to long, but Lord of the Flies is one of my all time favorite books, so I had to defend it.
Regarding WOTW, I did not see this as deus ex machina either. If another alien race had come and obliterated them, then it would be that. But having them die from diseases already on our planet employs more irony than anything.
Deus ex machina is something that is both previously unmentioned and improbable.
At the end of this play, the King's messanger comes and gives Mack the Knife -- who is a criminal about to be executed -- a noble title and stays the execution. This is a clear use of Deus ex Machina as this solution is never even alluded to earlier in the text.
The reason it works, though, is because Brecht's point in the play is to demonstrate, through people's disbelief in this resolution, that there is a lack of charity in capitalist societies.
Of course, Brecht was all into verfremdungseffekt.. breaking the audience's suspension of disbelief in the action on stage.. which runs contrary to most story-telling traditions. But given his enormous influence on all performance arts of the last 60 years, I think this is a valid example of a well-conceived deus ex machina in contemporary literature.
Or is that irony instead of deus ex machina?
quote:
Sort of like the ending to PIRATES OF PENZANCE, when the pirates get away with being pirates because they are revealed to be of noble blood?
Or is that irony instead of deus ex machina?
But you also must remember that PIRATES OF PENZANCE--and just about everything the W. S. Gilbert wrote--is satire and that a great many things are exaggerated. Frederick's adherence to his duty over clear self-interest (the subtitle is THE SLAVE OF DUTY). The incompetent Major General. The reluctant policemen. None of it is meant to be taken seriously.
Gilbert's plots almost always end in some surprising reversal, often, though not always, because the characters are revealed to be noblemen--or not.
[This message has been edited by Meredith (edited September 23, 2009).]
I believe that deus ex machina is more accurately defined as "god as a mechanism". Meaning that something happens miraculously to change the expected outcome of a story - emphasis on the word "miraculously".
In Greek and Roman mythology, the gods often interceded in the affairs of the heroes. In Jewish and Christian tradition, God did this quite often as well - some would say he still does.
My point is that deus ex machina is not something that would occur under normal circumstances. There is a lot of wiggle room in that statement, however. Since we often write stories that deal with the miraculous (magic or super-technology), we have more leeway to navigate outside the parameters of what is normally considered deus ex machina.
Also, if the author has foreshadowed the outcome as a posibility, whether indirectly with the use of puns and other literary devices or directly with the reference to this outcome as in LOTF, then it would not be considered deus ex machina.