Deus ex Machina

Me&BacchusGoIntoABar · Nov 14, 2009

We had a little discussion about this recently in another thread, and I just stumbled upon a little Q&A on this subject on The Writer Magazine's website. Btw, their website is giving all access over the weekend and has lots of helpful articles and features.

Using deus ex machina in storytelling

The phrase comes from ancient Greek and Roman dramas, when a seemingly insolvable situation was miraculously solved by a god brought on stage by an elaborate crane. Thus, deus ex machina, literally "god from the machine." While writers might not send gods to swoop in and save the day all that often anymore, there is the temptation to introduce artificial or improbable elements to resolve a difficult conflict. A character surrounded by snarling wolves, backing toward the edge of a steep cliff, who wakes up to learn it was all just a dream. Or two friends down and out in Vegas, hounded by thugs they owe money to, who hit it big on the slots.

Aristotle criticized the device as clumsy, and contemporary readers will do the same. For one thing, it can present a rather unlikely circumstance, one so improbable that it strains the reader's ability to believe in the story. When a long lost aunt dies and leaves a poverty-stricken family with a huge inheritance, the reader is going to wonder where that aunt came from. And how convenient that her death comes just as the landlord is knocking on the door to begin the eviction process. Of course, anything can happen in fiction, but the writer's job is to make it believable, and a sudden solution appearing out of nowhere isn't believable.

A deus ex machina also ignores the fact that a character is an important player in the action. Characters should be active in bringing about the action, whether they intend to or not. In The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, Gatsby is shot due to a moment of mistaken identity. It seems out of the blue, but Gatsby is an active participant in what brings that action about. He pursues the already-married Daisy. A group including Gatsby, Daisy, and her husband Tom travel to the city where Gatsby pressures Daisy to tell Tom that she never loved him. She and Gatsby drive home in Gatsby's car. Daisy, frantic at the wheel, hits and kills a woman who happens to be Tom's mistress. The woman's husband tracks down Gatsby, thinking he's the culprit. Gatsby didn't orchestrate the mistaken identity, but he did put pressure on Daisy, which resulted in her distracted driving. When she hit the woman, he orchestrated the aftermath, getting Daisy home to try and protect her from what she'd done.

When the man wakes from the dream, or the two friends hit it big in Vegas, or the family gets a windfall, the character's actions are rendered irrelevant. They have almost nothing to do with what happens. And why bother learning about a character if what he or she does doesn't matter?

Our other discussion made me realize that fantasy writers have to be a little more aware of this pitfall, because in this genre things like magic and divine intervention are par for the course. That means that some things we do might look on the surface like an example of a deus ex machina when they may not actually be that. Truly amazing things can happen in fantasy lit without harming the actual story with unbelievable occurrences.

The things that seem to me to be the key things to keep in mind:

1. Believability (for the reader of fantasy, not in comparison with what is really possible in the "real world"). Does your plot become pointless due to the influence of magic or some other dramatic interventions. Do characters pull too many surprising rabbits out of their hats. Are there enough limitations so that the story works and the reader feels sufficient tension.

2. Do dramatic/magical interventions come from key characters themselves, and is this in keeping with those characters. Is the character active in bringing about the action, or does it come from without. Do characters solve their biggest problems, or are those problems magically resolved without their input.

*The corollary that also came up before is how limited or unlimited are the character's supernatural abilities. If they are too powerful and for some reason not using their abilities enough to solve their problems, then again credulity is strained.

How have you dealt with this? What do you think about this issue in fantasy lit?

Liosse de Velishaf · Nov 14, 2009

Fear of deus ex machina was one of the largest factors pushing towards scientific magic systems from a story-telling standpoint. It also influenced the increase in gods who acted in the story but were not omni-potent beings.

This is a rather broad topic, perhaps you could focus on a few important aspects?

In a broad sense, this is a rather large issue in fantasy, because so many characters have vast amounts of power. It's one of the prime arguments on the side of people who support regulated magic systems and less than uber-strong characters in the genre.

SPMiller · Nov 14, 2009

Right, this is part of the reason why characters who ascend to godhood in some way often suddenly decide that their godly duties preclude them from interfering in the affairs of mere mortals. That makes no sense, of course, but writers still do it. More skilled writers either supply reasons why gods don't interfere or limit what gods are capable of.

Mr Flibble · Nov 14, 2009

As Liosse so rightly says this is a very broad topic.

However I don't see it as an issue of vast amounts of power. You can have very powerful beings - it's whether they suddenly use a power that hasn't been mentioned at all that makes it clumsy

So, if you have a mage who only uses fire throughout the book, but at a vital moment suddenly remembers that, oh yes he can freeze people into blocks of ice

Or gods have only been mentioned in a 'they live in the sky' kind of way and then your hero is in a situation that he can't get out of and 'poof!' Hi god, thanks for saving my butt! ( I personally like to only make my gods show up to either just give a little nudge, or to completely screw things up worse than they were before

)

It's not the power that's the problem, it's the putting aside the inherent logic of your world because you've written yourself into a corner.

Basically it's cheating the reader.

Right, this is part of the reason why characters who ascend to godhood in some way often suddenly decide that their godly duties preclude them from interfering in the affairs of mere mortals.

What if he's an apprentice god? lol. Mine meddle like bloody nobody's business ( though it's technically Not Allowed), but the weaker ones obviously have less ability to meddle.

SPMiller · Nov 14, 2009

Well, there's always Erikson's way of dealing with deus ex machina. Sometimes the god(s) who show up to save the day end up dying along with those they intended to protect. Whooooops.

In other words, just 'cause something's really powerful doesn't mean it can't run into something more powerful. Or, put another way, there's no reason a supernaturally capable character can't run into a sufficiently complicated obstacle. You gotta use your imagination.

Ruv Draba · Nov 14, 2009

Fantasy doesn't greatly care about physical problems. The real conflict in fantasy lies in psychological and social problems. Fantasy uses deii ex machinae for physical problems all the time -- that's what flying carpets, magic potions and fairy godmothers are for. But one has to be really careful about circumventing psychological and social problems using the same devices.

No amount of physical strength or cunning can draw Arthur's sword from the stone. It's not a physical problem but a psychosocial problem. The boy who draws the sword must either already have the right thought, values and attitudes to be king, or else must quickly come to demonstrate these -- else the sword will go back into the stone.

Likewise, the Prince who kisses Sleeping Beauty wakes her up -- but it has to be a kiss of love. Paying a Prince to kiss the girl wouldn't work.

And similarly, to destroy the One Ring you have to drop it into the fires of Mount Doom where it was made... no other volcano would work. But if a giant eagle were to have flown the Ring there in the first place, wrapped in a sealed envelope, do you think it would work? No, the hero who destroys the One Ring must first prove himself against its power.

A 'scientific' magic system just gives us paranormal SF -- a world where physical problems are problems of science and engineering. But Fantasy isn't that beast -- in Fantasy, all physical problems are actually symbols for psychosocial trials. It's fine for a deus ex machina to solve a physical problem in Fantasy, as long as the psychosocial conflicts are first resolved by drama.

Liosse de Velishaf · Nov 14, 2009

Ruv Draba said:
Fantasy doesn't greatly care about physical problems. The real conflict in fantasy lies in psychological and social problems. Fantasy uses deii ex machinae for physical problems all the time -- that's what flying carpets, magic potions and fairy godmothers are for. But one has to be really careful about circumventing psychological and social problems using the same devices.

No amount of physical strength or cunning can draw Arthur's sword from the stone. It's not a physical problem but a psychosocial problem. The boy who draws the sword must either already have the right thought, values and attitudes to be king, or else must quickly come to demonstrate these -- else the sword will go back into the stone.

Likewise, the Prince who kisses Sleeping Beauty wakes her up -- but it has to be a kiss of love. Paying a Prince to kiss the girl wouldn't work.

And similarly, to destroy the One Ring you have to drop it into the fires of Mount Doom where it was made... no other volcano would work. But if a giant eagle were to have flown the Ring there in the first place, wrapped in a sealed envelope, do you think it would work? No, the hero who destroys the One Ring must first prove himself against its power.

A 'scientific' magic system just gives us paranormal SF -- a world where physical problems are problems of science and engineering. But Fantasy isn't that beast -- in Fantasy, all physical problems are actually symbols for psychosocial trials. It's fine for a deus ex machina to solve a physical problem in Fantasy, as long as the psychosocial conflicts are first resolved by drama.

Ruv, I note that all the examples you've given are from fairy tales. Perhaps you could provide some modern fantasy equivalents? I'm not saying you are wrong, it's just an interesting observation.

Ruv Draba · Nov 14, 2009

Liosse de Velishaf said:
Ruv, I note that all the examples you've given are from fairy tales. Perhaps you could provide some modern fantasy equivalents? I'm not saying you are wrong, it's just an interesting observation.

We have 3,000 years of fantasy tradition to draw from. I don't necessarily rate the last 5 years of fantasy, say, as being full of examples of lasting literature... but feel free to run the criteria over the examples you like.

(I don't consider Arthurian cycle or Lord of the Rings to be fairy-tales, by the way.)

MGraybosch · Nov 14, 2009

SPMiller said:
Right, this is part of the reason why characters who ascend to godhood in some way often suddenly decide that their godly duties preclude them from interfering in the affairs of mere mortals. That makes no sense, of course, but writers still do it. More skilled writers either supply reasons why gods don't interfere or limit what gods are capable of.

Maybe he just doesn't give a damn about mere humans any longer. It worked for Doctor Manhattan, but Alan Moore bothered to show Manhattan's increasing detachment from humanity.

Liosse de Velishaf · Nov 14, 2009

Ruv Draba said:
We have 3,000 years of fantasy tradition to draw from. I don't necessarily rate the last 5 years of fantasy, say, as being full of examples of lasting literature... but feel free to run the criteria over the examples you like.

(I don't consider Arthurian cycle or Lord of the Rings to be fairy-tales, by the way.)

Well, let's put it this way, LOTR and the Arthurian cycle are not exactly the same thing as he current fantasy genre, althoug they did provide quite a lot in terms of inspiration. Ditto for fairy tales.

As a note, I was using modern to refer to anything since, say,the 60's or 70's, rather than things from the last five years.

bearilou · Nov 14, 2009

Ruv Draba said:
And similarly, to destroy the One Ring you have to drop it into the fires of Mount Doom where it was made... no other volcano would work. But if a giant eagle were to have flown the Ring there in the first place, wrapped in a sealed envelope, do you think it would work? No, the hero who destroys the One Ring must first prove himself against its power.

Aaaaand once again, you responded with something that finally knocked the point into my noggin when others just couldn't. You can't know how many people I've asked that very question and gotten the pat answer of 'well, we wouldn't have had the books!'

Liosse de Velishaf · Nov 14, 2009

bearilou said:
Aaaaand once again, you responded with something that finally knocked the point into my noggin when others just couldn't. You can't know how many people I've asked that very question and gotten the pat answer of 'well, we wouldn't have had the books!'

Well... you wouldn't have had the books--so it's not a bad answer. And not everything authors do has a specific purpose. We can only theorize as to the actual answer. Which isn't to say Ruv's doesn't wok either.

Ruv Draba · Nov 14, 2009

Liosse de Velishaf said:
As a note, I was using modern to refer to anything since, say,the 60's or 70's, rather than things from the last five years.

Oh. Okay.

Ged from A Wizard of Earthsea (pub 1968). A massively powerful, change-the-world wizard whose major tests are never about his magical ability -- always about his psychology.

Elric from Moorcock's series of the same name (first pub 1972). The last of the ludicrously powerful Melnibonean sorcerors, whose biggest challenges are always the moral price he has to pay for Getting Stuff Done.

Corwin and his family from Zelazny's Amber series (pub 1970). Godlike beings who can shape their own reality, but all their problems are social ones.

These stories are all full of uber-powerful magic -- spells that kill dragons instantly, blades that kill with a touch, magic that destroys universes... So much deus ex machina froofraw we could choke on it... yet none of that ever actually solves the characters' problems. Moreover, none of the magic systems I mention above are explained in enough detail to be logical and predictable.

So, we don't need a scientific/engineering basis to limit the deus ex machina capabilities of magic... rather, we need to recognise that magic is actually a kind of literary hyperbole that adorns the social, psychological and moral questions underpinning fantasy. Magic can do whatever we like as long as it doesn't resolve these fundamental conflicts.

And that sorta makes sense, when you think about it. Fantasy started off as stories about spirituality... ways of making the intangible tangible so we could discuss it. And really, the most compelling, enduring literature in the fantasy genre is still of that sort.

Me&BacchusGoIntoABar · Nov 14, 2009

Ruv Draba said:
Fantasy uses deii ex machinae for physical problems all the time -- that's what flying carpets, magic potions and fairy godmothers are for. But one has to be really careful about circumventing psychological and social problems using the same devices.

First of all, kudos for knowing the plural in Latin

I think defining what it is is crucial here, though, and I think the way that you and Liosse are talking about it may not be quite how the term is usually regarded. As I understand the term and its usage when it applies to a story, it's synonymous with a particular kind of bad technique that has two features. It's a 'miraculous' plot-advancing method that comes from out in left field and has these two features:

A. Unbelievable and shocking, as in "where the heck did that comes from, and how completely random is that?"
B. The solution does not come from within the characters or their actions, but rather from outside of the characters.

So I feel that you can have an all-powerful figure with supernatural abilities who solves his problems with those abilities, but as long as what she does is consistent within the entire story, and she is the source of the miraculous event, then that is probably not an example of a storytelling deus ex machina. However, that may make the story weaker in some respects if not handled carefully, though that becomes a side issue of how limited the powers are and how that affects the logic of the story.

I would still say, though, that A. extremely powerful characters and B. the poor technique of deus ex machina solutions to plot dead-ends are two distinctly different things. An all-powerful character can exist in a story and work her magic, but depending on how well the writer tells that story and uses that character determines whether or not it falls under the heading of a deus ex machina (which, as I use it, is a pejorative term that applies to plot resolution). In general, I don't put extraordinarily powerful characters under the category of a deus ex machina, and I don't believe that's how the term is normally applied either.

Liosse de Velishaf · Nov 14, 2009

See, I think there's a disconnect here. The "deus ex machina" that I have issues with resolves everything. I like to say it resolves internal tension, which is between the character's ideal world and the real world--basically, "conflict". That includes psychosocial issues. In a lot of modern fantasy, the internal tension and the external tension(tension between the reader's idea of the world and the author's--basically, "suspense") are almost the same thing. That's not to say the link is a bad thing, but it means the model you are working with is not necessarily applicable to modern fantasy.

Liosse de Velishaf · Nov 14, 2009

SoloArtist said:
First of all, kudos for knowing the plural in Latin

I think defining what it is is crucial here, though, and I think the way that you and Liosse are talking about it may not be quite how the term is usually regarded. As I understand the term and its usage when it applies to a story, it's synonymous with a particular kind of bad technique that has two features. It's a 'miraculous' plot-advancing method that comes from out in left field and has these two features:

A. Unbelievable and shocking, as in "where the heck did that comes from, and how completely random is that?"
B. The solution does not come from within the characters or their actions, but rather from outside of the characters.

So I feel that you can have an all-powerful figure with supernatural abilities who solves his problems with those abilities, but as long as what she does is consistent within the entire story, and she is the source of the miraculous event, then that is probably not an example of a storytelling deus ex machina. However, that may make the story weaker in some respects if not handled carefully, though that becomes a side issue of how limited the powers are and how that affects the logic of the story.

I would still say, though, that A. extremely powerful characters and B. the poor technique of deus ex machina solutions to plot dead-ends are two distinctly different things. An all-powerful character can exist in a story, but depending on how well the writer tells that story and uses that character determines whether or not it falls under the heading of a deus ex machina (which, as I use it, is a pejorative term that applies to plot resolution). In general, I don't put extraordinarily powerful characters under the category of a deus ex machina, and I don't believe that's how the term is normally applied either.

Hehe, Ruv and I are actually talkng abou two different issues. I'm basically using the definition you are, and Ruv is not... quite. It's comnplicated.

Me&BacchusGoIntoABar · Nov 14, 2009

Liosse de Velishaf said:
Hehe, Ruv and I are actually talkng abou two different issues. I'm basically using the definition you are, and Ruv is not... quite. It's comnplicated.

I read both of you defining it largely in terms of the amount of power characters have, or in how miraculous the events are which help move the story forward.

I see it more as lazy solutions from authors that resolve tight spots in stories with unbelievable, shocking miracles that originate from outside the important characters. I think IdiotsRUs (above) understands the term in that same sort of fashion.

I feel that the amount of power the characters have is not necessarily related at all to whether or not a deus ex machina has crept into a story.

Liosse de Velishaf · Nov 14, 2009

SoloArtist said:
I read both of you defining it largely in terms of the amount of power characters have, or in how miraculous the events are which help move the story forward.

I see it more as lazy solutions from authors that solve tight spots in stories with unbelievable, shocking miracles that originate from outside the important characters. I think IdiotsRUs (above) understands the term in that same sort of fashion.

I feel that the amount of power the characters have is not necessarily related at all to whether or not a deus ex machina has crept into a story.

Did I give that impression? I've never seen it as about power. It's about lazy authors.

Nivarion · Nov 14, 2009

Deus Ex is when any plot problem gets averted. I even find times when a character rides horses to death to make it to a place on time to be Deus ex. Sometime I wonder if they've ever actually rode a horse going at a full gallop. Its tiring you'd probably die too.

But in some few cases Deus Ex isn't bad at all. I'm talking about those .00001% of books that are so silly they are good. Where there is no fourth wall and everything that shouldn't really be done plot wise is done just because its cliché. And the author gets away with it by being skilled in writing and satire.

Liosse de Velishaf · Nov 14, 2009

Nivarion said:
Deus Ex is when any plot problem gets averted. I even find times when a character rides horses to death to make it to a place on time to be Deus ex. Sometime I wonder if they've ever actually rode a horse going at a full gallop. Its tiring you'd probably die too.

But in some few cases Deus Ex isn't bad at all. I'm talking about those .00001% of books that are so silly they are good. Where there is no fourth wall and everything that shouldn't really be done plot wise is done just because its cliché. And the author gets away with it by being skilled in writing and satire.

Nivvy, people can and have ridden horses to death. It does happen. Now, whether or not a partcular rider is up to it is another story, I'll agree.

Having ridden both horses at a full gallop and horses out of my control for significant amounts of a time, I imagine that a good percentage of fantasy protagonists are capable of it.

Ruv Draba · Nov 15, 2009

The device may well have been invented by the ancient Greek playwright Euripides, who used it very often. In consideration of tragedies in his Poetics, Artistotle wrote (bolding mine):

Aristotle said:
It is therefore evident that the unraveling of the plot, no less than the complication, must arise out of the plot itself, it must not be brought about by the Deus ex Machina- as in the Medea, or in the return of the Greeks in the Iliad. The Deus ex Machina should be employed only for events external to the drama- for antecedent or subsequent events, which lie beyond the range of human knowledge, and which require to be reported or foretold; for to the gods we ascribe the power of seeing all things. Within the action there must be nothing irrational. If the irrational cannot be excluded, it should be outside the scope of the tragedy. Such is the irrational element the Oedipus of Sophocles.

By 'irrational' he's talking about the fanciful, whimsical, or magical elements that we see in fantasy. But in the bolded bit it's pretty clear what he means by a Deus ex Machina -- it's anything irrational and unexpected done to manipulate the plot, and he distinguishes 'acceptable' uses (where it's external to the action) from 'unacceptable' uses (where it screws with the drama).

These days we often use the term as though it's always unacceptable, but fantasy still pretty much agrees with Aristotle. Fantasy often uses a deus ex machina to reveal something we didn't know about a character's powers. (What are Ged's powers? Or Gandalf's? Or Corwin's? How does the sword in the stone know that Arthur should be the king?) Like Aristotle, we tolerate such as long as the action it screws with isn't a major part of the drama.

knight_tour · Nov 15, 2009

Ruv Draba said:
(I don't consider Arthurian cycle or Lord of the Rings to be fairy-tales, by the way.)

I'm curious about your statement, because Tolkien himself considered LOTR to be a romance/fairy tale.

Ruv Draba · Nov 15, 2009

knight_tour said:
I'm curious about your statement, because Tolkien himself considered LOTR to be a romance/fairy tale.

It's certainly a romance, but back when Tolkien was classifying stories, the genre of 'fantasy' hadn't yet been described. Virtually all fantasy (excepting perhaps horror and science-fantasy) was fairy-stories, whether or not they contained fairies.

Nowadays I think our view of fantasy is broader than that, and more finely categorised, so a fairy-tale means something a bit different. I count Lord of the Rings as epic high fantasy, as I do Le Morte D'Arthur or A Wizard of Earthsea. They have more in common with The Odyssey or the Epic of Gilgamesh than they do with say, Hansel and Gretel.

Fairy-tales and high fantasy have some important things in common: a journey, a sense of wonder and a moral. But I view a fairy tale as a story of wonder with a moral in it, whereas I think that high fantasy is a story of morality enhanced with whimsy.

Fairy-tales tend to be expositions; high fantasy tends to be exploration. In high fantasy the trials are deeper, the moral questions more complex, with more sides presented, and more likely to be bound up with psychological and social questions.

But perhaps the biggest difference is this: Tolkien described fairy-stories as being concerned with joy, which I think is a fair description of Cinderella or The Hobbit... but the pursuit of joy becomes a minor concern in Lord of the Rings -- taken up by the colour characters of Sam, Merry and Pippin. Everyone else has a bigger agenda; the joy is almost a distraction until the very end... and at the end it almost seems unnecessary to a modern eye.

Nivarion · Nov 15, 2009

Liosse de Velishaf said:
Nivvy, people can and have ridden horses to death. It does happen. Now, whether or not a partcular rider is up to it is another story, I'll agree.

Having ridden both horses at a full gallop and horses out of my control for significant amounts of a time, I imagine that a good percentage of fantasy protagonists are capable of it.

I'm not talking about one horse, or two. I'm talking about those few instances where the characters rides multiple horses to death, and don't sleep through all of that. And then are fresh and ready for the fight when they get there.

Liosse de Velishaf · Nov 15, 2009

Nivarion said:
I'm not talking about one horse, or two. I'm talking about those few instances where the characters rides multiple horses to death, and don't sleep through all of that. And then are fresh and ready for the fight when they get there.

What fantasy have you been reading? I don't think I've ever come across such a thing in a fantasy story... Do you have examples?

Deus ex Machina

Me&BacchusGoIntoABar

Liosse de Velishaf

SPMiller

Prodigiously Hanged

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

SPMiller

Prodigiously Hanged

Ruv Draba

Liosse de Velishaf

Ruv Draba

MGraybosch

Lunch Break Novelist

Liosse de Velishaf

bearilou

DenturePunk writer

Liosse de Velishaf

Ruv Draba

Me&BacchusGoIntoABar

Liosse de Velishaf

Liosse de Velishaf

Me&BacchusGoIntoABar

Liosse de Velishaf

Nivarion

Brony level >9000

Liosse de Velishaf

Ruv Draba

knight_tour

Fantasy Tourist

Ruv Draba

Nivarion

Brony level >9000

Liosse de Velishaf