Why are writers cornered by Deus Ex?

IdiotsRUs said:

It doesn't have to be literally god.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't have to be god, but my point is it's not just "an unsatisfying, illogical ending." It has to have some elements of "intervention" be it god's grace, or a tornado, a suddenly fallen tree branch, or a magical cat that happens to walk by and save the day.

JJ Cooper said:

Ok. So, because the reader didn't find the ending suitable

Click to expand...

Then the giant meteor struck.

The End.

Got it now?

caw

I just had a huge altercation with a writer whose work I edit about deus ex machina endings recently. I'm not certain this person even knew what the term meant. My problem was that the book has this hugely convoluted plotline that was IMO almost impossible to resolve. The way it was resolved? A galactic god shows up five pages before the end and fixes everything! My response, admittedly not the most tactful editorial comment I've ever left, said it was a 'copout.' The characters not only hadn't learned anything from their ordeal, but they were incapable of resolving it for themselves. They therefore had not only resolved the conflict, they hadn't evolved as characters. What, then, was the purpose of the book?

The writer's response? "I won't change that because it's my artistic license not to do so."

WTF? Artistic license? There isn't an artist alive who is LICENSED to be BORING.

Short story to the point: if your characters don't evolve, they can't resolve the plot. If they don't resolve the plot, there's no reason to HAVE THE DAMN BOOK.

maestrowork said:

only 5 seconds left before the nuclear bomb blows up, an angel comes down from the clouds and say, "Look, you people are good people, so we'll give you a chance" and she makes the bomb disappear. The end.

Click to expand...

I've always hated the ending to The Stand, and feel that its ending was the literal definition of Deus ex Machina.

And don't get me started on the protag's magic tricks in Needful Things. Grr.

My Sister's Keeper was the first Picoult book I read, and it'll be my last. I couldn't stand the ending; I'm siding with those who say it's Deus Ex, definitely.



SPOILERS FOR MSK






Sure, the story ended up being more about the big sister's right to choose her own course of treatment (or, er, to opt out of treatment entirely) than the little sister's right to bodily autonomy, but here's the thing. The book raised a lot of questions about the morality of basically having and raising a child to farm out their body tissues for your older, sick kid- and a lot of the book *was* based around the idea that this younger child was her own person, and that it was important to consider her interests as well as her sister's. By randomly killing this younger sibling off at the very end, she's again reduced to nothing more than a bunch of organs and bone marrow, etc, for the harvest.

And also, the big sister now faces significant pressure, I'd think, to choose to take those available tissues. For one thing, if she dies too, then her parents will have double the grief; she's got to be thinking of that. If she gives up now, her little sister will have died for nothing, or at least, that's how some people are going to look at it. Plus, there's no point in worrying over any further harm to her little sister from invasive and painful procedures, right?

So yeah. Her little sister no longer matters as a human being- despite all the fuss the book made about that issue- and that choice the big sister wanted to make for herself, which was the whole point of the book? Is she really going to make any other decision, given what happened at the end? That ending totally negates the entire book, for me. It's like Picoult got to that point, couldn't decide upon which choice the big sister would actually make, and decided to just take the whole matter out of her hands. OHHH it made me so mad, I'm still ranting. LOL

originally posted by TheAntar

I've always hated the ending to The Stand, and feel that its ending was the literal definition of Deus ex Machina.

Click to expand...

I'm sure Trashcan Man would be honored to be compared to a god ::grins::

The ending of IT has THE STAND beaten hands down.

I suppose that it was deus ex bicycle instead of machina, but that ending really dissappointed me. Dead people ought to stay dead, you know? Not be revived by playing cards clacking against a spoked wheel.

I don't think the Stand is Deus ex Machina - in that you don't usually get chapters from a deus's POV, because the Dues ex machina is illogical / contrived and normally a complete surprise to get the characters out of their predicament without them doing anything.

And we knew what Trashy was doing. It was foreshadowed throughout the book. Besides it didn't exactly get those three out of a predicament in one piece now did it?

Is Deus Ex Machina ever considered acceptable in some stories? Because I have one story that was called that by an editor. The problem is I can't rewrite it because it would ruin the whole thing. I wrote a novel that had Zeus as the villian. The stort story I wrote Forever in Your Arms is a prelude to a novel I am going to write about Zeus later on. It basically sets up his story. I wanted Zeus to be the hero in Forever in Your Arms. Basically, the plot is simple, an old woman unknowingly invites Zeus into her house when he is dressed up as a mortal homeless man and gives him a meal and a place to sleep for the night even though both she and her husband are poor. Zeus disapears in the morning. The next next she invites another man back to her house for a meal and a place to sleep. He turns violent, kills her husband, and almost kills the old woman but is stopped when Zeus returns, this time not in disguse. He defeats the man and takes the woman out into the street. In her dying moments she uses her powers to look into the future to tell Zeus the name of his soul mate who has not been born yet. Zeus gives her a wish in return. She wishes to be with her husband forever. He turns them both into trees. The end.

Its based off a myth. I honestly don't see how I could make it non-Deus Ex Machina without removing the most important thing: Zeus coming to the rescue of a mortal and being the hero for once.

So is it ever acceptable? does it ever work?

Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who only took one semester of Mythology in college, and wasn't crazy about it.

Zeus and all them mythological folk were written in a big world of Duex Ex Machina-dom. People were shooting babies out their genitals, fetuses were being incubated in thigh tissue when mothers died of godly massive sexual endeavors, people with wax wings drowned because they flew too close to the sun... thousands of years ago, people loved this stuff. And the people who love it today love it because it's classic. And, as much as I don't like mythology, I accept it for what it is--incredibly dated fantasy. And if Mythology never existed, and was thought up by someone now, in 2008, I don't think it would sell.

I'm sure you can write a successful story about Zeus, and use mythology canon, but you would have to follow today's literary guidelines. What you write will not be sung at festivals, but read in bookstore cafes and livingrooms.

This is a long, tireless rant. But my point is, Zeus or not, nix the Duex.

Atlantis said:

Is Deus Ex Machina ever considered acceptable in some stories? Because I have one story that was called that by an editor. The problem is I can't rewrite it because it would ruin the whole thing. I wrote a novel that had Zeus as the villian. The stort story I wrote Forever in Your Arms is a prelude to a novel I am going to write about Zeus later on. It basically sets up his story. I wanted Zeus to be the hero in Forever in Your Arms. Basically, the plot is simple, an old woman unknowingly invites Zeus into her house when he is dressed up as a mortal homeless man and gives him a meal and a place to sleep for the night even though both she and her husband are poor. Zeus disapears in the morning. The next next she invites another man back to her house for a meal and a place to sleep. He turns violent, kills her husband, and almost kills the old woman but is stopped when Zeus returns, this time not in disguse. He defeats the man and takes the woman out into the street. In her dying moments she uses her powers to look into the future to tell Zeus the name of his soul mate who has not been born yet. Zeus gives her a wish in return. She wishes to be with her husband forever. He turns them both into trees. The end.

Its based off a myth. I honestly don't see how I could make it non-Deus Ex Machina without removing the most important thing: Zeus coming to the rescue of a mortal and being the hero for once.

So is it ever acceptable? does it ever work?

Click to expand...

My guess is that they are "discovery" writers--authors with a freewheeling writing style, no outline, no ending in mind, etc. Some can pull it off, others are not so lucky.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a Deus Ex Machina ending, as long as it works, and there are many contexts where it can work.

For example:

Surrealism- Where there is no cohesive storyline to resolve anyway
Comedy- Where the ending is one big joke anyway like in Threepenny Opera or Shaun of the Dead
Horrors and Thrillers- Where the shock of the deus ex machina ending adds to the weight of the storyline
Drama- Where there is a level of poetry added to the story through the nature of the deus ex machina. Even though the ending wasn't foreshadowed, it makes sense and gives closure.

Pretty much any type of storyline where you want to have one of the themes be something along the lines of fate or coincidence, deus ex machina endings can be fantastic. Granted, if it's pulled off poorly, then it can be bad, but I don't see anything wrong with it in many types of writing.

Palmfrond said:

LOTR always did seem a bit deus ex machina to me. The giant eagles fly Frodo and Sam out of Mordor at the end. Why couldn't the eagles just fly Frodo and the ring directly to Mount Doom from the Shire? What's with all the walking?

Click to expand...

IIRC, the eagles came to the battle at the Black Gate and were sent to Mount Doom to rescue Frodo and Sam by Gandalf after the one ring was destroyed.

As for taking the ring to Mordor via the eagles, if you've read the book or seen the movies, you'll recall the Nazgul- flying ring wraiths. If the Eagles came into Mordor while the nine where there, they surely would have been destroyed. Thus, the ONLY way to destroy the ring, as laid out by Tolkein, would be to sneak it into Mordor and destory it within the fires of mount doom. Once the ring was destroyed, the eagles could enter Mordor and rescue Frodo and Sam because the Nine were destroyed with it. If you're looking for a Deus Ex Machina in LOTR, Tom Bombadil is a good place to start.

Jessi = Tolkein Nerd

As for C.S. Lewis. Not really a fan, but I always accepted the Aslan Dues Ex thing because the stories are biblical allegory, so of course the Hand of God is going to step in and clear everything up from time to time. I haven't read the stories since I was a kid though. Once I discovered they were allegory, I don't know. I just felt really insulted. Like I was being preached at without my knowing it. Ick.

MarionRivers said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with a Deus Ex Machina ending, as long as it works, and there are many contexts where it can work.

For example:

Surrealism- Where there is no cohesive storyline to resolve anyway
Comedy- Where the ending is one big joke anyway like in Threepenny Opera or Shaun of the Dead
Horrors and Thrillers- Where the shock of the deus ex machina ending adds to the weight of the storyline
Drama- Where there is a level of poetry added to the story through the nature of the deus ex machina. Even though the ending wasn't foreshadowed, it makes sense and gives closure.

Pretty much any type of storyline where you want to have one of the themes be something along the lines of fate or coincidence, deus ex machina endings can be fantastic. Granted, if it's pulled off poorly, then it can be bad, but I don't see anything wrong with it in many types of writing.

Click to expand...

It never works.

It takes the characters' fate out of their own hands and negates the whole point of the preceding narrative.

scarletpeaches said:

It never works.

It takes the characters' fate out of their own hands and negates the whole point of the preceding narrative.

Click to expand...

It depends on the point of the preceding narrative. It may negate some points and drive home others. You can't make generalizations in story-telling. There are so many Deus Ex Machina endings I just love.

If the point of the preceding narrative is to say "I'm going to take the characters' personal autonomy away from them and wrap this novel up in a way that has nothing to do with their own actions and is therefore an insult to their free will," then yes, DEM could work.

Not that I've ever seen it happen, in any of the thousands of books I've read.

MarionRivers said:

It depends on the point of the preceding narrative.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't; it's part of the actual definition regardless of preceding narrative.

IdiotsRUs said:

I don't think the Stand is Deus ex Machina - in that you don't usually get chapters from a deus's POV, because the Dues ex machina is illogical / contrived and normally a complete surprise to get the characters out of their predicament without them doing anything.

And we knew what Trashy was doing. It was foreshadowed throughout the book. Besides it didn't exactly get those three out of a predicament in one piece now did it?

Click to expand...

Didn't the hand of God detonate the bomb in the end and blow up all the bad people?

That's my memory of that story. Am I incorrect?

TheAntar said:

Didn't the hand of God detonate the bomb in the end and blow up all the bad people?

That's my memory of that story. Am I incorrect?

Click to expand...

No - it blew up. Whether that was God's plan and he did it directly ( probably) or it just blew up at the right time doesn't really matter because a) it's a story about God v Evil. So God doing something isn't either unexpected or illogical in that world. b) Because we knew Trashy was bringing a nuke, and it was pretty shagged too, then it blowing up right there isn't either illogical or unexpected. It's a logical conclusion.

It's not whether God appears in the story. It's whether the ending makes sense for that story or just turns up out of the blue with no foreshadowing etc.

If the Stand had no Godly elements to it and/ or a nuke just turned up outta nowhere, that would be Deus ex Machina

Darzian said:

I do not remember why they arrived when they did. If there was a strong reason given, then it wouldn't fall into deus ex- but I agree that it was rather convenient.
Your point is valid too- a large group of Eagles could have infiltrated Mordor- especially before the Nazgul got winged beasts.

Click to expand...

LOL, that's been memorialized in the YouTube "How It Should Have Ended" series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU

The only reason that I can think of is that before Mordor pretty much collapsed, the eagles may have been shot from the sky. There were a lot of Orcs and stuff there.

Anyway, about the deus ex machina thing. I think it's option #3. A lot of writers get to the end of their manuscript, write the ending, and don't go back and make sure to include details that make the ending NOT come out of left field and like the inevitable conclusion that it should be. Also, authors are so close to their manuscripts that they may not see that the ending is coming out of left field (or that there aren't enough details to foreshadow it, or that there's a missing link in the chain of logical events and consequences).

If you really want a more thorough understanding of how writers can fix deus ex machina endings, I recommend BOTH reading the book and watching the first season of Dexter; in conjunction, they taught me a lot about setup. The book's ending is rather deus-ex-machina, but the tv show has the same ending and it's not at all deus-ex-machina, and there's a reason for that; the tv series simply foreshadowed the ending better. It added a lot of little details that hinted at the reveal in the ending and made it make sense. It provided buildup.

I think it's a sign that the imbalance of power is too great. A writer reaching for Deus Ex Machina has likely gotten the MC into a situation that's too far beyond the MC's abilities and resources, and there's no plausible way for the MC to do what's necessary to come out victorious.

Dale

ajkjd01 said:

I always thought that a good example of Deus ex Machina was the C.S. Lewis books/movies.

Have you seen the movie version of Prince Caspian? (I have not yet read the book, so I don't know if the movie was true to the book.)

At the end, after all of these catatrophes and battles, and losses and all of that, the Good Guys are cornered right near the river and it looks like it's the end. There is no conceivable way out. And lo and behold...here come Aslan, who saves the damn day. With nothing in the plot that shows that he was even paying attention to them, much less ready to save them. In fact, the characters were actively looking for him...and didn't find him until they were in over their heads. Voila....day saved, plot solved...so why did we have to have the whole drama with the fricking prince if Aslan was gonna save the day anyways?

(My mom and I walked out of the theater and she was going on and on about how good the movie was...I was grumbling that something with that bad of an ending got published and sold movie rights.)

Click to expand...

I just watched Prince Caspian yesterday afternoon, and the ending didn't bother me.

The reason I think it may have seemed unsatisfying to you was because you saw the main conflict in the book to be getting Caspian on his throne. In that context the ending could appear like Deus Ex Machina. However, having read the books a few times (though not in the last twenty years) I saw the main conflict as the internal one of can Peter and Susan submit to Lucy's faith in Aslan?

Both Prince Caspian and Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe are about the strength of a child's faith. It's Lucy's faith and the need of the others to join Lucy in that faith that is the key to both movies. And even Lucy has a crisis of faith, as is seen by her realization that had she gone on her own to Aslan earlier she might have prevented all the deaths in the movie.

Say what you want about the movie, but C.S. Lewis' ending was both foreshadowed and a natural outgrowth of the plot. Aslan's appearance at the bridge is a direct result of the choices the characters make inthe course of the film. Yes it may appear like Deus Ex Machina in the context of fighting the Telmarines, but as has been said it is a religious book anyway.

Darzian said:

I love LOTR too.

But, the winged beasts came later. They don't make their appearance until the extreme latter part of Book 1.

Aragorn takes Gondor's army to the Black Gate to provide a diversion for Frodo. Couldn't the same have been done- but with the Eagles sneaking in instead? With most of Mordor's forces at the Black Gate, and with the Nazgul on the ground, should it not have been possible for a large group of eagles to infiltrate Mordor?

I think the main counter point would be the eagles' unwillingness to get involved in the war. I can't remember much about them too clearly.

Click to expand...

Yes, I remember when the beasts were mentioned, however one would assume they existed within the story-world prior to their actually being mentioned. So, if Frodo and Sam would have ridden eagles over Modor, they would have been destroyed by the Nazgul. Even if the Nine were still abroad and therefore not in Modor to defend it, it is likely that Modor had other air defenses.

Really, I think it would be more difficult to sneak through the air (how would one even do that?) than sneak across scrubby terrain. I just read the books again last week. It seems perfectly logical to me. The eagles were willing to aid in the wars, and aided Galndalf and co. many times. In the hobbit, however, they were a bit more reluctant so that might be what you're thinking of. I think really, the eagles didn't sneak the hobbits in because they couldn't, pure and simple. Well, really they didn't because that's not the way Tolkein wrote the story. But you know what I mean LOL