Deus Ex Machina

[Havokca]

I'll preface this by saying that this is a wholly legitimate question. I'm a computer scientist, so my grasp of all things narrative-y isn't quite as strong as that of some people on this forum; I could use some educating... which is to say, I've got a few assumptions, and I've no idea if those assumptions have any basis in fact.

Comic 930 just dropped, and Julio suddenly appeared with his punnily-named airship, causing cries of "DEUS EX!!! DEUS EX!!" to be raised.

I thought that, in order for something to be a deus ex machina, its introduction had to completely resolve (or render irrelevant) whatever problem the protagonists were facing. Additionally, the very existence of that plot device is supposed to be completely unknown before it is used to extricate the protagonists from whatever situation they had just found themselves in.

This doesn't appear to be the case with Julio's sudden appearance:

Tarquin is still dangerous
Julio may still die
Roy may still die
Durkon may still die
Belkar may still die
Laurin is still a beast; who knows how many more times she can incapacitate the majority of the party


In short, Julio will definitely assist the party in facing Tarquin, but his introduction at this point doesn't obviate the need for the party to do anything, and the very fact that a number of people predicted his arrival (and that we all knew of his existence) indicates that it doesn't satisfy the above criteria for being a Deus Ex Machina... instead, by the above definition, he would merely be a plot twist.

This, of course, begs the question.

Or, to put it more bluntly: What *is* the difference between a plot twist and a deus ex machina?

[T-Mick]

A plot twist is a surprising development, which the reader may or may not be able to predict, but which is at least plausible. In other words, something that seems unlikely but not impossible can be a plot twist.

Deus ex Machina is when the solution to the problem at hand comes out of nowhere, and/or solves the problem almost instantly. Like Zeus flying down and killing Tarquin & co.

Because of all the foreshadowing we got, and the fact that he could still die, Julio's return is not a Deus Ex Machina. It is only a surprising twist.

[allenw]

Julio's return is a (symbolic) Dada ex Mechane.

[alpha_dk]

Or, to put it more bluntly: What *is* the difference between a plot twist and a deus ex machina?

I'm not sure that deus ex machina requires the heros to no longer work. I can think of several DEM's that still require the hero to do work - Beowulf getting his Grendel-slayer sword being my personal ur-example. Beowulf still needed to swing the sword himself, but it gave him a leg up on her.

I'd say the difference is a DEM has the heroes succeed due to factors beyond their ability to predict/control/get lucky (that is, a 'miracle' happens) whereas a plot twist just has a change in the story that was unpredictable (think Wild Things, for those of you who have seen it) (with unreasonably disbelievable twists classifying as DEM)

[Grey Watcher]

...

This, of course, begs the question.

Or, to put it more bluntly: What *is* the difference between a plot twist and a deus ex machina?

I think the problem is that most people using it on the likes of this forum or the infamous TV Tropes site aren't literary scholars in any way, so they tend to use the terms very imprecisely. It's very similar to the way words like "retard" and "moron" used to be specific, medical terms for people with below average cognitive function but, once they got into the hands of lay people, they just became synonyms for "stupid" (necessitating the need for new terms to be coined, which, in turn get into the hands of lay people, etc., etc.).

In short, if you want to use the strictly correct, academic definition of the term Deus Ex Machina, then I think you're correct. Scoundrel's arrival, however surprising, doesn't qualify on several counts. But a lot of people insist on using it for "any plot twist that helps the protagonist that I did not expect". Honestly, some people (not necessarily the same people) would've screamed "Deus Ex!" just as hard had Roy rallied and suddenly overcome his injuries, or had Elan pulled out his rapier and started to duel Tarquin.

(Incidentally, my inner insufferable pedant can't help but note that, in a post about the correct use of the term "Deus Ex Machina", you've technically used the term "to beg the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)" incorrectly. Though given that the English version of the term arises in part from a bad translation, it's wholly understandable.)

I'd cue the inevitable ninjas, but they're already here.

[AstralFire]

There is actually (to my knowledge) no authoritative distinction between a very hard to predict plot twist and a Deus ex Machina; I've never seen a source of high authority that specifically requires that the DeM not be foreshadowed, only that it has been external to the situation.

However, there is some authority noting that usually a DeM is not hinted at all, and there's wide agreement that its use as a label (as opposed to plot twist) tends to be pejorative (though it is not necessarily).

In other words, there's argument for both sides and you can't resolve this question here. Of course, if Julio himself solves nothing without the direct aid of the others, then it's not a DeM at all, because that part is universally agreed upon.

It's more useful to ask "was this a bad plot twist or a good one, and why?" I think the term DeM has become too pejorative in casual discussion to be of much use these days.

[Klear]

Or, to put it more bluntly: What *is* the difference between a plot twist and a deus ex machina?

Deus ex machina is a kind of plot twist.

[Havokca]

Julio's return is a (symbolic) Dada ex Mechane.

LoL ... well played =)


Deus ex Machina is when the solution to the problem at hand comes out of nowhere, and/or solves the problem almost instantly. Like Zeus flying down and killing Tarquin & co.

That was my interpretation as well.


(Incidentally, my inner insufferable pedant can't help but note that, in a post about the correct use of the term "Deus Ex Machina", you've technically used the term "to beg the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)" incorrectly. Though given that the English version of the term arises in part from a bad translation, it's wholly understandable.)

...

Crap...

And here I thought I was using it correctly as it was in reference to my assumptions, which directly support my conclusion.

This would be a good illustration of why I try to stick to coding =)


In other words, there's argument for both sides and you can't resolve this question here. Of course, if Julio himself solves nothing without the direct aid of the others, then it's not a DeM at all, because that part is universally agreed upon.

Actually, in reading some of the comments in the 930 thread, I'm not certain that it is universally agreed upon...


Deus ex machina is a kind of plot twist.

Yes, but a plot twist is not a DeM ... is it not?

[AstralFire]

I meant "universally agreed upon by authorities."

[Havokca]

I meant "universally agreed upon by authorities."

The literary-police? :smallwink:

[truemane]

It's not even so much that the laypeople use the term imprecisely, it's that the term is (almost inherently) imprecise. At one point, the phrase referred to something very specific (lowering an actor, playing a god, onto a stage via some manner of machine, who would then handwave all the plot problems and then the play's over), but it's since been taken from that context and now is more of a blanket term to cover a possible range of situations.

Much like, for example, the word 'classic' which at once point referred to works of art produced in the 'Classical Period' (Greece, from 500 to 300 BCE). Once divorced from its original context, the word can mean almost anything.

Everyone has their own threshold beyond which a plot twist becomes a Deus Ex Machina. Personally, for myself, the question is: did the author introduce the twist because it's a good idea, or because they're out of ideas?

In this case, I highly doubt that the Giant was sitting there scratching his head thinking 'how am I going to get myself out of this one? Oh! Scoundrel! It's perfect!'

More likely he added Julio to increase the number of complications, rather than to reduce them.

Also, seeing as how he actually is a deus (God/authority/father) coming down onto the 'stage' from a machine (Mechane) - well, Giant loves to Lampshade.

[Tiiba]

The fact is, it's perfectly believable. Elan asked an old friend to help out in a pinch. That's what people do in real life.

A DEM is when a writer invents a powerful ally because he wrote himself into a corner, and no known character with any believable reason to help out is capable of making a difference.

They're so screwed! But never fear: it turns out that Haley has a long-lost older sister who can cast Dragon Strike at will, and she was nearby because she just got done killing Nyarlathotep. Why was Nyarlathotep there? Who knows. But now we need to get rid of her, or the fight with Xykon won't last a second. That's where Deus Exit Machina comes in. Possibly a Diabolus Ex Machina distracted her to make her leave.

If a DEM is a kind of failure, lack of foreshadowing is not a defining trait of it. There's nothing reprehensible about not giving your game away. It serves only as evidence that the author didn't have a game, and is pulling cards out of his sleeve, putting them in his hand, and acting like they were always there.

[Jay R]

A Deus Ex Machina is both arbitrary and automatic. Julio is neither. He can't automatically fix it; he has to join in the fight.

This one has been foreshadowed since Julio called Elan "my young Padawan" and Tarquin said, "Elan - I am your father."

[Leecros]

It's not even so much that the laypeople use the term imprecisely, it's that the term is (almost inherently) imprecise. At one point, the phrase referred to something very specific (lowering an actor, playing a god, onto a stage via some manner of machine, who would then handwave all the plot problems and then the play's over), but it's since been taken from that context and now is more of a blanket term to cover a possible range of situations.

Much like, for example, the word 'classic' which at once point referred to works of art produced in the 'Classical Period' (Greece, from 500 to 300 BCE). Once divorced from its original context, the word can mean almost anything.

Everyone has their own threshold beyond which a plot twist becomes a Deus Ex Machina. Personally, for myself, the question is: did the author introduce the twist because it's a good idea, or because they're out of ideas?


I'm going to have to disagree with you here, the definition of Deus Ex Machina and what it entitles is not subjective. It's almost entirely objective. Deus Ex Machina has a modern definition that's pretty clear.

A Deus Ex Machina is an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation. the example from the TV Tropes page(which I won't link to because i don't really like TV Tropes):

Billy is drowning in the water with nothing to do but to wait until the end.

Suddenly the omnipotent superhero GodMan slightly shifts his weight and Billy appears on a beach in Costa Rica.

Deus Ex Machina's are really obviously. There's rarely ever any subtlety about them. It's a situation where the solution literally pops into existence at it's time of need, because the artist or writer has been written into a corner. It often happens when someone completely overblows a villain to the point where you need something ridiculous to happen to stop them.

There's a few reasons why many people often use it incorrectly is that if the tense situation is resolved in a way where the reader or viewer felt cheated; they'll cry Deus Ex Machina because they were unsatisfied with the resolution. Elan could have picked up the Staff of Wigglywoo in the Dungeons of Dorukan and not use it or even mention it until the very last page of the comic, where he uses it to trap Tarquin, Redcloak, and Xykon in an inescapable demiplane and it technically wouldn't be a Deus Ex Machina. Conversely, if Elan discovered that he was actually a Planetar and curbstompped Tarquin. That would be.

Another reason is that they want to sound like they know what they're talking about. I know that sounds a little harsh, but even I do it every once in awhile. You know the approximate definition of the word and utilize it approximately in such a way to make it sound like you know what you're talking about and end up slightly missing the mark. Unfortunately it tends to set off a chain reaction with people not knowing better and they then go use it in a similar fashion. This is actually how a lot of words change definition over the years, but that doesn't mean that it's the correct use for the word.

The final reason that i have is a bit more forgiving. Somebody missed the foreshadowing. The foreshadowing was either very subtle or they just missed it. Ergo, when taking a look at it objectively, they see that this event had no foreshadowing whatsoever. For example, you're watching a film that takes place in a town by a volcano(but they don't know it's a volcano). You hear the main characters talk about minor earthquakes and other odd stuff that happens before an eruption. At the end the villain dies because the volcano erupts. Technically not a Deus Ex Machina, but if you didn't know anything about volcanoes it may seem that way.

In the end, it's not whether a person believes that something is a Deus Ex Machina; it's whether it is or isn't. A Deus Ex Machina has no warning, no foreshadowing, no anything. It's usually completely obvious and if you have to ask yourself "Is this a Deus Ex Machina?" the answer is probably No. A plot twist is not a DeM(got tired of writing the word :smalltongue:). Plot twists are foreshadowed and involve things and characters that have already been introduced and it can range from the completely obvious like Julio Scoundrel swooping in to save the day(like pg 930) to the more subtle Staff of Wigglywoo that i mentioned earlier.

[Sunken Valley]

The main type of deus ex machina indisputably resolves a conflict unlike a plot twist which just changes the tide of a conflict.

I use two examples, one from Avatar Last Airbender and another from OOTS.

In the final episode of avatarThe main villain slams the Avatar against a rock in the final battle. Somehow this reactivates his "Avatar State" and he easily demolishes the villain. This is cheating because the avatar didn't turn the tables because of what he did or who he was or because he was clever and prepared. He just won through dumb luck.

An OOTS example is Panels 13, 14 and 15 where the resolution comes out of nowhere and those people won because they did nothing. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html)

[Souhiro]

Julio Scoundrel's sudden appearance has some parts of Deus Ex. But it's more a "Calvary Moment": It has been forewarned, he has some motives to be there, is a "Solve the situation with a snap of his fingers", and a bunch more.

Also, this was a GREAT ENTRANCE, and an appropiate battle: The greatest Chaotic Good and the greatest lawful evil. Both of them are masters of narrative, have a great sense of drama. One has a legion of slaves bind by fear, the other has a bunch of friends and sworn allies. One left Elan as a child, the other raised him as a man.

Come on... The Tarquin vs Julio will be the TRUE "Counterpart" battle, instead of Tarquin vs Roy.

Also, keep in mind something: What have we seen about Tarquin? I'll tell you: He fight like a COWARD. He has a lot of defenses, defense agains mind attacks, defense against arrows, defense agains invisibility, defense against quips, absurdly high AC, maybe Evasion... But, do we have seen him ATTACKING? He only lacked to be carrying two shields, and I'm pretty sure he has considered to do so.

Most of characters build themselves about attacking and defending from the most usual threats, but he? He has one of those "Invulnerability" builds.

[strijder20]

But, do we have seen him ATTACKING?

Roy and Belkar are currently unconscious. I don't think that's because of a sunstroke.

[Klear]

Yes, but a plot twist is not a DeM ... is it not?

Every DeM is a plot twist. Not every (by far!) plot twist is a DeM. DeM is a more specific term, one of a number different kinds of plot twists.

[Havokca]

Every DeM is a plot twist. Not every (by far!) plot twist is a DeM. DeM is a more specific term, one of a number different kinds of plot twists.

And that was at the heart of my question. Although, it seems that the general consensus sides with my assumptions as to what a DeM actually is.

I think the biggest reason why it's unlikely to be a DeM is that I don't think Tarquin's defeat is a forgone conclusion. Also, there's still the (remote) chance for more plot twists.

[Klear]

And that was at the heart of my question. Although, it seems that the general consensus sides with my assumptions as to what a DeM actually is.

I think the biggest reason why it's unlikely to be a DeM is that I don't think Tarquin's defeat is a forgone conclusion. Also, there's still the (remote) chance for more plot twists.

I really don't want to get sucked into another DeM discussion. These things never do any good. I'll say as much, though, that I'm in the camp that says that its boundaries are at least a little bit fuzzy. The problem is, most DeM discussions revolve around boundary cases, so...

[Morty]

Here's the thing: the term "Deus Ex Machina" has been bandied about the Internet for a long time now, used in reference to any plot twist or surprising development someone didn't like. It has been so overused that it has lost pretty much all the meaning it once had. It's an empty phrase, that signifies mostly the unwillingness or inability to come up with an actual argument or critique.

[Tiiba]

Also, there's still the (remote) chance for more plot twists.

I estimate it at 100+%. That's just for the next strip by itself.

[Snails]

I would strongly suggest that one of the classic elements of a DeM that makes it meaningfully different from any random unforeseen plot twist is how the new element resolves many long build up complications. In other words, when the author has painted himself into a corner, the DeM solves the hard work of unraveling the conundrums, by use of overt author fiat.

IMNSHO, the Giant has never actually painted himself into a corner in such a manner. With tiny changes to the very recent past, the Order could resolve the immediate crisis by themselves. (And that holds equally well for other suggested candidates for DeM in the OotS story.)

For example, Haley could recover from the stun effect in time to use a wand to remove Tarquin; while that may not be the most satisfying choice, it is entirely plausible within a D&Dish universe. This proves that the Giant had multiple choices, and simply prefers bringing in this known element at this particular time.

[Fish]

Deus ex machina: Spock is blinded by the radiation during "Operation: Annihilate" but he conveniently has a second Vulcan eyelid that protects against exactly that, which has never been mentioned before or since.

Plot twist: Spock stashed his soul in McCoy's brain at the end of the second movie; Spock's corpse was revived by the Genesis effect. We have never seen any Vulcan use this power, but we saw Spock do something hinky ("Remember") before going in, and we can believe the life-giving super tech of the Genesis effect.

Deus ex machina: Gandalf didn't really die. He is returned to life for reasons that are not adequately explained.

Plot twist: Beorn shows up at the Battle of Five Armies.

It's usually pretty obvious what really is a deus ex machina. There's also "gift from the gods" which muddies the waters a little...

[Knight.Anon]

A Deus Ex Machina was a type of play where the actors make horrible choices and break everything hopelessly. At then at the end the "gods" are lowered down on a a pully lift to dispense justice and fix everything.

What happened with Julio is more like the cavalry showing up to rescue the besieged heroes from hopeless odds. If done poorly its a D.E.M but if done well it can be very entertaining kind of like a fireworks display's grand finale.

The party deserves a medal for keeping Belkar on his feet with 3 hit points for as long as they did. But it was criminal that the party didn't have more potions, scrolls, and wands for when the fan gets hit by a dump truck full of manure. Its like Batman forgetting his belt, and car on a life or death solo run against the Legion of Doom. Its Doom-time alright.

[Poppatomus]

I agree that it's an imprecise term, and many times subjective in use and application. However, the strong definition emphasizes the deus part, rather than the ex Machina.

What I mean is that it's not that the plot is resolved, but rather that an entity or development occurs that renders the plot irrelevant. When the gods come down to the stage, the question becomes why they didn't come down in act one. What makes it a deus ex, rather than just a plot twist no one saw coming or lazy story telling more generally, is that it strips agency from the characters.

For this to be strong deus ex, Julio would need to be not just a match for tarqin, but also a character whose arrival renders the oots struggles to this point moot.

Note too that a deus ex is usually frustrating, but it doesn't have to be "bad." When Gandalf first calls the eagles it's arguably a strong deus ex, since the ability to just fly makes so much of what has happened irrelevant in retrospect and going forward. But that's the author's point: that there are some beings whose interests depart from our own, and who's power should give us some sense of humility, and perspective.

[Snails]

Deus ex machina: Gandalf didn't really die. He is returned to life for reasons that are not adequately explained.

That is an interesting example.

On one hand, yes, I admit there is a strong case there.

OTOH, JRRT did have the option of having Gandalf simply show up, and say "I kicked it's arse. Sorry, that it took me so long to find my way back from the bottom of the utter depths of the world."

It lacks the "I painted myself into a corner" problem. JRRT could just have blessed Gandalf with a dollop more magic, while hidden off panel. He chose otherwise because a confirmed actual death was very valuable thematically.

I mention this because a "Deus Ex Machina" has strong connotations of bad writing, for the particular implication that the author, through lack of foresight, painted himself into a hopeless corner and is too lazy to find another way out. If the author has multiple options sitting right in the palm of his hand and chooses a more fantastic one, is that really a DeM?

In fact, it would not have been all that hard to write the rest of LotR with Gandalf simply dead and gone.

[Jasdoif]

Or, to put it more bluntly: What *is* the difference between a plot twist and a deus ex machina?As others have said, a deus ex machina is a type of plot twist.

Anyway, the best way I've heard it explained is that a good plot twist makes you think "Why didn't I see that coming?", because all its components were already introduced in the story, and the plot twist seems to naturally flow from how they all work together even though it wasn't obvious until it happened.

Whereas with a deus ex machina plot twist, you couldn't have seen it coming because one or more components were introduced at the same time as the plot twist itself.

[Knight.Anon]

A D.E.M wisely used can also improve a story. I know thousands of stories and very little is fresh and surprising, so something unexpected that doesn't break the story is refreshing. Julio's presence improves the story IMO. It will put a capstone on Tarquin's arc allow the party to proceed on with the story.

[Poppatomus]

Whereas with a deus ex machina plot twist, you couldn't have seen it coming because one or more components were introduced at the same time as the plot twist itself.

Or, to put that another way to de-emphasize the more subjective level of surprise: The solution the author uses was independent of the story up to the point of the solution, rendering the preceding story all but irrelevant to it's own conclusion.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

And that was at the heart of my question. Although, it seems that the general consensus sides with my assumptions as to what a DeM actually is.

History time!

Deus Ex Machina is a description of how many Greek plays end: the gods coming down and fixing the problem for the mortals. You may be familiar with the ending of Shakespeare "A Midsummer Night's Dream" where Oberon and Titania do the same.

It is important to note that this was NOT an unexpected twist to the ancient Greeks. It was commonly accepted that gods existed and that they got involved in the affairs of mortals, and indeed their primary purpose was to solve these little disputes when they got completely out of hand.

So the original meaning of DeM has nothing to do with plot twists, and everything to do with "and then the Proper Authorities stepped in and delivered Justice".

Modern meanings of DeM are in flux. To be strict about it, it should mean "an unexpected resolution to a story relying on a superior power". By this strict definition, nothing in this scene can be a DeM since the story is not over yet (i.e. this is not resolving the story, just this particular step).

By a less strict definition, it is a subtype of plot twist characterised by lack of forewarning/foreshadowing.

I prefer the strict definition, myself, but unfortunately my preferences towards strict definitions are insufficient to stop the evolution of language (damn my lack of omnipotence). In the same way that literally is now its own antonym and gay no longer means happy, "Deus Ex Machina" is in the process of changing.

Yours,

Grey Wolf

[truemane]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, the definition of Deus Ex Machina and what it entitles is not subjective. It's almost entirely objective. Deus Ex Machina has a modern definition that's pretty clear.

A Deus Ex Machina is an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation.

I hear what you're saying, and I even agree with you. But just this thread (and bazillions like it) should show you that the matter isn't at all clear cut.

Even in the the definition you give, there are three value judgments. Whether or not something is unexpected (or conversely, adequately foreshadowed), whether it saves a situation, and whether that situation is hopeless are all up for some discussion.

I would argue, as I do for a lot things of this nature, that it comes down to tone a lot of the time and not things that you check off of a list. Like the endless (ENDLESS) arguing over what is or isn't a Mary Sue, it comes down to whether or not the plot device grows organically from its surroundings as opposed to feeling tacked on.

The definition of 'grows organically' and 'tacked on' will always be subjective.

[Fish]

That is an interesting example.

On one hand, yes, I admit there is a strong case there.

OTOH, JRRT did have the option of having Gandalf simply show up, and say "I kicked its arse. ..." It lacks the "I painted myself into a corner" problem.
Does it? Later in the same trilogy Gandalf faces down the Witch-King of Angmar, and they pretend that Gandalf is actually in danger. His ability to kick anybody's ass, die and come back to life isn't a thing.

Tolkien also could have said, "We think Gandalf's dead, but we aren't sure." Tolkien's use of that trick undermines later plot points.

I mention this because a "Deus Ex Machina" has strong connotations of bad writing...
I disagree that it always connotes bad writing. Farce often ends with some unlikely, improbable deus ex machina, because one thing it buys you is full-bore dramatic tension right up until the last minute (upon which farce depends). Deus ex machina punctures the tension and allows rapid catharsis in a way that a predictable, foreseeable, slow windup can't do.

[Seto]

This is a "Deus ex Machina" strictly speaking (some might argue that Scoundrel is no God. But come on, a big flying machine coming down from the sky when everything seemed lost ? that's the definition of the term), and that's probably intentional : I like to see it as a subversion of this dramatic device.

But that's not a DeM as meant by people who denounce it : because Elan talked about his secret plan before, because it makes sense and is explainable (even if completely unexpected). People use DeM as "bullcrap you pull when you have pushed the situation too far and don't know how to solve it". Here, it uses elements that have been worked into the story before, and it does seem like a lot of planning was done (Scoundrel of all people ! the guy whose class is about making a dramatic entrance when he's needed the most ! the guy who said to Elan that if he saw him again, it would be in dire circumstances and he would be likely to die ! that makes every kind of sense)

[Jay R]

The mistake many people are making is trying to believe that a general idea used in literary analysis can be categorized into an precise definition by tvtropes.

The phrase Deus Ex Machina doesn't have a specific, precise, single meaning. Everybody here is right, and everybody here is wrong.

[brionl]

Julio's return is a (symbolic) Dada ex Mechane.

ITYM, Pater ex Mechane.

[brionl]

Does it? Later in the same trilogy Gandalf faces down the Witch-King of Angmar, and they pretend that Gandalf is actually in danger. His ability to kick anybody's ass, die and come back to life isn't a thing.

Tolkien also could have said, "We think Gandalf's dead, but we aren't sure." Tolkien's use of that trick undermines later plot points.


Even if Gandalf might have been able to survive, that wasn't his mission. His mission was to stop Sauron. That would have been severely hindered if the Witch King destroyed Minas Tirith, routed their armies and killed Aragorn. Leaving Sauron's other forces free to look for those pesky hobbitses.

Personal Immunity =/= Plot Immunity.

[Snails]

Everybody here is right, and everybody here is wrong.

No. I am neither.

[AstralFire]

The mistake many people are making is trying to believe that a general idea used in literary analysis can be categorized into an precise definition by tvtropes.

The phrase Deus Ex Machina doesn't have a specific, precise, single meaning. Everybody here is right, and everybody here is wrong.

I made this point earlier and no one seemed to care. :smallsigh:

[Morty]

The mistake many people are making is trying to believe that a general idea used in literary analysis can be categorized into an precise definition by tvtropes.

The phrase Deus Ex Machina doesn't have a specific, precise, single meaning. Everybody here is right, and everybody here is wrong.

There's also no reason why a term made up for classic theatre should apply to modern media... and yet, people keep struggling to make up a definition for this label that can fit more than just fringe occurrences.


I made this point earlier and no one seemed to care. :smallsigh:

Join the club.

[AstralFire]

There's also no reason why a term made up for classic theatre should apply to modern media... and yet, people keep struggling to make up a definition for this label that can fit more than just fringe occurrences.



Join the club.

We can make a treehouse! :elan:

[Fish]

I dunno, brionl, the whole thing is suspicious to me. It's cheap drama which is later negated. O noes, Gandalf is dead, we're doomed. Wait, he got better. Never mind.

It's as bad as Aragorn's convenient indestructible ghost army that Tolkien didn't mention until right before he needed them. And introduced them in flashback.

[AstralFire]

I dunno, Astral, the whole thing is suspicious to me. It's cheap drama which is later negated. O noes, Gandalf is dead, we're doomed. Wait, he got better. Never mind.

It's as bad as Aragorn's convenient indestructible ghost army that Tolkien didn't mention until right before he needed them. And introduced them in flashback.

I actually had been in the middle of writing a post supporting you on that point, but I don't think I actually hit Submit. Either way, I certainly didn't intend to argue with you on your LotR example. Did you mean to respond to Snails?

[Snails]

It's as bad as Aragorn's convenient indestructible ghost army that Tolkien didn't mention until right before he needed them. And introduced them in flashback.

To be fair, in the book the indestructible ghost army merely scared the corsairs into fleeing their ships. It is not clear that a single ghost inflicted a single scratch on a living soul. Their power was fear.

The ships being empty, Aragorn could transport the army that was sitting around Southern Gondor waiting for orders.

What?!? What army is that?

Um...well, there were oblique allusions to the idea that Gondor had many armies, they just never were gathered for the coming battle. But going into detail would have been awkward. It would have been hopelessly awkward in a movie.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

We can make a treehouse! :elan:

You don't eat babies?

[AstralFire]

You don't eat babies?

Uh... what? :smallconfused:

[Fish]

Did you mean to respond to Snails?
To brionl, sorry.

[Snails]

I disagree that it always connotes bad writing. Farce often ends with some unlikely, improbable deus ex machina, because one thing it buys you is full-bore dramatic tension right up until the last minute (upon which farce depends). Deus ex machina punctures the tension and allows rapid catharsis in a way that a predictable, foreseeable, slow windup can't do.

Well argued, Fish.

There are legitimate reasons authors choose twists that are or resemble a DEM. That is not necessarily bad.

When used as part of a summary criticism it is "usually" employed with the negative connotation. (I could be wrong. Heck, I hope I am wrong.)

[AstralFire]

To brionl, sorry.

It's okay. I figured something like that.

But for a second there I felt like a Fish out of water.

[HZ514]

Mostly personal opinion here, but I'd categorize something as a Deus ex Machina if and only if:

1) The thing in question saves the protagonist(s) from an otherwise hopeless, or at least significantly bleak, scenario.

2) The thing in question does not occur as a direct consequence of the protagonist(s) own actions.

Julio's appearance in #930? Very much could satisfy condition #1, but I'd contend it wholeheartedly falls short of satisfying condition #2. Elan gained Julio's confidence and alliance in the past, and presumably Elan contacted him via Durkon to set up the current turn of events. In other words, it was a saving grace brought about by the characters themselves.

That said, I think Elan's first meeting with Julio would indeed qualify under those criteria. Happening to meet a guy in a bar who can both deliver you to where you need to be and give you a level in badass? Can't give credit for that to Elan or any other character. Of course, the Giant poked fun at that fact by titling Julio's airship The Mechane.

Also I agree with Astral, the term "Deus es Machina" is so synonymous with bad writing at this point that it's a very destructive term to ever use seriously nowadays. I'm rather glad this thread is about a discussion on the term rather than actually decrying current events in OotS as DeM, the odds of which I wouldn't have liked very much beforehand.

Your avatar change made me think you were a different person. People were quoting you and I felt like I was going crazy because I couldn't find your old avatar next to any posts. You're killing me!

[AstralFire]

Mostly personal opinion here, but I'd categorize something as a Deus ex Machina if and only if:

1) The thing in question saves the protagonist(s) from an otherwise hopeless, or at least significantly bleak, scenario.

2) The thing in question does not occur as a direct consequence of the protagonist(s) own actions.

Julio's appearance in #930? Very much could satisfy condition #1, but I'd contend it wholeheartedly falls short of satisfying condition #2. Elan gained Julio's confidence and alliance in the past, and presumably Elan contacted him via Durkon to set up the current turn of events. In other words, it was a saving grace brought about by the characters themselves.

That said, I think Elan's first meeting with Julio would indeed qualify under those criteria. Happening to meet a guy in a bar who can both deliver you to where you need to be and give you a level in badass? Can't give credit for that to Elan or any other character. Of course, the Giant poked fun at that fact by titling Julio's airship The Mechane.

Also I agree with Astral, the term "Deus es Machina" is so synonymous with bad writing at this point that it's a very destructive term to ever use seriously nowadays. I'm rather glad this thread is about a discussion on the term rather than actually decrying current events in OotS as DeM, the odds of which I wouldn't have liked very much beforehand.

Your avatar change made me think you were a different person. People were quoting you and I felt like I was going crazy because I couldn't find your old avatar next to any posts. You're killing me!

Sorry. I got tired of people thinking that my old avatar was some Touhou character. :smalltongue:

[Morty]

Mostly personal opinion here, but I'd categorize something as a Deus ex Machina if and only if:

1) The thing in question saves the protagonist(s) from an otherwise hopeless, or at least significantly bleak, scenario.

2) The thing in question does not occur as a direct consequence of the protagonist(s) own actions.

Julio's appearance in #930? Very much could satisfy condition #1, but I'd contend it wholeheartedly falls short of satisfying condition #2. Elan gained Julio's confidence and alliance in the past, and presumably Elan contacted him via Durkon to set up the current turn of events. In other words, it was a saving grace brought about by the characters themselves.

That said, I think Elan's first meeting with Julio would indeed qualify under those criteria. Happening to meet a guy in a bar who can both deliver you to where you need to be and give you a level in badass? Can't give credit for that to Elan or any other character. Of course, the Giant poked fun at that fact by titling Julio's airship The Mechane.

Also I agree with Astral, the term "Deus es Machina" is so synonymous with bad writing at this point that it's a very destructive term to ever use seriously nowadays. I'm rather glad this thread is about a discussion on the term rather than actually decrying current events in OotS as DeM, the odds of which I wouldn't have liked very much beforehand.

Your avatar change made me think you were a different person. People were quoting you and I felt like I was going crazy because I couldn't find your old avatar next to any posts. You're killing me!

I think we should just accept that this term was coined to describe something that happened in Greek theatre and simply doesn't happen nowadays, and move on. Especially in forms of media the ancient Greeks couldn't even conceive of. People seem to ignore me when I point it out, though...

And I certainly agree that Deus Ex Machina is too loaded and derogatory to use at any rate. It brings nothing positive with it and has a tendency to turn a discussion unnecessarily hostile.

[One Step Two]

That said, I think Elan's first meeting with Julio would indeed qualify under those criteria. Happening to meet a guy in a bar who can both deliver you to where you need to be and give you a level in badass? Can't give credit for that to Elan or any other character. Of course, the Giant poked fun at that fact by titling Julio's airship The Mechane.

Also I agree with Astral, the term "Deus es Machina" is so synonymous with bad writing at this point that it's a very destructive term to ever use seriously nowadays. I'm rather glad this thread is about a discussion on the term rather than actually decrying current events in OotS as DeM, the odds of which I wouldn't have liked very much beforehand.


I just wanted to highlight this part, because I'd like to say that this is, whether this is a correct application of the term, a Deus Ex Machina of the "good" variety.

Did Julio appearing out of no-where solve an immediate problem? Yes, yes it did.

But, by the same token, it wasn't just a passing wizard who was sick of Elan's whining and just teleported him to Azure City. It was a dramatic convention that followed the character (Elan's) schtick, for the purpose of developing them in a manner that befit him.

To use the above example that Leecros used before: Billy is drowning, and godMan shrugs, and all of a sudden he is saved, and the story ends. This is a Deus Ex Machina, and a complete cop-out, by modern standards.
However, if Billy is Drowning, and then godMan saving him, leads to a conflict because Billy being cheated his death, because he was being drowned as sacrafice, or his fate needed to be ended, etc. then we are using this inexplicable event to evolve the story.

A Deus Ex Machina can serve a higher function if used cleverly. In this case, the introduction of Julio Scoundrel. His sudden appearance developed Elan, both in combat aptitude, and character. It gave Elan and the Order a resource to call upon in a time of need.

Whereas my earlier mentioned wizard, teleports Elan to Azure city, spills the beans on Nale, and we continue with the fact that Hayley cannot speak, and the unrequited love, amoung other issues that might arise.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Uh... what? :smallconfused:

Sigh. Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. Nobody likes it, and the frog dies. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0549.html)

Sorry, I could've set it up better, I suppose. That'll teach me to try to post while driving.

Grey Wolf

[Emanick]

Does it? Later in the same trilogy Gandalf faces down the Witch-King of Angmar, and they pretend that Gandalf is actually in danger. His ability to kick anybody's ass, die and come back to life isn't a thing.

Tolkien also could have said, "We think Gandalf's dead, but we aren't sure." Tolkien's use of that trick undermines later plot points.

Only if you understand Gandalf to have been literally invulnerable to all attacks by any character, which goes well beyond his claim that "I doubt any weapon you [Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli] wield could now hurt me." It's not at all clear that, at the only time when he genuinely appears to be in danger - the moment when he faces the Witch-King - he remains invulnerable. There's no pretense about it; nothing at all in that scene suggests that the new White Wizard is somehow immune to the power of the Lord of the Nazgul, who clearly possesses a degree of supernatural power beyond almost anyone else.

It's true that the potential remains for Eru to send Gandalf back to Middle-Earth once again if he dies a second time, but that isn't a zero-cost solution at all - after he perished in the wake of his duel with the Balrog he remained dead for days, and during the Battle of Minas Tirith even hours are precious, with his aid constantly needed. If he had been defeated by the Lord of the Ringwraiths, even his subsequent return to life - a possibility but by no means a certainty - would come with serious costs to Gondor.

[Fish]

I hate to keep harping on the Gandalf thing. But you have to read a whole different book to even know why Gandalf didn't die the first time. The name "Eru" doesn't appear in the trilogy, and "Istari" only buried in an appendix. The trilogy is never explicit if there are gods at all, much less angels, much less whether Gandalf is one. The post-hoc justifications about why Gandalf couldn't or wouldn't or wasn't permitted to fight the enemies himself are nice, but it would be nicer if they'd been in the freaking book. All the reader knows is that Gandalf was dead, Tolkien liberally padded out the book with poetry about how Gandalf was dead, and then he wasn't. Somehow he got promoted, too, and that was never explained either.

Tolkien may have had a good mythological reason to send Gandalf back. But it's still, almost by definition, interference by the gods.

[Drolyt]

I dunno, brionl, the whole thing is suspicious to me. It's cheap drama which is later negated. O noes, Gandalf is dead, we're doomed. Wait, he got better. Never mind.
I'm not sure whether this was bad writing or not, but I don't see how it could be a Deus Ex Machina. His coming back to life didn't resolve anything, and solving problems and wrapping up the story is part of the definition of a Deus Ex Machina. He helped in some places, but that was hundreds of pages later.


It's as bad as Aragorn's convenient indestructible ghost army that Tolkien didn't mention until right before he needed them. And introduced them in flashback.
Again, while this was arguably a bit out of left field it certainly doesn't qualify as a Deus Ex Machina.

Tolkien didn't really foreshadow things in general. This is often taken as a flaw of his work, but I think that is a bit shortsighted. Holding literature up to what you learned in your English or creative writing class doesn't make much sense. I think it actually enhances the work, because it gives the impression of peering into a mysterious and magical world, much more so than fantasy works where everything is more clearly defined and events are strongly foreshadowed.

As for Julio showing up to save the Order, I think it fails the part of the definition of Deus Ex Machina that says it comes out of nowhere, and may yet fail the part that says he has to resolve the situation. I don't really understand why anyone would call it a Deus Ex Machina, as it was a very satisfying and well planned plot twist, but if I'm being unfavorable I'd say it is probably the result of people who think they are smarter than they are thinking they are clever because they use what they learned in high school English class to put down something they don't really understand.

The post-hoc justifications about why Gandalf couldn't or wouldn't or wasn't permitted to fight the enemies himself are nice, but it would be nicer if they'd been in the freaking book.
I disagree. It is more fantastic not being explained. Many critics have noted that reading the Silmarillion can actually diminish enjoyment of the Lord of the Rings, because knowing what all those names and whatnot refer to makes it less magical and wondrous. Not explaining things is part of the charm of the Lord of the Rings.

[Emanick]

I hate to keep harping on the Gandalf thing. But you have to read a whole different book to even know why Gandalf didn't die the first time. The name "Eru" doesn't appear in the trilogy, and "Istari" only buried in an appendix. The trilogy is never explicit if there are gods at all, much less angels, much less whether Gandalf is one. The post-hoc justifications about why Gandalf couldn't or wouldn't or wasn't permitted to fight the enemies himself are nice, but it would be nicer if they'd been in the freaking book. All the reader knows is that Gandalf was dead, Tolkien liberally padded out the book with poetry about how Gandalf was dead, and then he wasn't. Somehow he got promoted, too, and that was never explained either.

Tolkien may have had a good mythological reason to send Gandalf back. But it's still, almost by definition, interference by the gods.

I never disputed the fact that "interference by the gods" is the reason why Gandalf got sent back. But a deus ex machina by definition must resolve a problem, and Gandalf's return in itself does not immediately resolve anything - all it does is provide the other protagonists with a stroke of good fortune and the ability to resolve their problems. The only complaint a reader can really make about Gandalf's return is that the circumstances behind it are somewhat ambiguous. It doesn't follow that he becomes some sort of invulnerable force in the eyes of the reader, one that simply cannot be stopped and who cannot be challenged or defeated by any other being. Anyone who comes to that kind of conclusion probably hasn't been reading very carefully. (I don't know if you're making a claim like that or if you're implying something else, so I apologize if that comes across as a strawman.)

I can see why a new reader to the books might find the lack of explanation for Gandalf's return frustrating (having been pretty young and uncritical when I first read the books myself, I have a hard time identifying with that frustration), but ambiguity isn't a plot hole, merely a plot element that many readers find inherently unsatisfying.

[Fish]

Gandalf's return in itself does not immediately resolve anything - all it does is provide the other protagonists with a stroke of good fortune and the ability to resolve their problems.
Yes, like Helm's Deep... in which Gandalf saves the day.

Like curing Theoden... oh wait, Gandalf.

Like defeating Saruman... oh. Gandalf.

Like telling Aragorn what to do with the palantír... oh, right. Gandalf.

What do Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas accomplish? Between Moria and the Paths of the Dead, not very much. Then Aragorn shows up at the Paths of the Dead and runs into another deus ex machina.

I don't understand why this is provoking such a vociferous defense. Tolkien was trying to create a uniquely English mythology, and mythology included the idea of divine intervention and supernatural providence. I totally get why Tolkien would want deus ex machina in his stories. For his own reasons, he wanted Gandalf to die, then to come back, because mythology. I defend the use of the technique when it's appropriate (and in Gandalf's case, it was totally cool, and I do not object). What he chose to write was "the entire mission is doomed, let's listen to Sam write poetry about how good Gandalf was, while the Elves weep about how doomed they are — oh wait, Gandalf was brought back to life for no reason, now watch Gandalf save the day!" How is it not?

[diplomancer]

Curing theoden was the most important thing gandalf the white did. Considering he did it by talking wisely, perhaps other characters (aragorn specially, older than theoden and an old acquaintance to boot, without having to overcome theoden's resistance to gandalf instilled by wormtongue) could pull it off.

Defeating saruman and saving the day at helm's deep was accomplished by the ents and the huorns respectively, at which gandalf played a small part. Heck, even marshalling the defeated warriors under the command of erkenbrand could be done by just about any rider.

At minas tirith, gandalf saved faramir's life. Important, no doubt, for faramir. For the story itself, not so much.

With that said, why did Tolkien bring gandalf back? Because he is gandalf and he is a great character, and one of Tolkien's few flaws is loving his characters too much.

It was very important for the story that gandalf be separated from frodo. His coming back is just tolkien being nice.

The eagles saving frodo and sam are more of a DEM, but by then the quest was completed (and again, it is tolkien pulling his punches, not interfering with the story itself. )

[Drolyt]

Yes, like Helm's Deep... in which Gandalf saves the day.

Like curing Theoden... oh wait, Gandalf.

Like defeating Saruman... oh. Gandalf.

Like telling Aragorn what to do with the palantír... oh, right. Gandalf.

What do Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas accomplish? Between Moria and the Paths of the Dead, not very much. Then Aragorn shows up at the Paths of the Dead and runs into another deus ex machina.

I don't understand why this is provoking such a vociferous defense. Tolkien was trying to create a uniquely English mythology, and mythology included the idea of divine intervention and supernatural providence. I totally get why Tolkien would want deus ex machina in his stories. For his own reasons, he wanted Gandalf to die, then to come back, because mythology. I defend the use of the technique when it's appropriate (and in Gandalf's case, it was totally cool, and I do not object). What he chose to write was "the entire mission is doomed, let's listen to Sam write poetry about how good Gandalf was, while the Elves weep about how doomed they are — oh wait, Gandalf was brought back to life for no reason, now watch Gandalf save the day!" How is it not?
The main issues are:
1. Gandalf coming back to life and the stuff you listed are disconnected, he didn't suddenly come back to life in the nick of time, which seems to make it not a Deus Ex Machina.
2. He didn't really ride in and save the day the way you are describing. He helped, but he didn't resolve the plot in the manner of a Deus Ex Machina.

Part of this may be disagreement on what constitutes a Deus Ex Machina.

[Zweisteine]

It has been so overused that it has lost pretty much all the meaning it once had. It's an empty phrase, that signifies mostly the unwillingness or inability to come up with an actual argument or critique.

Here's the thing, though: in many of its current uses, it may be incorrect, but a term maintains its meaning, even if used incorrectly. That, however, is beside the point. A Deus ex Machina is still an unexpected event saving a hopeless situation, and that is what it is used for here. Sure, the day hasn't been saved yet, but it most likely will be (though if it isn't, this is no DeM). Also, given that OOTS is not entirely a serious work, some leeway is allowed to cater to the tropes.


This next argument is almost certainly based on incorrect knowledge, but the lgic seems sound enough to me.
Originally, a Deus ex Machina was a completely unexpected resolution to a story's conflict. As the use of such plots became less frequent (they sipped using gods to end plots), the "proper" Deus ex Machina became more rare, but it remained in use, though referencing a wider variety of very similar plots.


Back to fully informed arguing:
I would say a modern Deus ex Machina needs to satisfy these basic requirements:
1. Unexpectedness: The reader can not predict a Deus ex Machina based on any aid evidence, though some hinting is allowed, so as not to conpletely break suspension of disbelief when the Deus ex Machina occurs. A sufficiently genre-savvy reader may be able to predict a Deus ex Machina based on the plot and hints, but it should never be obvious.
2. Hopelessness: The situation the Deus ex Machina intervenes in should be hopeless. A Deus ex Machina only appears when all is lost, and only if there is no other obvious solution.*
3. Saving power: A Deus ex Machina must resolve whatever plot or subplot it intervenes in. This still applies if some problems are left unsolved or the resolution is not perfect (some heroes could still die, for example).

*A poorly performed Deus ex Machina can break this rule. If it breaks the first part (hopeless situation), it is debatable whether or not it is a true DeM. If it breaks the second, it is a DeM, but will probably break suspension of disbelief.

I would expand on those, but I have no more time to write.

[diplomancer]

Back to fully informed arguing:I would say a modern Deus ex Machina needs to satisfy these basic requirements:1. Unexpectedness: The reader can not predict a Deus ex Machina based on any aid evidence, though some hinting is allowed, so as not to conpletely break suspension of disbelief when the Deus ex Machina occurs. A sufficiently genre-savvy reader may be able to predict a Deus ex Machina based on the plot and hints, but it should never be obvious.2. Hopelessness: The situation the Deus ex Machina intervenes in should be hopeless. A Deus ex Machina only appears when all is lost, and only if there is no other obvious solution.*3. Saving power: A Deus ex Machina must resolve whatever plot or subplot it intervenes in. This still applies if some problems are left unsolved or the resolution is not perfect (some heroes could still die, for example).*

Well, it seems to me that you have just proved by definition that what happened in 930 was a DEM. But I disagree with you. I don't see the difference, by your definition, between a DEM and a favorable plot twist. If a DEM is to maintain its pejorative meaning, we need something else to distinguish them. At the very least, one could argue that a favorable plot twist has some relation to the point the author is trying to convey, while a DEM does not.

That's what I liked about the current strip. I was firmly in the camp of believing the order would claw its way out of their current situation through their own resources, signaling their growing maturity as the big heroes. I had not realized that, though that may be Roy's idiom , it's not how the oots operates (compare with the order of the scribble, who not only discovered and protected the gates by themselves, but hid their existence from the rest of the world, and their location even from each other). I did not predict the current strip because I was wrong about the story. That's what makes it a plot twist.

[Emanick]

Yes, like Helm's Deep... in which Gandalf saves the day.

Like curing Theoden... oh wait, Gandalf.

Like defeating Saruman... oh. Gandalf.

Like telling Aragorn what to do with the palantír... oh, right. Gandalf.

What do Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas accomplish? Between Moria and the Paths of the Dead, not very much. Then Aragorn shows up at the Paths of the Dead and runs into another deus ex machina.

I don't understand why this is provoking such a vociferous defense. Tolkien was trying to create a uniquely English mythology, and mythology included the idea of divine intervention and supernatural providence. I totally get why Tolkien would want deus ex machina in his stories. For his own reasons, he wanted Gandalf to die, then to come back, because mythology. I defend the use of the technique when it's appropriate (and in Gandalf's case, it was totally cool, and I do not object). What he chose to write was "the entire mission is doomed, let's listen to Sam write poetry about how good Gandalf was, while the Elves weep about how doomed they are — oh wait, Gandalf was brought back to life for no reason, now watch Gandalf save the day!" How is it not?

Note how I specified that Gandalf's return did not immediately resolve anything. Yes, he did an awful lot of things several chapters/days after returning, but that isn't a deus ex machina because, as Drolyt noted, those events were disconnected from the event of his return.

Oh, and without the efforts of Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas, Theoden's army might not have been able to defend Helm's Deep for long enough for the Huorn cavalry to arrive at dawn and save Rohan's bacon. And the successful defense of Helm's Deep is arguably the single most important development in all of Book III. So no, Gandalf doesn't do everything between Fangorn Forest and the Paths of the Dead.

Also, I'm not quite sure why the Paths of the Dead qualify as anything remotely like a deus ex machina, because the whole idea of a DeM is that it comes out of nowhere and resolves the protagonists' problems for them. Yes, there wasn't much foreshadowing for the Paths of the Dead, but it's abundantly clear that Aragorn's decision to seek out the Paths was both an incredibly risky one and one that paid off only after a tremendous amount of effort and energy expenditure. If the Paths are a DeM, then it seems like the only components a DeM has are 1) a lack of foreshadowing and 2) a development that works to the protagonists' benefit. That's such a broad definition of the term that it would seem to make it almost completely useless for any practical purpose.

[Souhiro]

Roy and Belkar are currently unconscious. I don't think that's because of a sunstroke.

We have seem him doing regular attacks. Roy has Power Attack (He even shouts it, or Cleave, or whatever he does when he uses it) so I think that his build is just defenses.

But also... I think he builded himself with this idea: To build an absurdly high AC and a skyrocketed DEX, then he gets Combat Reflexes, and robilar's gambit. I even think that his AC can be most from his high DEX, more than his armor! He has been shown to be hurt when distracted by Elan.

I also think that he can be a Lvl-1 fighter, Epic monk. The armor? It's just a vest, with the "Glammered Armor" enchantment. It looks like armor, but is 100% cotton. His sword/Axe, and his dagger are Ki Focus weapons, that is why he didn't get any weapon from his troops: He can use them, but wouldn't be able to flurry.
It also explains better why he is shown to be hurt when Elan distracted him: He was flat footed, and couldn't use his AC Bonus.

[Bulldog Psion]

Oh, and without the efforts of Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas, Theoden's army might not have been able to defend Helm's Deep for long enough for the Huorn cavalry to arrive at dawn and save Rohan's bacon. And the successful defense of Helm's Deep is arguably the single most important development in all of Book III. So no, Gandalf doesn't do everything between Fangorn Forest and the Paths of the Dead.

In fact, the Huorns only show up because of Merry and Pippin getting the Ents roused up to war, and Gandalf specifically points out in the book that he had nothing to do with them and is just as surprised as anyone about them! :smallbiggrin:

Gandalf got Theoden moving, but as you point it, it was Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas who were crucial at Helm's Deep. Gandalf basically showed up when the tide was already turning rapidly, and just helped make the victory slightly more secure.

Gandalf then went to Minas Tirith and was basically given the finger by Denethor. The Pelennor fields were essentially won by Eomer and Aragorn, not to mention Eowyn and Merry dispatching the Witch-King of Angmar.

Gandalf was a key figure, but he certainly wasn't the solution to every problem.

[Niknokitueu]

I would like to point out here that everybody has forgotten one important thing:

The Machine was introduced at a point where Elan (and Thog) had to rapidly get to Azure City.

At that point, it was justifiably a Deus Ex Machina.

Whilst its current appearance could be argued to be a Deus Ex Machina (I definitely didn't pick up on the foreshadowing, at any rate), the fact it has been used twice to help resolve an issue actually makes it more of a Duo Est Machine.

(Ducks)

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

[Coat]

Is anyone actually arguing that 930 is a DEM, or are we all just agreeing vigorously with each other here?


One of the little details I admire is the way that Haley is carefully out of shot in 929. By waiting to 930 to show us that she's stunned and out the picture, the Giant is showing his working - he's telling us explicitly *look!* I have a tool I could have used to save the day, but I chose not to. Because this is More Dramatic. It's both very economical, and very clever.


I think the point the Lord of the Rings discussion is missing is that not just the actions of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli, but in fact Gandalf, the Rohirrin, Minas Tirith - it's all just a side show. It's something to watch while the real heroes, Frodo and Sam, climb the mountain.

It's important, because it keeps Sauron's attention diverted, and their successful defense means that much more that is good survives the war - but if Minas Tirith and Helms Deep both fell, and every man woman and child was killed, the battle would still be won when the Ring goes into the fire. And that's something that Gandalf loses all control over when he falls in Moria. From the point of view of the real heroes, he does die, and doesn't come back (at least until it's all over).

The reason I love Lord of the Rings is because it's not a book about Big Damn Heroes saving the world. It's about the importance of Farmers, surviving bad things, and doing what needs to be done, because it needs to be done. The reason why so much is unexplained before it happens is because the book is written from the point of view of the Little People. They don't understand how the world works, and they aren't made for Big Things. But because of their courage, and endurance, the world is saved*.


* This is also the reason I'm so cross with the films. They are not told from a hobbit's eye view, which misses the whole point of the book.

[Klear]

Anyway, the best way I've heard it explained is that a good plot twist makes you think "Why didn't I see that coming?", because all its components were already introduced in the story, and the plot twist seems to naturally flow from how they all work together even though it wasn't obvious until it happened.

Whereas with a deus ex machina plot twist, you couldn't have seen it coming because one or more components were introduced at the same time as the plot twist itself.

Deus ex machina isn't inherently bad. A perfect example of a well exacuted DeM is the ending to War of the Worlds.

DeM can be used by authors to escape from a corner they painted themselves in, but that doesn't mean that it is a required part of its definition.

[Jay R]

* This is also the reason I'm so cross with the films. They are not told from a hobbit's eye view, which misses the whole point of the book.

Exactly. Tolkien told the story of four people from an obscure shire caught up in a war of the Great and Wise, ultimately winning it for them, and how it affected them. That's why the climax is The Scouring of The Shire. By contrast, Jackson told the story of the war.

(And from the previews, the second movie of The Hobbit looks like it will be even worse. This isn't a re-telling of Tolkien's story; it's fan-fic, complete with a Mary Sue.)

[sr123]

The eagles saving frodo and sam are more of a DEM, but by then the quest was completed (and again, it is tolkien pulling his punches, not interfering with the story itself. )

I think that's the point -- rescuing people trapped atop lava in the middle of Mordor is difficult to describe succinctly without taking away from the falling resolution.

But some of the examples people give, like Elan meeting Julio in cliffport, or Vaarsuvius getting Ultimate Power, are not deus ex machinae resolving a plot hole -- they are the plot itself.

And if it weren't for improbable and extraordinary events, it wouldn't be a story.

Here's one: a d.e.m. is kinda like in programming, when you're stuck in a ridiculously nested series of loops that you have to get out of quickly and succinctly, so you just stick in a GOTO statement.

[multilis]

The fact is, it's perfectly believable. Elan asked an old friend to help out in a pinch. That's what people do in real life.T and Julio clearly know each other so may be double motivation for Julio to return.


A black dragon waited patiently for V to have used most of high level spells and be away from most of allies in order to get revenge. Julio may have been waiting for similar for T for a long time, chance Julio even disguised his airship at T's gladiator party (eg hid the guns, put logo on), scouting out his prey.


"due to factors beyond their ability to predict/control/get lucky"

- This has so far been case of extra people showing up for other side, Julio may be a little harder to predict than T's entire army, but normal in narrative that when cavalry for one side keeps showing up cavalry for other side may show up to even the odds.

Darth Vader shows up on Luke's tail when he is doing Death Star run, and Hans Solo shows up on Darth Vader's tail and panics his ally to crash into him. Was Hans Solo a Deus Ex Machina? He was a rogue in it for gold and was last seen taking the gold and running away.

[Morty]

Here's the thing, though: in many of its current uses, it may be incorrect, but a term maintains its meaning, even if used incorrectly. That, however, is beside the point. A Deus ex Machina is still an unexpected event saving a hopeless situation, and that is what it is used for here. Sure, the day hasn't been saved yet, but it most likely will be (though if it isn't, this is no DeM). Also, given that OOTS is not entirely a serious work, some leeway is allowed to cater to the tropes.


Seeing as three pages have been spent, so far, arguing back-and-forth about its definition, its worth in casual discussion is dubious. There's really no reason to stick to it instead of using descriptions that are less loaded, aggressive and vague... other than the Internet's obsession with labels.

[Jasdoif]

Deus ex machina isn't inherently bad. A perfect example of a well exacuted DeM is the ending to War of the Worlds.They're not inherently bad, no. They're just not good :smalltongue:

But more seriously, I can't think of a situation where a deus ex machina would have made for a worse plot twist if it had foreshadowing for its new components. I can see how the foreshadowing could make for a worse story if done poorly...but that wouldn't be the fault of the plot twist.


DeM can be used by authors to escape from a corner they painted themselves in, but that doesn't mean that it is a required part of its definition.Good thing I didn't include anything about author intention when I offered a definition, then :smalltongue:

[Klear]

Good thing I didn't include anything about author intention when I offered a definition, then :smalltongue:

Nope, but you strongly implied you believe that to be the case, thus my comment.

[Jasdoif]

Good thing I didn't include anything about author intention when I offered a definition, then :smalltongue:Nope, but you strongly implied you believe that to be the case, thus my comment.Hmm....Can you show me where that strong implication was made? 'cause I'm really not seeing where you could get some variant of "always a lazy way out" from my post. I didn't mention author intention because it simply isn't part of the definition.

[Havokca]

Or, to put that another way to de-emphasize the more subjective level of surprise: The solution the author uses was independent of the story up to the point of the solution, rendering the preceding story all but irrelevant to it's own conclusion.

I like this description.

[King of Nowhere]

of course there is no clear definition of DeM, nor a clear distinction with some plot twists.

The best I can do to describe it is to say that a DeM is a plot twist that feels unfair. That feels like cheating. Of course that's highly subjective. As highly subjective is whether a plot twist counts as DeM or not.

also, a DeM is not necessarily bad. If well executed, and if it don't solve anything too big, it can improve the story.
And especially in a comedy like oots, it can often be a good thing thanks to the rule of funny or the rule of cool.
For example, this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0441.html) definitely qualifies as DeM, even if it was predictable, even if it was caused solely by something done by the heroes, because it's clearly "cheating" to have the heroes win a fight with that kind of luck.
but it is a very fun moment, and it don't really solve any important conflict: it was just a sub boss, rich could just as easily have made it a bit weaker and let V kill it.
So that's a DeM that's definitely a good thing for the story

[TurtlesAWD]

This has come up in the reaction thread so I figure I'll post it here as well but, the device used in greek theatre in order to facilitate Deus Ex Machina is known as the Mechane. It was a crane that was particularly used when a play called for a character to fly, usually gods.

Julio and his airship have served this exact function both when Elan encountered them in Cliffport (that was Cliffport right?) and now in the desert. It is clear that this is intended to be a Deus Ex Machina, although if someone wants to discuss strict literary definitions perhaps the case can be made that it wasn't.

[SavageWombat]

Regardless of the "correct" definition, it has been my observation that the posters on this forum who complain about DeMs are using the definition posted earlier: that the situation in question was not resolved by a hero, but by another character (such as the MitD).

It seems to me that this is an example of the D&D mentality some readers have - that the situation should be resolved by the Player Characters, and having NPCs resolve it is unsatisfying.

But OotS is not a D&D game, and has no players - so accusations of DeM should be considered with the question "did the situation resolve solely through someone acting completely in character?"

For the Order, having a previously-established character save their butts, especially in return for a previous favor, is a lucky break for them, not an ass-pull.

If this were an actual game, I can see Roy's player being peeved about the rescue, until Elan's player explains that he set the whole thing up. But this is nevertheless a comic/story, not a game.

[Scow2]

They're not inherently bad, no. They're just not good :smalltongue:

Actually War of The Worlds demonstrates how a DeM is good - it allows a "Happy/Proper" ending, while leaving the "real" ending obvious and strongly implied. War of the Worlds wouldn't have had the impact it had if it had gone with the obvious, time-proven ending.

[Jasdoif]

Actually War of The Worlds demonstrates how a DeM is good - it allows a "Happy/Proper" ending, while leaving the "real" ending obvious and strongly implied. War of the Worlds wouldn't have had the impact it had if it had gone with the obvious, time-proven ending.It's been a long time since I've seen War of the Worlds, so help me out here: How did the plot twist specifically benefit from being a deus ex machina?

[Bulldog Psion]

It's been a long time since I've seen War of the Worlds, so help me out here: How did the plot twist specifically benefit from being a deus ex machina?

I can't speak for someone else, but I'd guess it's because it wasn't humanity who suddenly became fearless monster-stompers, but an invisibly tiny, mindless enemy struck down the invaders. There's the irony factor, I guess, like Napoleon's army defeated by the cold in Russia.

[Zrak]

Seeing as three pages have been spent, so far, arguing back-and-forth about its definition, its worth in casual discussion is dubious. There's really no reason to stick to it instead of using descriptions that are less loaded, aggressive and vague... other than the Internet's obsession with labels.

I think the actual definition as such has been less debated than what that definition includes or entails; the definitions of deus ex machina are all more or less in agreement about the basic, central conceit of the term: a new development which emerges unexpectedly and is capable of resolving and otherwise insoluble problem. The disagreements arise, instead, over what constitutes a "new" development, how completely and/or immediately the intervention must resolve the situation, and if the term is innately pejorative. In other words, the issue is not disagreeing definitions but rather different interpretations of a fairly well-established definition arising from its inherent ambiguity. Any description with which the term is replaced won't really evade this problem so much as displace it onto a different set of words. So, really, I think we may as well just stick with the terms we have and clarify why we are using them as we are.

[Porthos]

I'm not sure if it's come up in this debate, per se, but as I was reflecting on Yet Another Debate about DeM Storytelling, I realized that I am getting a little sick and tired about the obsession with foreshadowing.

Now don't get me wrong. Done properly, foreshadowing is great. Dropping little nuggets and clues throughout one's work has a very obvious appeal. Especially in serialized work. It allows people to look back and go "Aha! I see the pattern now." and whatnot. And I actually like looking for these myself a lot.

I'm just not sure it is remotely necessary.

I bring this up, because one of the standard defenses against something being DeM is that there were clues that the whatever is being debated about was going to happen. Fine and dandy. But it doesn't seem to me that if there is a surprise twist at the end that has no foreshadowing in it, that it is necessarily a Deus ex Machina ending.

Don't get me wrong, it could be a horrible ending. Could be a great one. All in the execution.

So let me throw that out to the Playgrounders. Does a 'twist' ending need to be foreshadowed to some degree or another for it not to be a DeM?

[Poppatomus]

It's been a long time since I've seen War of the Worlds, so help me out here: How did the plot twist specifically benefit from being a deus ex machina?

Because it was essential to the theme of the story. One of the messages H.G. Wells was driving home with War of the Worlds was that humanity, with all our technology and intelligence, might be helpless in the face of a superior alien species. That we would win not because of some ingenious strategy or improved weapon, but rather because of the actions of the least of God's creatures was a way of emphasizing that without having either a depressing ending or neutering the threat of the aliens throughout the story.

It's a parallel to what someone noted earlier, about farces employing DeM so that they can have high stakes during the story without people feeling bad that the wacky comic relief ends up bankrupt and in prison. Here, the DeM let Wells show a truly impressive alien threat, one that put humanity in its place, but also have a happy ending, emphasize the importance of understanding the natural world and, let the reader marvel at the power of even simple life.

[cheesecake]

You guys can debate this one all day.

This has to be one of the lamest things to happen in this comic.

im sorry but this is flat out stupid. Julio just appears for no reason, in the middle of the desert and boom swoops in to help Elan. Give me a break!

I know this comic is all for tropes, but this one is too much.

the air ship gives them a travel device, and stops this current situation. Its almost as if this storyline got backed into a corner and oh wait who can I have swoop in and save the day? Oh I know a big freaking air ship with juilo aboard. 2 birds one stone.

why not have T pull out a light saber and have the lawyers show up and arrest him?

[Poppatomus]

You guys can debate this one all day.

This has to be one of the lamest things to happen in this comic.

im sorry but this is flat out stupid. Julio just appears for no reason, in the middle of the desert and boom swoops in to help Elan. Give me a break!

I know this comic is all for tropes, but this one is too much.

the air ship gives them a travel device, and stops this current situation. Its almost as if this storyline got backed into a corner and oh wait who can I have swoop in and save the day? Oh I know a big freaking air ship with juilo aboard. 2 birds one stone.

why not have T pull out a light saber and have the lawyers show up and arrest him?

I guess I just don't see how it's any more arbitrary then, say, Tarquin's companions being high level casters with the ability to teleport at will and end the threat of a rampaging dinosaur in one round. Imagine if he'd shown up with the rogue instead.

There are two things that would make me agree with you more:

First, if it hadn't been Elan's secret plan. If Julio had just happened to be around, on his own business, saw them fighting and helped of his own accord. It might have worked or not, depending on how it was executed, but it would have been a lesser way out of this dilemma, and felt like a cheat. But here it's a character using his skills---the ability to make allies, the humility to call on one when they're needed, and the dramatic timing to make it work to maximum advantage---and that makes it more okay.

Second, if Julio just wins outright in a round or two, with no real opposition. If it turns out that Julio isn't just competent, showing up to even the playingfield and give the order another shot, but outmatches Tarquin and his party to such a degree that it makes the order seem worthless and cheapens Tarquin as a villain, it becomes much more of a problem.

But without those two elements, I don't see it as really any more arbitrary than them winning because Durkon has fast healing, or Haley manages a critical strike.

[ella ventic]

And this:

Third, if Julio weren't so obviously tied to the themes of this plot arc. This arc is about family and specifically about Elan's growth and it is shown through his relationship with his father. Bringing in a "good father" to counter the "evil father" is DIRECTLY related to that. It would be hard to find something MORE related to that.

So I vote that no, he isn't a Deus Ex (though he clearly enjoys swooping in as if he were one).

[Jasdoif]

So let me throw that out to the Playgrounders. Does a 'twist' ending need to be foreshadowed to some degree or another for it not to be a DeM?The components that make up the ending need to have established in some form or other for a plot twist (ending or otherwise) not to be a deus ex machina, yes.


I'm going to take the most recent comic as an example, here. We already knew Julio exists and has an airship, that Elan has a social connection with Julio, that Elan's plan for dealing with Tarquin involved Durkon, and that Durkon can communicate over long distances using the Sending spell. There's no deus ex machina in Julio's entrance because everything that went into it was already established.

Tangentially related, but Julio's introduction hundreds of comics ago wasn't a deus ex machina either...because it wasn't a plot twist. The plot was already aiming to get Elan back to Azure City from Cliffport (and in fact Elan's original plan was what got Julio's attention in the first place).


Because it was essential to the theme of the story. One of the messages H.G. Wells was driving home with War of the Worlds was that humanity, with all our technology and intelligence, might be helpless in the face of a superior alien species. That we would win not because of some ingenious strategy or improved weapon, but rather because of the actions of the least of God's creatures was a way of emphasizing that without having either a depressing ending or neutering the threat of the aliens throughout the story.So the story itself was reflected in the deus ex machina....That's very interesting. Darn it, now I'm going to have figure out for myself whether this is an edge case or if I've been grossly overgeneralizing deus ex machinas in comparison to other plot twists :smalltongue:


It's a parallel to what someone noted earlier, about farces employing DeM so that they can have high stakes during the story without people feeling bad that the wacky comic relief ends up bankrupt and in prison.Thinking about how it applied to farces earlier today, I came to the conclusion that the plot isn't nearly as important as the comedy factor is, so twisting the plot for comedy value is an excellent tradeoff for the story...and absurdity lends itself well to both comedy and deus ex machinas.

I imagine the same applies to comedies in general to some degree or other...although I think I should mention that my favorite comedy film (UHF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHF_%28film%29)) does a rather thorough job of mentioning things well before plot twists involving them come up.

[JessmanCA]

I just don't see the problem with this storytelling technique. Sometimes a random event does save people.

How many times did Tolkien save the party with those eagles from out of nowhere? No one complained then. And this is a much less formal style of writing. A webcomic, not an epic fantasy novel.

[JessmanCA]

In fact Tolkien knew exactly what he was doing. He used deus ex machina on purpose. Here is a quote from him on the matter.

"The consolation of fairy stories…the sudden joyous “turn” (for there is no true end to any fairy tale): this joy, which is one of the things which fairy stories can produce supremely well, is not essentially “escapist,” nor “fugitive.” In its fairy-tale or otherworld setting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure: the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief."

[Porthos]

The components that make up the ending need to have established in some form or other for a plot twist (ending or otherwise) not to be a deus ex machina, yes.

After thinking about it even more, I disagree and I'll give my example below.


I'm going to take the most recent comic as an example, here. We already knew Julio exists and has an airship, that Elan has a social connection with Julio, that Elan's plan for dealing with Tarquin involved Durkon, and that Durkon can communicate over long distances using the Sending spell. There's no deus ex machina in Julio's entrance because everything that went into it was already established.

Tangentially related, but Julio's introduction hundreds of comics ago wasn't a deus ex machina either...because it wasn't a plot twist. The plot was already aiming to get Elan back to Azure City from Cliffport (and in fact Elan's original plan was what got Julio's attention in the first place).

I actually wasn't thinking of either of Julio's appearances, but instead the MitD porting out O-Chul and V (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0661.html).

At the time, people tried to point to the solitary line of "I hoped really, really hard and he still didn't escape. I don't know why that didn't work." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0543.html) as subtle foreshadowing of the MitD's abilities.

I...

I've seen stronger subtle foreshadowing, I'll put it that way. :smalltongue:

Oh, Rich put that line in on purpose, sure. Not doubt about it. And it makes a great OMG moment when re-reading. But as an actual clue for the audience to pick out? Well, while I myself have cited it, I've tended to feel a bit guilty in doing so.

No, there pretty much was no reasonable way I think for anyone to come up with the MitD suddenly being able to port out V and O-Chul there outside of total random guessing.

Yet it worked. I worked in spades. And, IMO, it WASN'T a DeM for a few reasons.

Reason #1) The MitD's powers are intentionally shrouded in mystery. Every time they are introduced, there is practically no foreshadowing to them. The secrecy itself is the plot point. To foreshadow that would rob the plot point of much of its value, IMO.

Reason #2) The relationship between the MitD and O-Chul was built up slowly over the course of many comics. And it was only because of this relationship that was displayed on screen that the MitD wanted to do anything for O-Chul.

Many people speculated that the MitD would do something to change the situation, because of the bond. But they couldn't reasonably know what that change was.

Reason #3) While it 'solved' one dilemma it opened up many more plot points and ways for the story to go. As I said in another thread on this recently, the MitD suddenly porting out O-Chul and V made many of us re-evaluate the MitD. It made many of the audience wonder when, not if, the break will occur within Team Evil. It made many of us wonder just how will the MitD continue to grow.

It was a true OMFGBBQ1!! moment that had practically no plot foreshadowing but had character foreshadowing in spades.

Compare and contrast that with the infamous Star Child resolution to V: The Final Battle. For those unfamiliar, that's the one where the Alien/Human hybrid child suddenly, and out of nowhere, just magically fixes the doomed ship with.... Well, hell if I know. Magical Mojo or something.

20+ years on and I still cringe when I think about it. :smallsmile:

Two situations where magical, unknown powers come out of nowhere. But one works brilliantly because of the setup and execution while one... rather less so. :smallwink:

And one I think is a total DeM and one isn't under any way I would use the term.

Maybe I'm focusing too much on a plot/character dichotomy here. But I can tell you this much, the howling from some quarters about the current situation is NOTHING like the one when the MitD pulled his little stunt. :smalltongue:

They said that Rich 'cheated' by having the MitD suddenly use an unknowable to the audience power. The exact same arguments about writing into a corner and impossible to guess the MitD doing that ahead of time were given. The argument that Rich knows what the MitD is didn't go over very well with some people because they said, "Well, if we don't know what the powers are ahead of time, he might as well be making them up on the spot as far as we are concerned".

It is this example that made me think about how foreshadowing isn't that important at times. And in fact, can be detrimental to what an writer is trying to pull off.

[Klear]

Hmm....Can you show me where that strong implication was made? 'cause I'm really not seeing where you could get some variant of "always a lazy way out" from my post. I didn't mention author intention because it simply isn't part of the definition.

I may have misinterpreted you, but it seemed to me you are convinced that DeM is always a badly done plot twist. Bad plot twist -> lazy writer.

[Drolyt]

I'm not sure if it's come up in this debate, per se, but as I was reflecting on Yet Another Debate about DeM Storytelling, I realized that I am getting a little sick and tired about the obsession with foreshadowing.

Now don't get me wrong. Done properly, foreshadowing is great. Dropping little nuggets and clues throughout one's work has a very obvious appeal. Especially in serialized work. It allows people to look back and go "Aha! I see the pattern now." and whatnot. And I actually like looking for these myself a lot.

I'm just not sure it is remotely necessary.

I bring this up, because one of the standard defenses against something being DeM is that there were clues that the whatever is being debated about was going to happen. Fine and dandy. But it doesn't seem to me that if there is a surprise twist at the end that has no foreshadowing in it, that it is necessarily a Deus ex Machina ending.

Don't get me wrong, it could be a horrible ending. Could be a great one. All in the execution.

So let me throw that out to the Playgrounders. Does a 'twist' ending need to be foreshadowed to some degree or another for it not to be a DeM?
This is a very good point. The obsession with foreshadowing is somewhat recent, there is no expectation that classic literature will foreshadow plot twists. In fact classic literature ignores many of the so called "rules" of writing, as does much highly regarded modern/post-modern literature. What annoys me so much about the claims of Deus Ex Machina is that regardless of whether Julio's arrival is one or not it was a good strip. To put it another way, I don't think people are complaining because the strip is bad, but because they've been taught to complain about certain things whether it makes sense or not.

[Smolder]

I think of it as the Dashing Swordsman version of a summoning spell, Summon Mentor IX.

Elan called for reinforcements and they arrived. Whether that immediately and permanently turns the tide of battle is still unknown. Miron could pop back at anytime. There are still twists and turns to come in this battle.

[HZ514]

I just don't see the problem with this storytelling technique. Sometimes a random event does save people.

How many times did Tolkien save the party with those eagles from out of nowhere? No one complained then. And this is a much less formal style of writing. A webcomic, not an epic fantasy novel.

If you don't understand why deus ex machina is representative of poor storytelling, you might not understand storytelling very well. Yes, random events sometimes save people in the real world. But that makes for a crappy story. Why? Because stories run on the implicit contract between author and reader that the story itself matters.

Any conclusion, especially dramatic and/or final ones, must be a direct result of the words we've read (or equivalent media we've consumed) or else that time and effort we used to do so was wasted. The solution has to be organic because the problems have to be real. The tension, the fear, the danger felt by the characters and the readers all have to be legitimate or else the story's entire purpose for existing is lost.

A story is only a quality story insofar as the emotions it evokes in its readers. If every emotion up until the deus ex machina was unnecessary, how can the final catharsis of resolution be any more worthwhile? Stories represent our internal desire for victory through achievement. Victory granted by grace of (word of) God is hollow. Sure, it's still victory. But it wasn't the characters' victory. It wasn't our victory.

------

As for Tolkien's eagles, I'm not a LotR buff so I can only speak of the standard trilogy with any confidence. (Spoilers, I guess? Statute of limitations on this is probably up, I think.) I'm pretty sure that limits the eagles' involvement to saving Sam & Frodo from the lava on Mt. Doom near the end.

You'll notice, I hope, that the eagles didn't actually do anything to help them destroy the ring, which is in that situation analogous to victory. The eagles only whisked them away from the swift death which awaited them after doing so. Sam & Frodo were always prepared to die, IIRC. Survival was not a factor in their goal by then. As such, being saved was just more conducive to a happy ending without rendering the victory meaningless.

Also, and this is just the random guessing of a non-LotR buff, weren't the eagles themselves kept at bay because they feared Sauron's presence? Since Sam & Frodo managed to unmake The Ring, that barrier was lifted through their actions. In that way, the eagles' rescue isn't even outside their influence. They saved themselves in the end. But either way, the point is that the eagles didn't do anything to help them win. They only saved them after the fact.

[TurtlesAWD]

You guys can debate this one all day.

This has to be one of the lamest things to happen in this comic.

im sorry but this is flat out stupid. Julio just appears for no reason, in the middle of the desert and boom swoops in to help Elan. Give me a break!

I know this comic is all for tropes, but this one is too much.

the air ship gives them a travel device, and stops this current situation. Its almost as if this storyline got backed into a corner and oh wait who can I have swoop in and save the day? Oh I know a big freaking air ship with juilo aboard. 2 birds one stone.

why not have T pull out a light saber and have the lawyers show up and arrest him?

A piece of fiction can't be "for" or "against" tropes. If you are writing, you are using tropes, period.

Furthermore Julio doesn't appear for no reason, Julio appears because Elan asked him to, because he's evidently a rival of Tarquin's, and because the name of Julio's ship is "the device used to create a Deus Ex Machina."

[JessmanCA]

If you don't understand why deus ex machina is representative of poor storytelling, you might not understand storytelling very well. Yes, random events sometimes save people in the real world. But that makes for a crappy story. Why? Because stories run on the implicit contract between author and reader that the story itself matters.

Any conclusion, especially dramatic and/or final ones, must be a direct result of the words we've read (or equivalent media we've consumed) or else that time and effort we used to do so was wasted. The solution has to be organic because the problems have to be real. The tension, the fear, the danger felt by the characters and the readers all have to be legitimate or else the story's entire purpose for existing is lost.

A story is only a quality story insofar as the emotions it evokes in its readers. If every emotion up until the deus ex machina was unnecessary, how can the final catharsis of resolution be any more worthwhile? Stories represent our internal desire for victory through achievement. Victory granted by grace of (word of) God is hollow. Sure, it's still victory. But it wasn't the characters' victory. It wasn't our victory.

------

As for Tolkien's eagles, I'm not a LotR buff so I can only speak of the standard trilogy with any confidence. (Spoilers, I guess? Statute of limitations on this is probably up, I think.) I'm pretty sure that limits the eagles' involvement to saving Sam & Frodo from the lava on Mt. Doom near the end.

You'll notice, I hope, that the eagles didn't actually do anything to help them destroy the ring, which is in that situation analogous to victory. The eagles only whisked them away from the swift death which awaited them after doing so. Sam & Frodo were always prepared to die, IIRC. Survival was not a factor in their goal by then. As such, being saved was just more conducive to a happy ending without rendering the victory meaningless.

Also, and this is just the random guessing of a non-LotR buff, weren't the eagles themselves kept at bay because they feared Sauron's presence? Since Sam & Frodo managed to unmake The Ring, that barrier was lifted through their actions. In that way, the eagles' rescue isn't even outside their influence. They saved themselves in the end. But either way, the point is that the eagles didn't do anything to help them win. They only saved them after the fact.

Yes you really shouldn't comment on Tolkien's eagles having not read the books. If you read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings then we can talk. They are used far more in the books. They are the deus ex machina more than once.

Also did you not read the quote from Tolkien in my second post? It explains why deus ex machina can be a useful storytelling tool. I think he's absolutely correct. Not everything has to be explained or set up in full detail. That would kill any sense of wonder or mystery. We wouldn't get to fill in the details ourselves. That makes for bad fantasy... It would eliminate that sense of joy at the grace of god coming to save the day when all hope is lost.

Would you rather the OotS just lose, and the story be over?

[TurtlesAWD]

If you don't understand why deus ex machina is representative of poor storytelling, you might not understand storytelling very well.

How well would you say Euripides understood storytelling? I'm sure he would be fascinated to hear why you think deus ex machina is bad, if he wasn't too busy being one of the most famous (and infamous) of greek poets and playwrights.



Any conclusion, especially dramatic and/or final ones, must be a direct result of the words we've read (or equivalent media we've consumed) or else that time and effort we used to do so was wasted.

So, for example, if we have a ship named the Mechane, hints that Tarquin has pun battled in the past, knowledge that Elan enacted a "secret plan" he wasn't telling anyone about (specifically for dramatic tension), and reason to believe that Elan's mom might know Julio, then a deus ex machina leading from those events isn't bad. Ok then.


A story is only a quality story insofar as the emotions it evokes in its readers. If every emotion up until the deus ex machina was unnecessary, how can the final catharsis of resolution be any more worthwhile?

Trying to use subjective emotions to appeal to an objective fact about storytelling or literary value would be unwise.

[Zrak]

A story is only a quality story insofar as the emotions it evokes in its readers. If every emotion up until the deus ex machina was unnecessary, how can the final catharsis of resolution be any more worthwhile? Stories represent our internal desire for victory through achievement. Victory granted by grace of (word of) God is hollow. Sure, it's still victory. But it wasn't the characters' victory. It wasn't our victory.

I don't think most of this argument actually follows from its premise; if we take for granted that a story's quality is determined by its ability to evoke emotions, that still does not entail the contentions that follow. Catharsis is not the only means of evoking emotion, nor is it self-evident that catharsis is the ideal means of doing so. Similarly, "victory through achievement" is not the necessary narrative arc of every story, because it is not the only arc which can evoke emotions, and it is not self-evident that it is the ideal arc for doing so. Some stories evoke and confront the feelings of confusion, fear, and helplessness brought about by being tossed around by forces we can never hope to control; do you contend that our eventual powerlessness in the face of death's inevitability evokes no strong emotions?

[Porthos]

If you don't understand why deus ex machina is representative of poor storytelling, you might not understand storytelling very well. Yes, random events sometimes save people in the real world. But that makes for a crappy story. Why? Because stories run on the implicit contract between author and reader that the story itself matters.

Doesn't this actually depend on what sort of story you are telling? In a plot-laden piece of work, I might agree. Maybe. Depends, actually. But what if you are telling a more character-driven piece of work? That is, the point of the story is the characters and how they interact with the world. The plot is just the framework to tell the real story.

Seems to me here a so-called DeM ending to a story/plotline is far less important.

Let me swing this back to my MitD/O-Chul example. Sure, there was PLOT present. But, ultimately IMO, that was mostly a character piece between the MitD and O-Chul, with V coming along for the ride (and getting his own character development in the process). There could have been any number of resolutions to the MitD O-Chul set piece(s), but, again IMO, it was the character work between the two of them that was driving everything.

Stepping back from this exact example, doesn't this also depend on the genre of the story? Things that have Magical Realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_realism) as a very heavy part of the world seem to me to have DeMish endings at times, if only because it is a nature of the world that unexpected things happen. Sometimes at the beginning of a tale, sometime in the middle, sometimes at the end. And sometimes yes to the above. :smallwink:

As I think about it, this might be why some people don't exactly like the Magical Realism genre. :smallamused:

Of course, if we can't even define specifically what a Deus ex Machina is, never mind generally, I don't think it is much of a surprise to find out whether or not it can ever be a good thing.

[HZ514]

Yes you really shouldn't comment on Tolkien's eagles having not read the books. If you read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings then we can talk. They are used far more in the books. They are the deus ex machina more than once.

Also did you not read the quote from Tolkien in my second post? It explains why deus ex machina can be a useful storytelling tool. I think he's absolutely correct. Not everything has to be explained or set up in full detail. That would kill any sense of wonder or mystery. We wouldn't get to fill in the details ourselves. That makes for bad fantasy... It would eliminate that sense of joy at the grace of god coming to save the day when all hope is lost.

Would you rather the OotS just lose, and the story be over?

Oh, are they? I readily admitted that I was unqualified to discuss the full breadth of Tolkien's writings, so I certainly could not argue that point.

Strangely enough, I don't take the quotes of Tolkien or any other author as inherently correct or even basely informative of my viewpoint. From what you just wrote though, it would seem that I do indeed disagree with Tolkien's views (as you presented them). There is a large disconnect between "deus ex machina" and "leaving certain details to the imagination" and I made that distinction rather clear: major plot & character conflicts' resolutions. If you actually think that "good fantasy" requires that hopeless situations only ever get fixed through unrelated divine intervention...then our viewpoints are disparate enough that we'll never agree. I've already written why I don't believe that's the case.

Excuse me? I never stated I wanted the OotS to lose or for the story to be over. If you're somehow inferring that from me saying that DeMs are bad (in relation to current events in the strip) my response would be that Julio's appearance was not a DeM. I've written about that elsewhere as well. Suffice it to say, Elan and Durkon brought him in, thus it is not a resolution from outside the characters' actions.


How well would you say Euripides understood storytelling? I'm sure he would be fascinated to hear why you think deus ex machina is bad, if he wasn't too busy being one of the most famous (and infamous) of greek poets and playwrights.



So, for example, if we have a ship named the Mechane, hints that Tarquin has pun battled in the past, knowledge that Elan enacted a "secret plan" he wasn't telling anyone about (specifically for dramatic tension), and reason to believe that Elan's mom might know Julio, then a deus ex machina leading from those events isn't bad. Ok then.


Trying to use subjective emotions to appeal to an objective fact about storytelling or literary value would be unwise.

If Euripides were sitting next to me, I would love to have a wonderfully didactic discussion with him on the subject. Since he's not and we can't, you would do well to remember that storytelling, like everything else, has evolved since Euripides' time. There's a reason why even the views of the most enlightened of the past rapidly become less applicable as time marches on.

What exactly is your point here? I don't think and never have thought that Julio's recent appearance is a deus ex machina, and I don't think it's a bad thing. I can't tell from your syntax, but it almost seems like you were labeling Julio's appearance as a DeM and then classifying it as good to counter my point that DeMs are bad. If that's the case, it's not a DeM so your point is moot. If not, I just have no clue what your quote and response meant.

Actually, storytelling and a story's literary value are entirely dependent on subjective emotions. To claim anything else would be nonsensical and demonstrate an utter lack of the medium's base purpose.


I don't think most of this argument actually follows from its premise; if we take for granted that a story's quality is determined by its ability to evoke emotions, that still does not entail the contentions that follow. Catharsis is not the only means of evoking emotion, nor is it self-evident that catharsis is the ideal means of doing so. Similarly, "victory through achievement" is not the necessary narrative arc of every story, because it is not the only arc which can evoke emotions, and it is not self-evident that it is the ideal arc for doing so. Some stories evoke and confront the feelings of confusion, fear, and helplessness brought about by being tossed around by forces we can never hope to control; do you contend that our eventual powerlessness in the face of death's inevitability evokes no strong emotions?

What? By definition, a DeM brings about victory (or at least salvation). I'm not addressing other emotions because those aren't relevant to the topic. There are certainly (sections of) stories which intend to evoke other emotions through different narrative arcs, the validity of which I make no claim about. DeM is not present in them so they're outside the scope of my entire post you're critiquing.

To answer your nonsequitor question, I do believe that "our eventual powerlessness in the ace of death" evokes rather strong emotions, namely fear and uncertainty. Just because I can, I'll connect that back to the actual topic at hand, DeMs. If the first 90% of a dramatic story(line) evokes said feelings of hopelessness and fear as a situation grows more and more bleak, and then everything is made better by a hitherto unforeseen force, what was the point of that first 90%? The emotions it evoked were hollow and cheap, ultimately meaningless. That makes the story as a whole suffer, and rather greatly so. Of course, that is a subjective claim of worth, so anyone is free to feel differently. If people enjoy stories which fail to uphold the inherent contract I believe exists, then more power to them. I will continue to label them as inferior.

[jere7my]

If people enjoy stories which fail to uphold the inherent contract I believe exists, then more power to them. I will continue to label them as inferior.

You're welcome to this viewpoint, but I find it places arbitrary and unnecessary limits on what a writer can do. If a story looks like it is about characters overcoming obstacles, but is actually about something deeper and (in my mind) more interesting, then a deus ex machina resolution may be appropriate. Tolkien was trying to say something about divine grace, for instance, and how it appears unlooked-for when all seems lost; Rich here is trying to say something about the role of narrative, and how characters can shape their own parts in it.

More generally: I am a big fan of authors breaking the implied contract they have with their readers. Done well, it can be revolutionary.

[SavageWombat]

Tolkien was trying to say something about divine grace, for instance, and how it appears unlooked-for when all seems lost; Rich here is trying to say something about the role of narrative, and how characters can shape their own parts in it.

I always assumed he was signifying that Divine Providence comes to the rescue only after you strive to the end of your own ability. "God Helps Those who Help Themselves" and all that.

[Drolyt]

If you don't understand why deus ex machina is representative of poor storytelling, you might not understand storytelling very well.
So the existence of Deus Ex Machina is necessarily bad storytelling and people who like the use of Deus Ex Machina are simply confused. I'm not saying you are wrong, but that is going to be a very hard position to defend.

Any conclusion, especially dramatic and/or final ones, must be a direct result of the words we've read (or equivalent media we've consumed) or else that time and effort we used to do so was wasted. The solution has to be organic because the problems have to be real. The tension, the fear, the danger felt by the characters and the readers all have to be legitimate or else the story's entire purpose for existing is lost.
Must be? Why must it be?

A story is only a quality story insofar as the emotions it evokes in its readers.
This seems to me an unnecessary and unjustified restriction on the literary arts.

Stories represent our internal desire for victory through achievement.
Again, this seems an unnecessary restriction on what a story can represent.

[Bulldog Psion]

In fact Tolkien knew exactly what he was doing. He used deus ex machina on purpose. Here is a quote from him on the matter.

"The consolation of fairy stories…the sudden joyous “turn” (for there is no true end to any fairy tale): this joy, which is one of the things which fairy stories can produce supremely well, is not essentially “escapist,” nor “fugitive.” In its fairy-tale or otherworld setting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure: the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief."

I missed this the first time around, and just had to drop in to remark -- is there anything Tolkien wrote that doesn't give me goosebumps? :smallbiggrin:

[Jasdoif]

I may have misinterpreted you, but it seemed to me you are convinced that DeM is always a badly done plot twist.No. A deus ex machina is just never a better plot twist than it would be if it weren't a deus ex machina. Being a neutrally done plot twist is certainly a possibility.


This thread has a few examples of stories using deus ex machinas where foreshadowing or other advance indications would've been detrimental. Farces (where sudden absurdity contributes to the important comedic value more than it would if advance knowledge was available), the War of the Worlds example (where the sudden introduction is the main theme of the story), the MitD teleporting O-Chul and Vaarsuvius away (where the MitD's powers are intentionally kept mysterious)....

But what I realized, is that in none of those cases is the plot twist actually better for being a deus ex machina. Rather, the foreknowledge that would make it not a deus ex machina, would negatively impact other parts of the story. Using a deus ex machina in these cases is a tradeoff, risking doubt in the integrity of the plot for the sake of boosting the rest of the story. And the deus ex machina happens to be only the "risk" part of the trade.

So I still haven't seen a situation where a plot twist itself benefits from being a deus ex machina. That doesn't mean a deus ex machina automatically makes a story bad; there's more to a story than just plot twists, after all.

[Zrak]

What? By definition, a DeM brings about victory (or at least salvation). I'm not addressing other emotions because those aren't relevant to the topic. There are certainly (sections of) stories which intend to evoke other emotions through different narrative arcs, the validity of which I make no claim about. DeM is not present in them so they're outside the scope of my entire post you're critiquing.
Ah. I understood the line "Stories represent our internal desire for victory through achievement," to refer to all stories, in your argument. As such, I offered as a counter-argument that not all stories represent this desire, offering the example that stories which represent our fears and anxieties not only exist, but can be just as powerful as stories representing one of our desires.


To answer your nonsequitor question, I do believe that "our eventual powerlessness in the ace of death" evokes rather strong emotions, namely fear and uncertainty. Just because I can, I'll connect that back to the actual topic at hand, DeMs. If the first 90% of a dramatic story(line) evokes said feelings of hopelessness and fear as a situation grows more and more bleak, and then everything is made better by a hitherto unforeseen force, what was the point of that first 90%? The emotions it evoked were hollow and cheap, ultimately meaningless. That makes the story as a whole suffer, and rather greatly so. Of course, that is a subjective claim of worth, so anyone is free to feel differently. If people enjoy stories which fail to uphold the inherent contract I believe exists, then more power to them. I will continue to label them as inferior.
In what sense are those emotions suddenly hollow or meaningless? It is not as though being saved from seemingly certain death, by one's own actions or by some contrived twist of fate, would suddenly erase our fears or even make it unreasonable to have had those fears; in fact, being saved by a contrivance, rather than one's own actions, would justify, not subvert, the feelings of hopelessness and helplessness evoked by the ever-bleaker plot.

Really, the only story I would argue deus ex machina necessarily and inherently undoes is the story whose emotional resonance is predicated upon victory through achievement — as you say, it removes the achievement from the victory. Since stories do not need to represent a desire for victory through achievement to be emotionally resonant, and since a deus ex machina does not necessarily ruin the emotional impact of stories representing other hopes and fears, I don't think it can be established that deus ex machina is necessarily and universally "poor storytelling."

[Irenaeus]

Doesn't the prolonged discussion about Gandalf undermine Fish's original point that what is a Deus ex Machina is usually pretty clear? Because there doesn't appear to be that much consensus on it in this thread, and it was one of his examples with the original statement.

It's a muddled term, at least with regard to how it's used. And it's current use is usually more polemical than analytical.


Billy is drowning in the water with nothing to do but to wait until the end.

Suddenly the omnipotent superhero GodMan slightly shifts his weight and Billy appears on a beach in Costa Rica.
You're welcome, Billy.

[ChristianSt]

I simply cannot resist to quote today's SMBC (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=3178), which is highly relevant for the topic at hand:



Q: Dad, What is a "Deus Ex Machina"?
A: "Deus" means "god" and "Machina" means "machine".
So, taken together, it means god used to date a robot, but they're broken up now.


Now, with a proper definition, it is clear that OotS never has featured a Deus Ex Machina. :smallcool:

[martianmister]

I simply cannot resist to quote today's SMBC (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=3178), which is highly relevant for the topic at hand:



Now, with a proper definition, it is clear that OotS never has featured a Deus Ex Machina. :smallcool:

Mechane is obviously a flying machine.
Julio is obviously a sex god.

DEM.

[ChristianSt]

Mechane is obviously a flying machine.
Julio is obviously a sex god.

DEM.

So are you implying that he used to date his airship? :smalleek:
(Also I would not have thought that Julio would hang around with his exes)

[Snails]

In fact Tolkien knew exactly what he was doing. He used deus ex machina on purpose. Here is a quote from him on the matter.

"The consolation of fairy stories…the sudden joyous “turn” (for there is no true end to any fairy tale): this joy, which is one of the things which fairy stories can produce supremely well, is not essentially “escapist,” nor “fugitive.” In its fairy-tale or otherworld setting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure: the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief."

The Hobbit certainly reads as a fairy tale, and, in that context, the peculiar turns feel appropriate. Also, to me, Gandalf first read as Merlin with a fresh coat of paint. I completely expect Merlin to mysteriously show up at the right time -- it would have seemed more weird to me if he did not.

[Porthos]

So if the Order were to take the Mechane and escape while Julio was fighting Tarquin in an appropriately climatic duel, would that make Julio a...

Wait for it....

Dude ex-Mechane. :smallcool:

[WindStruck]

I think what's interesting to note about the Greek plays is that religion played a large role in their lives, and the Gods themselves probably could have been an assumed part of the story.

What I mean is that the audience knows the gods exist, so do the actors in the play in their story, and as it happened to be, the gods according to their theology took more active rolls in the affairs of man.

So wouldn't it be funny at the end of a greek play back then, as the audience is leaving and discussing it, someone says, "Wow, how did you like that plot twist at the very end?"

[wolfdreams01]

I thought that, in order for something to be a deus ex machina, its introduction had to completely resolve (or render irrelevant) whatever problem the protagonists were facing. Additionally, the very existence of that plot device is supposed to be completely unknown before it is used to extricate the protagonists from whatever situation they had just found themselves in.


First of all, great job here advancing an argument under the guise of a question. I was impressed by your sneakiness. It's obvious that you don't think this is a Deus Ex Machina, but you phrased your post in a way that makes your position seem more neutral, thus artificially giving your opinion more weight. I'm not being sarcastic - I'm legitimately impressed. If I weren't so old and cynical, that would have totally slipped by me.

Now let's deconstruct your argument. First of all, your definition is wrong. What you are doing is a logical fallacy known as "shifting the goalposts." In other words, you are arguing that the recent plot twist is NOT a Deus Ex Machina, so you are deliberately using an incorrect definition of Deus Ex Machina that you made up out of whole cloth. Deus Ex Machinae ARE a type of plot twist, so arguing that it cannot be one because it is the other is incorrect, and the only people who would buy into it are the ones who bought into the faulty definition that you advanced here.

Now, let's examine the correct definition:
A deus ex machina (pronounced [ˈdeus eks ˈmaː.kʰi.na], /ˈdeɪ.əs ɛks ˈmɑːkiːnə/ or /ˈdiːəs ɛks ˈmækɨnə/[1]; from Latin, meaning "god from the machine"; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object. Depending on how it is done, it can be intended to move the story forward when the writer has "painted himself into a corner" and sees no other way out, to surprise the audience, to bring a happy ending into the tale, or as a comedic device.

Now let's examine the situation to see whether it fits the criteria for a Deus Ex Machina.

Was the problem unsolvable?
YES. This is mildly debatable, but I think most people would agree that the Order was doing really badly. Roy was almost dead, Durkon was out of spells and one round from death, Varsuvius was being strangled and Haley is possibly unconscious (she's certainly nowhere in sight). Nobody can unequivocally ever say that ANY problem is unsolvable (because there's always one troll willing to argue for argument's sake), but it certainly seems to be as close as the order has ever come to a TPK.

Was there a contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, or object?
YES. While "unexpected" is mildly debatable (since evidently there were a few people who expected it), it was certainly very contrived to have the Mechane arrive EXACTLY when it did. Come on, the EXACT round that Durkon is exposed to daylight is when a giant airship conveniently appears directly above him to block out the sun. It's hard to think of anything MORE contrived.

Is the unsolvable problem suddenly and abruptly resolved?
WE DO NOT KNOW YET. The impact of Julio's appearance is something that Rich is writing right now. It's possible that Julio will die, or that he will fail to stop Tarquin, or that something else will happen to give Tarquin the upper hand. If so, then this is not a Deus Ex Machina, because it meets only two of the requirements rather than all three.

However, if Julio's appearance DOES end up resolving the problem (ie, Tarquin), then it's obvious that this meets all three criteria of being a Deus Ex Machina. In my opinion, this is where the plot seems to be heading, which is why I think this plot twist was extremely lame and I am a little disappointed. However, I fully acknowledge that we do not have enough information yet to be able to conclusively meet all three requirements of a Deus Ex Machina, so any argument that it is definitely a Deus Ex Machina - or definitely is NOT a Deus Ex Machina - would be foolish, as we have only met two out of the three requirements thus far. We can only determine if it is a Deus Ex Machina once we have seen the full impact of Julio's actions. If Julio's timely (and very contrived) appearance ends up resolving the problem, then this would certainly fit the definition of a Deus Ex Machina.

[The Giant]

You are ignoring part of the definition you yourself quoted, probably because it undermines your point:
A deus ex machina (pronounced [ˈdeus eks ˈmaː.kʰi.na], /ˈdeɪ.əs ɛks ˈmɑːkiːnə/ or /ˈdiːəs ɛks ˈmækɨnə/[1]; from Latin, meaning "god from the machine"; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object.

Bolding mine.

Is Julio Scoundrél a new character? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0389.html).
Is his positive relationship to Elan a new concept? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0392.html).
Is the fact that Julio Scoundrél has the Dashing Swordsman class a new ability? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0390.html).
Is the quasi-supernatural ability of a Dashing Swordsman to arrive at the exact place and time necessary for them to save the day a new ability? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0392.html).
Is the fact that Julio Scoundrél possesses an airship capable of faster-than-average travel a new object? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0390.html).
Is the fact that when an airship flies overhead, it casts a shadow in direct contradiction to the rest of the art style a new ability? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0388.html).
Is the fact that Julio Scoundrél sometimes has adventures in the desert a new idea? No (though at least with that one you need to read his solo story in Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tales.)
Is the fact that Elan had a secret plan a new idea? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0836.html).
Is the fact that Elan's secret plan used Durkon a new event? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0837.html).
Is the fact that Durkon has the magical ability to contact people from a distance a new ability? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0733.html).
Is the fact that the story takes place in a world that literally makes highly improbable events more likely than moderately probable events a new idea? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html).


So, if no part of the events that happen is new to the story, it cannot be Deus Ex Machina. No matter what else you want to say about it and no matter what happens next. All I did was combine a bunch of previously established elements in a way people weren't expecting.

And let's be clear: Durkon being caught in the sun is a last minute idea that I threw in as I was writing the strip in which Laurin dispelled his spell, specifically because I knew that the next strip would feature a giant shadow. It was not some unavoidable corner that I had written myself into. I could have just had Laurin use some Mystery Power on Durkon to paralyze him if I really wanted to, but I thought this was more interesting. So please don't tell me that I solved some insolvable problem with this move—I created the problem in question because I already knew what was going to happen next.

And, of course, more to the point, I don't actually give a crap about how lame anyone thinks it is. I'm happy with the way the story is turning out, and if you're not, maybe this story isn't for you. I'm mostly posting this refutation so other people can link to it next time someone complains about it.

[Jay R]

I hereby commit that I will not judge, critique, or attempt to characterize the Julio Scoundrél intervention until I have read it in its entirety.

[brionl]

Frankly, the only problem I had about this situation was that Julio said he never wanted to see Elan again. But Elan's second sending nicely knocked that one out for me.

[Snails]

Was the problem unsolvable?

No. The situation was merely bad and apparently getting worse. A bit better teamwork than we are used to seeing could provide a clean victory. In fact, I would argue that, if anything, that it seems hopeless is somewhat contrived. Team Tarquin are getting a series of highly convenient breaks that, while plausible, are not exactly likely, e.g. V hitting Miron with the Disintegrate would have freed up Haley to disrupt Laurin's power. Even if we accept those bad turns as water under the bridge, the Order is in bad shape because they seem to be standing around doing nothing more than is expected.

Was there a contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, or object?

Unexpected? Whatever. Contrived? No. The popular guess, to which I did subscribe, was that Elan's Sending was to his mother. That was always an unclear point. If it were not to her, then Julio is the only highly likely target. As for the timing, it is consistent with what we were explicitly told about Dashing Swordsmen to have such fine timing. In fact, "look for tha big explosion" was quite clever on Elan's part, and was likely to precipitate such a course of action from Julio, once he was on board.

[Parallel Pain]

Now, let's examine the correct definition:
A deus ex machina (pronounced [ˈdeus eks ˈmaː.kʰi.na], /ˈdeɪ.əs ɛks ˈmɑːkiːnə/ or /ˈdiːəs ɛks ˈmækɨnə/[1]; from Latin, meaning "god from the machine"; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object.I was going to type my own reply, but the Giant nailed it.

If you're going to post a definition to something, don't go ignoring it yourself.

[Vaylon]

And, of course, more to the point, I don't actually give a crap about how lame anyone thinks it is.

I agree -- as well you shouldn't. Good artists shouldn't have to explain themselves or answer to anyone; the work should speak for itself. Besides, I don't think anyone who has read any of your many posts on this forum doubts your commitment to not caring about what we think.

[WindStruck]

wolfdreams: There's no need to be so snide and cynical. Simply explaining how one perceives things to be isn't "advancing an argument"... and quite frankly there's nothing wrong with his definition of dues ex machina, though your definition of goalpost moving is quite off.

I would advise you just be a bit more civil about these things and simply address any sort of "arguments" you find on their merits alone.

For one thing, I have a point to raise against yours: if it's still a total toss-up that the arrival of Scoundrel will or will not significantly help the OOTS, then how can it be a deus ex machina? It is just a new development that stirs the pot once again, with an outcome that is still rather unclear. Why is it one if he succeeds, but not if it fails? A plot device is either going to be a deus ex machina or not from its conception.

Here's my emphasis on the definition: "suddenly and abruptly resolved"

If it was truly a deus ex machina, I believe the whole Tarquin problem would have been resolved now. That's why it's really the power of the gods that is in play in a real deus ex machina. There's no resisting the gods' power. The problems are instantly, unquestionably resolved with the addition of the new element. With Scoundrel's reintroduction, not so much.

[The Giant]

Besides, I don't think anyone who has read any of your many posts on this forum doubts your commitment to not caring about what we think.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? It never seems to work out that way, though.

[konradknox]

All I did was combine a bunch of previously established elements in a way people weren't expecting.

Do not underestimate us, Giant! :smallbiggrin:
There was a whole crazy club who prophesized Julio's return! :smallwink:

Granted, we all laughed and pointed fingers and threw rotten fruit at them as if they were lepers, but still. :smalltongue:

[Menas]

You'd think so, wouldn't you? It never seems to work out that way, though.

Personally, I think it's natural and healthy for there to be a little bit of a natural tension between a storyteller and his or her audience. Both parties have expectations of what makes a good story, and judge it accordingly. Sometimes when people get really involved with a story and things don't turn out the way they'd hoped, they can take it personally.

I'm not meaning to put any words in Mr. Burlew's mouth with my next paragraph, so please feel free to correct me if I'm too far off base on anything.

I would think that when Mr. Burlew says he doesn't really give a crap what his readers think, he's really just saying that if he thinks the story should be developed in a certain way because it's going to make for the best story possible, then that's what he's going to do regardless of how many people complain about it. I don't think he's saying he doesn't give a crap whether he delivers a good story or not. Obviously, he's writing a story because he wants it to be read and enjoyed and he takes pride in his work; he simply might have a different idea of what a 'good story' is than the rest of us at times for different aspects of the story.

As far as the 'Deus Ex Machina' issue, by definition this instance is not one, although the re-introduction of Julio Scoundrél has a similar effect: A powerful entity that can affect change and is likely to do so on behalf of the story's heroes has been suddenly brought into the narrative. So the 'sudden' and 'unexpected' elements are there, but the 'contrived' and 'insoluble' elements are not. Julio is certainly not contrived, and the situation could have been solvable without Julio if the author wanted to go that way.

For me, this scene requires a certain amount of willful suspension of disbelief. But to me that's part of what makes a great story. If all the details in a story fit into our mundane expectations of normal life, it wouldn't really make much of a story now would it?

[wolfdreams01]

You are ignoring part of the definition you yourself quoted, probably because it undermines your point:

Bolding mine.

Is Julio Scoundrél a new character? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0389.html).
Is his positive relationship to Elan a new concept? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0392.html).
Is the fact that Julio Scoundrél has the Dashing Swordsman class a new ability? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0390.html).
Is the quasi-supernatural ability of a Dashing Swordsman to arrive at the exact place and time necessary for them to save the day a new ability? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0392.html).
Is the fact that Julio Scoundrél possesses an airship capable of faster-than-average travel a new object? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0390.html).
Is the fact that when an airship flies overhead, it casts a shadow in direct contradiction to the rest of the art style a new ability? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0388.html).
Is the fact that Julio Scoundrél sometimes has adventures in the desert a new idea? No (though at least with that one you need to read his solo story in Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tales.)
Is the fact that Elan had a secret plan a new idea? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0836.html).
Is the fact that Elan's secret plan used Durkon a new event? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0837.html).
Is the fact that Durkon has the magical ability to contact people from a distance a new ability? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0733.html).
Is the fact that the story takes place in a world that literally makes highly improbable events more likely than moderately probable events a new idea? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html).


So, if no part of the events that happen is new to the story, it cannot be Deus Ex Machina. No matter what else you want to say about it and no matter what happens next. All I did was combine a bunch of previously established elements in a way people weren't expecting.

And let's be clear: Durkon being caught in the sun is a last minute idea that I threw in as I was writing the strip in which Laurin dispelled his spell, specifically because I knew that the next strip would feature a giant shadow. It was not some unavoidable corner that I had written myself into. I could have just had Laurin use some Mystery Power on Durkon to paralyze him if I really wanted to, but I thought this was more interesting. So please don't tell me that I solved some insolvable problem with this move—I created the problem in question because I already knew what was going to happen next.

And, of course, more to the point, I don't actually give a crap about how lame anyone thinks it is. I'm happy with the way the story is turning out, and if you're not, maybe this story isn't for you. I'm mostly posting this refutation so other people can link to it next time someone complains about it.

First of all, I don't really care a ton about your opinion either. This is an opinion forum, so I'm sharing my opinion. I think that you're a good writer, and I show my support by paying to buy the printed books. However, sometimes I disagree with the artistic choices you make, and when I do I express myself, on an opinion forum designed specifically for that purpose. If you don't like that, I'm curious as to why you even host this forum in the first place. Is the purpose of the forum just so that you can bask in the praise of your fans? Because you really don't seem like that type. If you have a problem with reasoned criticism, wouldn't it make sense to post that under the forum guidelines? Because despite you saying that "you don't care about other people's opinions," your tone seems to come off as defensive.

As for the meat of your refutation, I think you're misunderstanding what a a "new event, character, or object" means in the context of that definition. I'm pretty sure that it means "new to the scene," not "new to the story." If you look at the definition of Deus Ex Machina on Wikipedia it gives several examples that seem to support this interpretation. For example, the king's existence is known in Moliere's Tartuffe, so it is not like Moliere is introducing a character out of nowhere, but it's still a Deus Ex Machina when agents of the king save the day.

I grant you that a certain suspension of disbelief is necessary when reading any fiction, but when I'm forced to suspend disbelief in basic physics, yes, that comes off as a little cheesy. For example, you said:



Is the fact that when an airship flies overhead, it casts a shadow in direct contradiction to the rest of the art style a new ability? No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0388.html).


You ARE aware that the higher up an object is, the smaller its shadow will be (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_shadows_of_bird_flying_high_not_formed), right?

I presume that you're aware of this basic physics concept (and that it functions in the OOTS world) because in the link that you cited here, Elan and Thog have an airship's shadow pass over them, and it seems clear from the picture that:

1) The ship is passing pretty low
2) It is noisy (they can clearly hear the engines).

So, since you're being so "generous" as to address my questions and even want to use my comment as an link to show other people how criticism is dealt with, perhaps you could also explain how the airship in the recent comics was so close and low to the ground that it actually cast a shadow, while at the same time managing to sneak up on this scene without anybody once saying "Hey, look at that huge effing blimp right there?" Did I miss the comic where the Mechane has a cloaking field and a silence spell? Or do the laws of physics function so differently in the OOTS world that shadows actually are larger the higher up an object is? Is there a localized eclipse every time an eagle flies over a town, perhaps?

And windstruck, to address your point, I may be a cynical person by nature, but I certainly wasn't being snide in my original post - when I said I admired the poster's framing of the question, I meant it sincerely. One thing I've been studying lately is Unspeak (http://unspeak.net/), and I am genuinely impressed by people who can convey an opinion covertly through the framing of language. (Politics and psychology are my jam.)

[Tryfan]

I grant you that a certain suspension of disbelief is necessary when reading any fiction, but when I'm forced to suspend disbelief in basic physics, yes, that comes off as a little cheesy. For example, you said:

You ARE aware that the higher up an object is, the smaller its shadow will be (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_shadows_of_bird_flying_high_not_formed), right?

I presume that you're aware of this basic physics concept (and that it functions in the OOTS world) because in the link that you cited here, Elan and Thog have an airship's shadow pass over them, and it seems clear from the picture that:

1) The ship is passing pretty low
2) It is noisy (they can clearly hear the engines).


To quote V (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0754.html): 'I should avoid casting any spells tonight, if only to give the laws of physics time to cry alone in the corner'. If you care that much about the laws of physics you may be reading the wrong comic I suggest this (http://www.xkcd.com/). You may as well ask why isn't Durkon ash? He's still standing in sunlight, sunlight that's been reflected or refracted but still sunlight.

If you're going to complain about the shadow complain that it's not a very long way away due to the position of the sun. It's size is fine. A bird doesn't have a shadow becasue it is small. An airship is much bigger. By my rough calcs an airship flying at 200m would have a shadow with an umbra 1m smaller than it, and a penumbra 1 m larger. At which point who cares? The airship is much bigger than 2m in diameter.

In terms of not spotting it: everyone's fighting: not spotting it is reasonable as they're a tad distracted. Besides which if it's low it's less likely to be spotted, not more. Low down it the sun can be close to it so you can't see it. It could be in front of the mountains so it blends in, and in neither of these will you hear it until it's fairly close (especially if it travels at speed of plot which, being captained by a dashing swordsman, it will).

[WindStruck]

Well, I will say this... Yes, it's an opinion forum. As such, there's nothing wrong with your criticisms. If this wasn't the case, it would be in the forum guidelines, and instead of receiving a response from the author, you would be receiving a ban.

It seems you are confusing the author getting "defensive" with assaulting your freedom of speech. But no such event is occurring. You are giving your opinion, and the author is simply giving his opinion back - as per his freedom of speech. It isn't a one-way road where you can unleash your criticism but expect no counter to it. If one comes off sounding like a pompous windbag, he can expect to have various adverse reactions sent back his way.

[Ron Miel]

You ARE aware that the higher up an object is, the smaller its shadow will be (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_shadows_of_bird_flying_high_not_formed), right?

I don't think so.

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/80/4a/49/sonoma.jpg

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/aerial-perspective-space-needle-shadow-19815104.jpg

http://www.noupe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/aerial-photography-123.jpg

As far as I understand, a flying object will cast a shadow the same size as itself, at any height. With the Sun being 93 million miles away, 500 feet higher or lower makes no noticeable difference.

[Baphomet]

If you have a problem with reasoned criticism, wouldn't it make sense to post that under the forum guidelines? Because despite you saying that "you don't care about other people's opinions," your tone seems to come off as defensive.
I understand you're trying to draw some sort of line here between reasonable debate/discussion and reactionary arguing, but I'm having a hard time understanding where you're drawing that line so that your post is the former and Rich's is the latter.

With that out of the way, what I really wanted to say was this:

If you look at the definition of Deus Ex Machina on Wikipedia it gives several examples that seem to support this interpretation. For example, the king's existence is known in Moliere's Tartuffe, so it is not like Moliere is introducing a character out of nowhere, but it's still a Deus Ex Machina when agents of the king save the day.
Tartuffe brings the officers of the law to evict Orgon and his family from their house, only to have the officers arrest him instead. They arrest him because the King somehow was spying on everything that happened in the play and knew of Tartuffe's treachery, despite the fact that this spying was never mentioned or alluded to at all in the entire play.

A deus ex machina (pronounced [ˈdeus eks ˈmaː.kʰi.na], /ˈdeɪ.əs ɛks ˈmɑːkiːnə/ or /ˈdiːəs ɛks ˈmækɨnə/[1]; from Latin, meaning "god from the machine"; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object.
Even if we buy your excuse that we know the king exists even though he doesn't appear in the play and is never mentioned by name, therefore his agent is not a new character, character is just one of the listed things. The fact that the king of the entire country has, completely unseen and unknown to any characters before this point, chosen to take a personal interest in this affair, then proceeds to wrap it up on his own is a new event. An unseen authority figure came in and resolved everything with no foreshadowing whatsoever. That is a deus ex machina. That is not what happened with Julio's arrival.

[Cerlis]

id say considering how long and how many people predicted Julios apearence, any definition of deus ex machina that inckudes "unpredictable" in any level doesnt fit this twist

If people are going to call something a term because the definition of that term can vary based on people's opinions....

...there really is no point to having definitions in language now is there?

Now excuse me while I call Roy a Mary Sue cus he didnt die

[Zrak]

As for the meat of your refutation, I think you're misunderstanding what a a "new event, character, or object" means in the context of that definition. I'm pretty sure that it means "new to the scene," not "new to the story." If you look at the definition of Deus Ex Machina on Wikipedia it gives several examples that seem to support this interpretation. For example, the king's existence is known in Moliere's Tartuffe, so it is not like Moliere is introducing a character out of nowhere, but it's still a Deus Ex Machina when agents of the king save the day.
The king's existence is known, but the king himself has not appeared or been involved in the play in any way, shape, or form, prior to the arrival of his messenger to arrest Tartuffe and sort out the entire plot. The character must be new not in the sense of having never before entered human consciousness, but in the sense of being new to the story. If the high priest of Tiamat of appeared and imploded Tarquin for mistreating lizardfolk, it would be analogous to the scene in Taruffe; yeah, there is probably a high priest of Tiamat, but he or she has nothing to do with anything. Julio is an established character with an established relationship to Elan whose familiarity with Tarquin was foreshadowed.
If you want, you can use the "new to the scene" definition, but Tartuffe is not evidence in support of it and the deus ex machina in Tartuffe isn't analogous to the current situation in OotS.


I grant you that a certain suspension of disbelief is necessary when reading any fiction, but when I'm forced to suspend disbelief in basic physics, yes, that comes off as a little cheesy. For example, you said:



You ARE aware that the higher up an object is, the smaller its shadow will be (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_shadows_of_bird_flying_high_not_formed), right?

I presume that you're aware of this basic physics concept (and that it functions in the OOTS world) because in the link that you cited here, Elan and Thog have an airship's shadow pass over them, and it seems clear from the picture that:

1) The ship is passing pretty low
2) It is noisy (they can clearly hear the engines).


So, since you're being so "generous" as to address my questions and even want to use my comment as an link to show other people how criticism is dealt with, perhaps you could also explain how the airship in the recent comics was so close and low to the ground that it actually cast a shadow, while at the same time managing to sneak up on this scene without anybody once saying "Hey, look at that huge effing blimp right there?" Did I miss the comic where the Mechane has a cloaking field and a silence spell? Or do the laws of physics function so differently in the OOTS world that shadows actually are larger the higher up an object is? Is there a localized eclipse every time an eagle flies over a town, perhaps?

Maybe they just aren't all that loud; Thog and Elan didn't hear the first airship until standing in its shadow, either. As such, the Mechane wasn't low enough to be audible, cast a shadow, or being particularly noticeable amidst the chaos of a life-and-death fight until #930.

Regardless, eagles wouldn't cause eclipses. Birds do not cast shadows from any height.

All that aside, you ARE aware that carpets can't actually fly, right?

[konradknox]

As for the meat of your refutation, I think you're misunderstanding what a a "new event, character, or object" means in the context of that definition.

I think you are misunderstanding what the context of the story is. Elan is a bard. This WAS his secret plan, his winning bard move. He's been planning it for a while and it came into play at the proper moment due to his direct action. You aren't crying over Durkon using HEAL on Malack, or Malack withdrawing the Mass Death Ward because he has a backdoor. Whenever a bad guy happens to pop a surprising bit of planning (Like keoghtum ointment), I hear no complaints. But whenever a hero like our poor Elan here does it, people cry "deus ex blablachina". As if a hero is only supposed to fight with his fists out in the open to make it fair. Perhaps you would enjoy Dragonball Z more, because characters speak all their thoughts during battle outloud and let you digest what they are going to do exactly for the next 20 minutes. "I am going to charge up my attack and use it on this guy!". If you can't handle sudden sneak attacks, perhaps you could at least accept that it's due to your own limitation of comprehension prowess, and not due to author's fault. Because what we're witnessing in 930 here is the epitomy of a bardic sneak attack.




So, since you're being so "generous" as to address my questions and even want to use my comment as an link to show other people how criticism is dealt with, perhaps you could also explain how the airship in the recent comics was so close and low to the ground that it actually cast a shadow, while at the same time managing to sneak up on this scene without anybody once saying "Hey, look at that huge effing blimp right there?" Did I miss the comic where the Mechane has a cloaking field and a silence spell?



You missed the fact that this is a DnD based comic. They rolled bad and didn't make their spot and listen checks due to penalties of being in combat. Well, Tarquin finally made his listen check. I bit too late.

Besides, he probably had to contest Julio's move silently skill, or sneaking skill whatever it is, plus his airmanship piloting skill. Since I'm sure Julio is either a rogue or a bard, he probably has good stealth skills.

[Tryfan]

I don't think so.

As far as I understand, a flying object will cast a shadow the same size as itself, at any height. With the Sun being 93 million miles away, 500 feet higher or lower makes no noticeable difference.

It does, if you look at those pictures, particually the last one, you can see a fuzziness to the edge of the shadow. In the case of the plane the tail plane is noticably thinner and pointier in the shadow than on the plane. the 'fuzzy' bit is the penumbra, if the plane is high enough there won't be any umbra (the solid bit) at all.

Your pictures do show quite nicely that big objects can quite happily cast shodow though, from a decent height. A plane need to be above about 1km to not cast a shadow, the Hindenburg would have needed to be above 4.5 km.


Regardless, eagles wouldn't cause eclipses. Birds do not cast shadows from any height.

They do - just look next time one is on the ground; you should notice a shadow. An eagle will cause an 'eclipse' if it lands on your head.

[Baphomet]

I feel like killing some catgirls because this is basically what I'm in grad school for. If you have a light source like the sun that is emitting light from a large area at the same time, then the shadow size is not consistent. As you move the object casting the shadow away from the object it's casting the shadow on, the shadow will get fuzzier and fuzzier. The area that is in partial shadow (receiving some but not all of the light) will get larger, and the area that is in complete shadow (receiving no light) will get smaller. At some point it will completely disappear.

Interestingly, the distance where the area of complete shadow will disappear is the point where, from the vantage point of the surface the shadow's being cast on, the object is exactly the same size as the sun. Any closer and you get an area of full shadow back, any further and it just gets fuzzier and larger. This actually makes perfect sense if you think about it; if the object is any further away, it would be smaller and you'd see the sun, and the light you'd be seeing from it is the same light that is illuminating the area that was previously in full shadow.

The Mechane is smaller than the sun on the previous page from the vantage point of the ground, so it technically would not be casting a complete shadow. However, it's near dusk and clearly blocking enough of the sun to stop Durkon from frying. I'm certainly not going to fault a stick comic that usually has no shadows at all for failing to draw the shadow as a gradient.

And that's not even getting into the fact that physics really doesn't work the same way here. Maybe what we recognize as the sun here is actually some construct of the gods that shines light purely unidirectionally? We don't know.

[Cerlis]

You missed the fact that this is a DnD based comic. They rolled bad and didn't make their spot and listen checks due to penalties of being in combat. Well, Tarquin finally made his listen check. I bit too late.

Besides, he probably had to contest Julio's move silently skill, or sneaking skill whatever it is, plus his airmanship piloting skill. Since I'm sure Julio is either a rogue or a bard, he probably has good stealth skills.

I'm sure in real life if you where teleporting randomly across a desert riding a dinosaur chasing another dinosaur (lawl, Herbivore chasing a carnivore) with people flinging spells (such as *thunderclap* Lighting) and then getting into a stab fight (clang clang) with many warriors then you'd not notice things far away too.


I feel like killing some catgirls because this is basically what I'm in grad school for. If you have a light source like the sun that is emitting light from a large area at the same time, then the shadow size is not consistent. As you move the object casting the shadow away from the object it's casting the shadow on, the shadow will get fuzzier and fuzzier. The area that is in partial shadow (receiving some but not all of the light) will get larger, and the area that is in complete shadow (receiving no light) will get smaller. At some point it will completely disappear.

Interestingly, the distance where the area of complete shadow will disappear is the point where, from the vantage point of the surface the shadow's being cast on, the object is exactly the same size as the sun. Any closer and you get an area of full shadow back, any further and it just gets fuzzier and larger. This actually makes perfect sense if you think about it; if the object is any further away, it would be smaller and you'd see the sun, and the light you'd be seeing from it is the same light that is illuminating the area that was previously in full shadow.

The Mechane is smaller than the sun on the previous page from the vantage point of the ground, so it technically would not be casting a complete shadow. However, it's near dusk and clearly blocking enough of the sun to stop Durkon from frying. I'm certainly not going to fault a stick comic that usually has no shadows at all for failing to draw the shadow as a gradient.

And that's not even getting into the fact that physics really doesn't work the same way here. Maybe what we recognize as the sun here is actually some construct of the gods that shines light purely unidirectionally? We don't know.

Was relieved to see where this ended up going.

-------------
As an adjacent to this , i'd point out the fact that the Zepplin is moving and that that shadow is likely either the airbag or the bottom of the Car(?), which is why it moves into the scene. My point being is that the thing doesnt need to completely block out the sun, It just needs to cast a shadow. If the shadow was 4 feet wide Durkon could still jump in it and follow it. but something different happened.


-----------------
As for shadows , I just remembered i frequently see the sky go dark and freak out a little, then i look up and see a plane, and those probably fly alot higher ;)

Just saying you dont need to know anything about the physics of shadows to know that things high in the sky cast them (and they are noticeable)

[Zrak]

They do - just look next time one is on the ground; you should notice a shadow. An eagle will cause an 'eclipse' if it lands on your head.

I was talking about birds in the comic, not real birds. If real birds didn't cast shadows, what would indie rock kids get tattoos of?

(That question is not rhetorical, the answer is "stylized trees.")

[Baphomet]

As an adjacent to this , i'd point out the fact that the Zepplin is moving and that that shadow is likely either the airbag or the bottom of the Car(?), which is why it moves into the scene. My point being is that the thing doesnt need to completely block out the sun, It just needs to cast a shadow. If the shadow was 4 feet wide Durkon could still jump in it and follow it. but something different happened.


-----------------
As for shadows , I just remembered i frequently see the sky go dark and freak out a little, then i look up and see a plane, and those probably fly alot higher ;)

Just saying you dont need to know anything about the physics of shadows to know that things high in the sky cast them (and they are noticeable)

I did not say they did not cast shadows. I said the did not cast full shadows. If you can see the sun around the object from the surface it's casting a shadow on, the light you are seeing is the very same light that is partially illuminating that surface and preventing it from being in full shadow. If at any point you see the sky go dark, I guarantee it was not from a plane high in the sky. We must assume that the visual depiction of the sun is not accurate for the sake of looking cool, or else that vampires can get partial sunlight without burning, or else the physics of light behaves differently in this universe.

I have produced a helpful diagram.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2re6tu9.png

The black squareish thing is the object blocking the light. Imagine that the surface it's casting a shadow on could be any distance away from it to the left. The outermost lines are the boundary of the fuzzy, soft shadow. The full shadow only exists in that little triangle to the left of the square, where no light is hitting it.

The ground is somewhere to the left of that dividing line relative to the mechane. Durkon would be getting hit by at least some of the sun.

Edit: I should clarify that I'm not pointing this out so that I can then turn around and go "Rich this mistake is terrible you have made a bad comic". The important thing is that whatever shadow there was is going to be sufficient to stop Durkon from burning. It would be ridiculous to expect him to sit there and think that much about exactly how to depict things so the shadows work right. If he had, he could have just drawn the Mechane bigger, or the sun smaller. Or not, maybe the payoff of having a big epic sun is greater than the payoff of addressing some random lighting nitpicks by the kind of nerds who think too hard about these things. It is a complete non-issue. I just felt like talking about it because raytracers are neat.

[ChristianSt]

First of all, I don't really care a ton about your opinion either. This is an opinion forum, so I'm sharing my opinion. I think that you're a good writer, and I show my support by paying to buy the printed books. However, sometimes I disagree with the artistic choices you make, and when I do I express myself, on an opinion forum designed specifically for that purpose. If you don't like that, I'm curious as to why you even host this forum in the first place. Is the purpose of the forum just so that you can bask in the praise of your fans? Because you really don't seem like that type. If you have a problem with reasoned criticism, wouldn't it make sense to post that under the forum guidelines? Because despite you saying that "you don't care about other people's opinions," your tone seems to come off as defensive.

Sorry, but It seems that you just contradict yourself here:

First, if you do not care about the Giant's opinion: Why should he care about your opinion?
Second, If this is an opinion forum: Why shouldn't the Giant be allowed to share his opinion on his own board?

He only said that he has the opinion that you did not consider all parts of the definition you provided. I think that is certainly a valid approach someone could follow in a discussion.

In fact the central part of that post could be made by any other poster.
He added an additional few paragraphs that he doesn't care about what other people think of it, but I don't read that as "I don't care about your opinion" but more "I don't change anything to make the situation better for you. I'm fine with my story, and if you don't like it, read something else."




As for the meat of your refutation, I think you're misunderstanding what a a "new event, character, or object" means in the context of that definition. I'm pretty sure that it means "new to the scene," not "new to the story." If you look at the definition of Deus Ex Machina on Wikipedia it gives several examples that seem to support this interpretation. For example, the king's existence is known in Moliere's Tartuffe, so it is not like Moliere is introducing a character out of nowhere, but it's still a Deus Ex Machina when agents of the king save the day.


I'm not going to read the Wikipedia article, nor do I know anything about Moliere's Tartuffe, but the example you just provided features elements "new to the story": The agents of the king.
The existence of the king doesn't require the existence of agents. So by the sudden appearance of said agents something "new to the story" is introduced.

Just to be clear: I think the posted definition doesn't make it able to say whether it is "new to the scene" or "new to the story", but I think the second one makes much more sense:

If you say a DEM adds something "new to a scene" then nearly all story elements might be a DEM: Someone knocks at the door -> he is new to the scene -> DEM! (of course he still needs to solve something, but that should happen often enough)


I don't think the second appearance of Julio can really be labeled as a Deus Ex Machina. Sure it is surprising as hell and I wouldn't have expected it, but it still makes perfectly sense and there aren't any new features added to the story (other then Julio having a history with Tarquin, but that doesn't change anything. All points are still valid without Julio knowing Tarquin, and it is even possible that Tarquin is the Devil-King of Dinosaur Island (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0392.html)).


The first appearance of Julio fits a lot better with the definition of a DEM, since he is new to the story.
But I still wouldn't say that this is really a DEM, since it mostly only solved the transportation problem, and a mid-to-high-lvl D&D character should be able to find another solution. Without screwing up in 388 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0388.html) he would be just be on board of another airship, and I wouldn't call traveling with existing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0339.html) transportation methods a DEM either. Another valid option would spending the three days to find a wizard to cast teleport.

[The Giant]

First of all, I don't really care a ton about your opinion either. This is an opinion forum, so I'm sharing my opinion. I think that you're a good writer, and I show my support by paying to buy the printed books. However, sometimes I disagree with the artistic choices you make, and when I do I express myself, on an opinion forum designed specifically for that purpose. If you don't like that, I'm curious as to why you even host this forum in the first place. Is the purpose of the forum just so that you can bask in the praise of your fans? Because you really don't seem like that type. If you have a problem with reasoned criticism, wouldn't it make sense to post that under the forum guidelines? Because despite you saying that "you don't care about other people's opinions," your tone seems to come off as defensive.

Anyone can say anything they want about the comic, but doing so doesn't magically protect them from responses telling them why they're wrong—even from the author. You want to post your opinion here? Awesome. I get to post mine, too.


As for the meat of your refutation, I think you're misunderstanding what a a "new event, character, or object" means in the context of that definition. I'm pretty sure that it means "new to the scene," not "new to the story." If you look at the definition of Deus Ex Machina on Wikipedia it gives several examples that seem to support this interpretation. For example, the king's existence is known in Moliere's Tartuffe, so it is not like Moliere is introducing a character out of nowhere, but it's still a Deus Ex Machina when agents of the king save the day.

That simply doesn't hold water, or else pretty much every story ever is a Deus Ex Machina. If James Bond saves the day with his laser-cufflinks, that's a DEM because they weren't introduced in the last scene, they were introduced at the beginning of the movie. When Han Solo swoops in on the Millenium Falcon at the end of Star Wars, that's a DEM because he wasn't in that scene until then.

Deus Ex Machinas are situations where the moment of introduction to the audience is the same moment it resolves the plot. If something is introduced earlier in the story and then shows up later in the story, that's a Chekov's Gun, not a Deus Ex Machina.


I grant you that a certain suspension of disbelief is necessary when reading any fiction, but when I'm forced to suspend disbelief in basic physics, yes, that comes off as a little cheesy. For example, you said:

You ARE aware that the higher up an object is, the smaller its shadow will be (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_shadows_of_bird_flying_high_not_formed), right?

I presume that you're aware of this basic physics concept (and that it functions in the OOTS world) because in the link that you cited here, Elan and Thog have an airship's shadow pass over them, and it seems clear from the picture that:

1) The ship is passing pretty low
2) It is noisy (they can clearly hear the engines).

So, since you're being so "generous" as to address my questions and even want to use my comment as an link to show other people how criticism is dealt with, perhaps you could also explain how the airship in the recent comics was so close and low to the ground that it actually cast a shadow, while at the same time managing to sneak up on this scene without anybody once saying "Hey, look at that huge effing blimp right there?" Did I miss the comic where the Mechane has a cloaking field and a silence spell? Or do the laws of physics function so differently in the OOTS world that shadows actually are larger the higher up an object is? Is there a localized eclipse every time an eagle flies over a town, perhaps?

Sure, why not? Does it matter? I mean, does it actually change anything?

The things that are going to happen to the characters are going to happen regardless of whether I measure the proper distance of blah blah and the angle of whatever on solar light yadda yadda. I really am never, ever going to care about the details on that sort of thing. It's an abstraction. Everything in the entire comic is, to some level, an abstraction. If you don't wonder how Roy can stand with such skinny legs, or how when he gets Disintegrated his bones seem to be wider than his actual arms are, why does this matter at all? If Belkar can track something by scent when he doesn't seem to have a nose, if the characters can hold swords without possessing thumbs, if the trees in the back of a static scene change in every panel, why is this one shadow situation a problem? Because it somehow "affects the plot"? I already told you, it really didn't affect the plot. I bent one detail to fit the fact that I wanted to draw a shadow creeping in, same as I did the last time an airship showed up.

You suspend your belief in basic physics every single time you read the comic. This one is no worse than all the others. If it bothers you, just pretend the scene is set up in whatever way won't break your delicate sensibilities. Pretend the ship is closer than I drew it. Imagine the shadow smaller. Pretend that Julio installed a magical Ominous Shadow Generator to make his entrances more dramatic. Or, I guess, just be mad about it. Either way.

EDITED to add:

Edit: I should clarify that I'm not pointing this out so that I can then turn around and go "Rich this mistake is terrible you have made a bad comic". The important thing is that whatever shadow there was is going to be sufficient to stop Durkon from burning. It would be ridiculous to expect him to sit there and think that much about exactly how to depict things so the shadows work right. If he had, he could have just drawn the Mechane bigger, or the sun smaller. Or not, maybe the payoff of having a big epic sun is greater than the payoff of addressing some random lighting nitpicks by the kind of nerds who think too hard about these things. It is a complete non-issue. I just felt like talking about it because raytracers are neat.

Yes, exactly this. At worst, you could say this is an art error for failing to put the ship closer—not a writing error. And I don't think there's much ground to stand on to complain about the art, 931 comics into this thing.

[Quild]

How can people yell at DEM when good stories are made of twists and that kind of stuff?

Was the last panel of #928 a DEM? That unknown ability of Laurin changes everything for Team Tarkie!

Was Elan's arrival in #386 a DEM as well?



What I would call a DEM is what happen in the book "Naked Empire" (a tome of Sword of Truth).
15 pages before the end of the book, the hero is poisoned, the only person able to make a counterpoison is dead. If the hero doesn't die of poison he's anyway about to die because of regular headaches going worse.
Then he realizes that his headaches are magical, due to his own magical power, telling him that he's doing things wrong. He manages to use the headaches to pick the right ingredients for an antidote and get himself cured.
That's a DEM to me and a real storykiller.

Also, lot of peoples found very deceiptful the last episode of season 1 of "Legend of Korra". But too long to explain for those who don't know the show. Which I still recommand.

[Ron Miel]

.... Deus Ex Machinas ...

Dei Ex Machinis. :smalltongue:

[allenw]

explain how the airship in the recent comics was so close and low to the ground that it actually cast a shadow, while at the same time managing to sneak up on this scene without anybody once saying "Hey, look at that huge effing blimp right there?"

That one's obvious. It came out of the sun. No, not literally. :smallwink:

[rewinn]

Julio's return is a (symbolic) Dada ex Mechane.

More of a Dude Ex Machina

[Deepbluediver]

How can people yell at DEM when good stories are made of twists and that kind of stuff?

Personally, my opinion is that people think being un-surprised by something makes them seem intelligent or grounded (or "cool"), as if there is something wrong with not being to predict every twist and turn in the plot. So they try to protect themselves by claiming that any given action or event was completely unpredictable.

Frankly, it comes across as feeling very middle-school-popularity-contest-ish to me. I find that I frequently enjoy media and entertainment MORE when I don't read other people's reviews or participate in forum discussions where all the nitpicks and minor flaws are discussed (or where people feel the need to invent flaws simply to justify their hispter-ish disdain).


On the subject of DEM's; I don't think they are inherently bad. You can still tell a good story that involves their use, just that doing so can be tricky. It really helps if you know your audience. A two hour superhero movie can probably get away with it because there's only so much foreshadowing you can cram in, and most people are there for the special effects and impossibly beautiful people anyhow. If you are writing Encyclopedia Brown books and want the readers to try and solve the puzzle, then you'll draw a lot of (justified) hate. Most things fall somewhere in between those two extremes, I think, and the ability of plot-twists to enhance or detract from a story is largely dependent on the skill of the author.

[Sylian]

If you don't wonder how Roy can stand with such skinny legs, or how when he gets Disintegrated his bones seem to be wider than his actual arms are, why does this matter at all? If Belkar can track something by scent when he doesn't seem to have a nose, if the characters can hold swords without possessing thumbs, if the trees in the back of a static scene change in every panel, why is this one shadow situation a problem?Wait, the characters actually look like they do in the comic? I just assumed that the characters did have noses, and that they did have thumbs and thicker legs. Is the artstyle just pictures that don't actually show them how they really look, and when they joke about lack of thumbs and noses, it's just a meta-joke poking fun at the artstyle? Or is it a representation of how they actually look, and they thus do lack thumbs and thick legs? I'd assume it's the former, though it would be nice if you clarified, or else we might see someone quote you as "They characters don't have noses, the Giant said so!".

Of course, if that's what you actually mean, then that's also fine. It would be nice if you clarified it, though. :smallsmile:

[Jay R]

Julio's return is a (symbolic) Dada ex Mechane.

A Dada Ex Mechane would have to be drawn differently, wouldn't it?

[Deepbluediver]

Was reading through old (not so old?) comics, and with regards to foreshadowing, I'm still waiting for Sabine to get back from Hell and decide who is most deserving of her wrath for the death of Nale. The answer is "everyone" obviously, but I mean who will she go after first? Will she be an obstacle for the good guys to overcome? Or a helping hand in a dire moment against the enemy? A rival for Elan's affections since he's the closest thing she has to a memory of Nale? (that last one might be a tad unlikely.....)

And what percentage of the board will cry DEM when it happens? :smallwink:

[Snails]

Frankly, the only problem I had about this situation was that Julio said he never wanted to see Elan again. But Elan's second sending nicely knocked that one out for me.

Text versus Subtext.

Text: I will not do THAT because it will get me killed.
Subtext: I really dig doing THAT.

When a character bothers to very explicitly declare that they are going to look at their own interests and avoid trouble, it is because they are very likely to do the opposite in the future.

Was Julio explaining something for Elan's benefit, or trying to convince himself to not do in the future what he will really, really wanted to do?

[Apricot]

Hmm... maybe a better definition than "completely unexpected resolution" would be "UNSATISFYING resolution?" Like, in those ancient Greek plays, everyone knew that the gods could resolve everything at any point. That was a given based on the context. But that doesn't make their interference any less unsatisfying. Or, for comparison, we could take the LotR movies (let's not get started on how they're unfaithful to the books) and the siege of Minas Tirith. It was fairly predictable that Aragorn would come in at the last minute with an immortal, unstoppable army to save the day, but that doesn't prevent that resolution to what was in all other senses the great conflict between humanity and Sauron from being deeply unsatisfying (you mean all the people who died were just buying time for the undead to magically fix everything?). In particular, what seems to be key in these sorts of unsatisfying conclusions, whether or not they fall under the blanket of deus ex machina, is that they deny the key players in the conflict agency in its resolution. Only an outside element resolves the problem, leaving the protagonists as helpless or even irrelevant figures.

Now, the way this ties into the recent plot development in OotS is in two ways. First, the resolution of the conflict (assuming that next strip ends with Tarquin dead in the first panel and then continues on to another 10 panels of a barbecue on the airship) was in no way independent of the protagonists. It was explicitly noted as a plan of Elan's, and in particular, a plan that had already been announced quite openly. In this sense, it could even be considered LESS unexpected than Durkon's Weather Control to deal sonic damage. Second, the entirety of the Order was highly involved in even getting to this point, demonstrating their complete agency in this conflict. Removing even one figure at any key point would result in a team wipe and make Julio completely irrelevant. Even more, after his appearance, Durkon was immediately involved in removing Laurin from the equation, further demonstrating the agency of the Order. I don't think that an argument for this development being either deus ex machina or deeply unsatisfying can be readily drawn.

Now, for criticism. The one thing that I found deeply troubling about this battle sequence is that for its entirety, it was only ever one side beating up the other. First it was V and the Order escaping the army in style. Then it was Tarquin's crew polymorphing Belkar's ride and almost killing Roy. Then it was the Order forcing Miron out of the picture. Then it was Laurin and Tarquin incapacitating the entire Order. Then it was Julio appearing, and Durkon forcing Laurin to retreat. I almost expect the next strip being Tarquin miraculously defeating the Order, Julio, and anyone on the airship in a few short panels. This style of battle simply feels contrived. It's not two worthy foes trading blows, it's a moderately disjointed sequence of miracles that fail to really showcase what either side is capable of, because in each step of the battle, one side is purely incompetent while the other side is supreme. It's disappointing, considering your earlier battles tended to be far better in this regard. Even, say, the last battle between V and Z was many times superior, because it showcased the magical and mental strengths of each, and flowed through in a logical fashion, with each side holding the upper hand for as long as they had proper understanding of the conflict and suitable contingencies prepared, instead of just taking turns having the advantage. Do you understand the difference that I'm trying to underline here, or do I need to clarify in some regard?

[Snails]

Now, for criticism. The one thing that I found deeply troubling about this battle sequence is that for its entirety, it was only ever one side beating up the other. First it was V and the Order escaping the army in style. Then it was Tarquin's crew polymorphing Belkar's ride and almost killing Roy. Then it was the Order forcing Miron out of the picture. Then it was Laurin and Tarquin incapacitating the entire Order. Then it was Julio appearing, and Durkon forcing Laurin to retreat. I almost expect the next strip being Tarquin miraculously defeating the Order, Julio, and anyone on the airship in a few short panels. This style of battle simply feels contrived.

I would narrowly agree. However it is cinematic. The OotS did not invent this style of depicting combat. 99% of action movies and 99% of comic books slavishly follow this convention, as well.

It may be not the most perfectly satisfying thing to you and me, but it is easier to understand for the reader/viewer, and easier on the writer. Such is common because it works well enough for approximately everyone. Doing otherwise might make me slightly happier, but it would annoy many others. That is not a win for the author.

[Apricot]

I would narrowly agree. However it is cinematic. The OotS did not invent this style of depicting combat. 99% of action movies and 99% of comic books slavishly follow this convention, as well.

It may be not the most perfectly satisfying thing to you and me, but it is easier to understand for the reader/viewer, and easier on the writer. Such is common because it works well enough for approximately everyone. Doing otherwise might make me slightly happier, but it would annoy many others. That is not a win for the author.

I see your point, and yet it was not the standard for the comic up to this battle. Unless you think I'm wrong in that assertion?

[Coat]

The question is not whether a particular event - e.g. Julio to the rescue - is a Deus Ex Machina, but whether the introduction of this surprising event is evidence of bad writing.

The appearance of Julio addresses the themes of the book. It directly counters the thematic influence of the main villain. It is witty, dramatic, and exciting. The introduction of the event does not contradict any rules for how the world works previously established in the narrative. It does not resolve a difficulty that the author did not intentionally and deliberately create, and the difficulty could have been addressed by other means. It is consistent with all the characters involved.

Oh, and the art and dialogue was good.

Is there any reason for alleging that this is evidence of bad writing? It might be a narrative decision not to everyone's taste, but hey - James Joyce isn't to everyone's taste either. I don't think that's grounds for calling him a bad writer.

If this isn't bad writing, and analysing it in terms of DEM does not shed additional understanding of the story, is there really a value in continuing?

Also, the thing about using the previously establishing fact that airships cast shadows? That's genius. If using the shadow to save a vampire was in mind back when that was first established - DOUBLE GENIUS!

[BaronOfHell]

I think it's relevant to note that if one assumes a story is based on reality, one ought to remember for something to become a story it has to be extraordinary in the first place.

E.g. there's a ton more stories about cleaning the house than about saving the universe, but odds are you've heard more stories about saving the universe than cleaning the house.

As such one ought to expect that a story has a lot of very improbable stuff. From a real world perspective, it just means it's the items which in part makes the story worthwhile, hence in all other instances where these events did not occur, there were no story to tell. As such, I don't think it's in any way contrived that Scoundrél has arrived within the time frame he has.

From a probabilistic point of view, it's similar to assume this would have been a TPK and in an infinite series of parallel universes, only the .007% of which (the chance Scoundrél would show up in time) were ever worthwhile of becoming a story.

It's simplified, but I think it explains why something being improbable in itself should not be a problem. On a personal level I'd find it more annoying if Scoundrél manage to solo Tarquin, but seeing how these latest battle scenes have been build up as something similar to a wrestling match where sides are constantly shifting advantages, only being on top very shortly, I don't think Scoundrél will be able to keep up this level of ownage, rather I think this is more building up to show that Scoundrél is not an incompetent level of help.

My guess is that he'll be the missing piece which ultimately turns the battle in favor of the heroes (either through escape or victory), but he won't do so alone (won't make the protagonists obsolete), won't make all that has happened so far irrelevant, rather it's like a game of chess where both sides have close to equal material and he's that extra pawn that decides the outcome, but only barely I think.

[pendell]

The question is not whether a particular event - e.g. Julio to the rescue - is a Deus Ex Machina, but whether the introduction of this surprising event is evidence of bad writing.

The appearance of Julio addresses the themes of the book. It directly counters the thematic influence of the main villain. It is witty, dramatic, and exciting. The introduction of the event does not contradict any rules for how the world works previously established in the narrative. It does not resolve a difficulty that the author did not intentionally and deliberately create, and the difficulty could have been addressed by other means. It is consistent with all the characters involved.

Oh, and the art and dialogue was good.

Is there any reason for alleging that this is evidence of bad writing? It might be a narrative decision not to everyone's taste, but hey - James Joyce isn't to everyone's taste either. I don't think that's grounds for calling him a bad writer.

If this isn't bad writing, and analysing it in terms of DEM does not shed additional understanding of the story, is there really a value in continuing?

Also, the thing about using the previously establishing fact that airships cast shadows? That's genius. If using the shadow to save a vampire was in mind back when that was first established - DOUBLE GENIUS!

Everything I wanted to say but said better.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Snails]

I see your point, and yet it was not the standard for the comic up to this battle. Unless you think I'm wrong in that assertion?

Perhaps it is not "standard", I would have to tally up some statistics to come to a firm conclusion. I do believe it is "common" in OotS, and "very common" within comparable stories.

[AstralFire]

Decided I'd try to get in someone's head for a minute. Being entirely honest, if I wasn't such a big fan of Elan, I might have disliked this twist. I only value it for showing Elan's growth and usefulness.

So, if I didn't like (but also did not loathe) Elan, why might I have disliked this twist?

Well, Julio's earlier appearance pretty much ended with a fourth-wall-knocking statement that felt like it should carry the weight of the author, similar to Roy blatantly dismissing going into the Rift because it was nonsensical at that point in time, or the Oracle saying that Elan would get a happy ending. It's true that conditions changed since Julio made that statement, but we're not shown how they changed until after his arrival.

Apparently it didn't carry the weight of the author after all and I misread; but I do admit that going forward, I'm not going to be as trusting when a character in the story seems to be speaking the author's viewpoint.

[Zancloufer]

Okay I admit to some skimming of posts in this thread so someone might have mentioned this.

Why is everyone comparing a Plot twist to a Deus Ex Machina? A Deus Ex Machina is synonymous to a plot twist, as in order for the plot to be "Twisted" a Deus Ex Machina is used. If there was no twist there would be no Deus Ex Machina.

A Deus Ex Machina (DeM from now on) IMHO is more akin to a MaGuffin. Now for those who don't know what a MaGuffin is, well it's essentially a Device, Artifact, Lost piece of Technology and sometimes a person, capable of great, even unimaginable, power. So kind of like the Gates on OotS. Now usually the MaGuffin is mentioned early on, and generally becomes the focus of the plot. The big difference between the two is that a DeM appears out of nowhere and solves the conflict, while the McGuffin is the focus of the plot and then is used at the climax to solve the conflict. In fact I would argue that 90% of D&D games involve some sort of MaGuffin.

Off the top of my head Mass Effect 3 probably had one of the biggest examples of a MaGuffin I've seen used recently. The Crucible pretty much fits the bill 100%. It's introduced early on, will solve the conflict with the nigh unstoppable Elderich Abominations, and is used at the end to "Fix" everything.
Now on that note (ME3 Ending, slight Spoilers)
Before Extended Cut and Leviathan the Star Child at the end was a Literal Deus Ex Machina as he(it?) came out of the Machine as a God (Literately) had no foreshadowing and abruptly ended the game. They made the end more of an exposition and added some serious foreshadowing afterwards, but at first it was a literal DeM

On the topic at hand, Julio is NOT a DeM. He was mentioned before, there was at least 2-3 good cases of Foreshadowing before hand, and unless he single handily stomps Team Tarquin, he is not a DeM. He's not even a MaGuffin.

[Snails]

If this isn't bad writing, and analysing it in terms of DEM does not shed additional understanding of the story, is there really a value in continuing?

From a perverse POV, there is value in dressing up a weakly thought through personal opinion as something more profound than the critique is able to back up, to use the implied negative connotations to avoid the effort of thinking for oneself and expressing those ideas coherently.

That is why the use of the term DEM rubs me the wrong way. The perverse usage of DEM seems quite common.

People who are sophisticated enough to use the term DEM positively are quite capable of accurately expressing their ideas by more pedestrian means. I have no problem with when such people use the term DEM (there are several posters on this forum who rise to that level), but I would politely advise against.

[orrion]

From a perverse POV, there is value in dressing up a weakly thought through personal opinion as something more profound than the critique is able to back up, to use the implied negative connotations to avoid the effort of thinking for oneself and expressing those ideas coherently.

As I said in the discussion thread (restatement) - I don't like this turn of events so I am classifying it under a literary term that's usually derogatory in order to express my displeasure.

[Ridureyu]

1. This is not a Deus Ex Machina any more than any of the other things that have saved the Order are.

2. Anybody who spells Deus Ex Machine as "Dues" deserves 20 years to life in prison, hard labor.

[ChristianSt]

Why is everyone comparing a Plot twist to a Deus Ex Machina? A Deus Ex Machina is synonymous to a plot twist, as in order for the plot to be "Twisted" a Deus Ex Machina is used. If there was no twist there would be no Deus Ex Machina.

A Deus Ex Machina (DeM from now on) IMHO is more akin to a MaGuffin. Now for those who don't know what a MaGuffin is, well it's essentially a Device, Artifact, Lost piece of Technology and sometimes a person, capable of great, even unimaginable, power. So kind of like the Gates on OotS. Now usually the MaGuffin is mentioned early on, and generally becomes the focus of the plot. The big difference between the two is that a DeM appears out of nowhere and solves the conflict, while the McGuffin is the focus of the plot and then is used at the climax to solve the conflict. In fact I would argue that 90% of D&D games involve some sort of MaGuffin.


I think you miss (or didn't provide) the central part of a thing being a MacGuffin: The MacGuffin is entirely interchangeable and only import because the characters think it is important.
It doesn't need to DO anything.
My favourite example of a MacGuffin is the suitcase in Pulp Fiction.

Take any story containing a MacGuffin: The story is equally valid if you interchange that MacGuffin with something else. For example OotS still would work the basically the same way if we replace the Gates with the "Magical Cheese of Money-Printing" or "A simple piece of string"*.
The Order has interest only in them because Xykon has interest in them. And even Xykon has only interest in them because Redcloak convinced him to do so. And maybe even Redcloak is wrong on that part because the Dark One left out/don't know some important details.

*Up until now. It might be that the Gates some day stop being a MacGuffin as is hinted by the "world within rift"-thing.


I can't really see how that can be compared to a Deus Ex Machina.

On the other hand a Plot Twist is a surprising element.
While a Deus Ex Machina is a (surprising) element newly added to the story that solves a problem.

So each Deus Ex Machina is a Plot Twist. But not each Plot Twist is a Deus Ex Machina. Since the surprising part is normally pretty easy to get, the discussion normally pretty much boils down to: "Is it a Deus Ex Machina (and therefore also a Plot Twist) OR is it a Plot Twist (and only a Plot Twist, not a Deus Ex Machina)".

[Jubal_Barca]

My only observation is that I think this is closer to Chekhov's Mechane/Mentor than a DEM; it was very well (that is, it was, but not very specifically as to when/where Julio would reappear) foreshadowed purely by the fact Elan and Julio had the conversation about his possible reappearance and the fact that Julio was a serious named high-level character who was alive and pro-OOTS.

[SavageWombat]

Once again, I think the complainers are simply dismissive of any resolution that is not a direct act of the main characters.

This is acceptable as a criticism of a role-playing game, but not of a work of fiction such as this comic.

[orrion]

1. This is not a Deus Ex Machina any more than any of the other things that have saved the Order are.

2. Anybody who spells Deus Ex Machine as "Dues" deserves 20 years to life in prison, hard labor.

How many years do you get for calling it Deus Ex Machine?

:smallwink:

[Fish]

I can comprehend that some people prefer active protagonists who make choices and control the story. That's Literature 101. A passive person who stands around while the world happens to him isn't ideal for most cases.

That being said, this situation is Elan's secret plan coming to fruition. He's seizing control of the narrative, fighting with pure Story, the way bards do. Even Tarquin would agree that bards would rule the world, given their narrative mastery. That's what's happening here.

The definition of "deus ex machina" as "anything new in a scene" is so laughably broad as to be utterly useless.

[orrion]

The definition of "deus ex machina" as "anything new in a scene" is so laughably broad as to be utterly useless.

That's not the whole definition. It's just part of what needs to be true for something to be a deus ex machina. Since nothing the Giant did here is new, it's not a deus ex machina.

[brionl]

Was Elan's arrival in #386 a DEM as well?


In that case, yes it was. It's practically a textbook example of a DEM. Elan appears, lowered on a rope, out of nowhere, sent by who knows what. Thog showing up in a leprechaun suit and the eventual filling in of the backstory makes it a totally awesome DEM.

[Grey Watcher]

Once again, I think the complainers are simply dismissive of any resolution that is not a direct act of the main characters.

This is acceptable as a criticism of a role-playing game, but not of a work of fiction such as this comic.

I think that's actually where a good part of this comes from. If you're looking at a work through the lens of a game, DEMs are a form of railroading. Of course, this isn't a game. It's a story. It's always on the rails. If it wasn't, we'd never have left the Generic Dungeon That Would Eventually Be Retconned Into the Dungeon of Dorukan and still be reading silly jokes about skill points and concentration checks.

[sebmojo]

In that case, yes it was. It's practically a textbook example of a DEM. Elan appears, lowered on a rope, out of nowhere, sent by who knows what. Thog showing up in a leprechaun suit and the eventual filling in of the backstory makes it a totally awesome DEM.

Lowered, as we later find out, from a Mechane.

I'd never thought of this, even though it's obvious - well spotted (and brilliant writing Rich).

[tomandtish]

Yes, exactly this. At worst, you could say this is an art error for failing to put the ship closer—not a writing error. And I don't think there's much ground to stand on to complain about the art, 931 comics into this thing.

I (for one) love the art just the way it is. I mean, it's not like the lousy art drawn in panel 7 of this comic here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0339.html).

[rodneyAnonymous]

Dei Ex Machinis. :smalltongue:

Machinae :D

[Ron Miel]

No, machinis is correct. It's an ablative, not a nominative.

[Snails]

The shadow criticisms are lame because they are wrong on three levels:

(1) Fudging the perspective to look better is a completely standard technique in visual media. (a) Every movie does this, but they do it deftly enough that the viewers do not notice on the fly. Stare at enough stills and you will see it. (b) It is probably even more common in TV, where the close proximity of the camera can make actual realistic geometries look wrong to the casually viewing eye. You think that those three angles of the bedroom are the exact same staged scenery with just the camera moved? Not quite. They twisted the bureau for the first angle. They moved the two plants and nightstand for the second. The pillows were shifted for the third. All these changes are "unrealistic", but you did not notice because they look better than reality.

(2) Our sun has a 0.5 degree apparent size. If the Mechane is 10 meters big at its narrow point and on our planet, it can cast a small full shadow 500 meters away. (The OotSverse sun may be bigger or smaller.) [Corrected off by 2X error]

(3) I am not sure that the shadow is from the Mechane. I think it is the shadow cast by Julio's immense ego, which is even bigger than the Mechane.

[Throknor]

No, machinis is correct. It's an ablative, not a nominative.

"People called romanes they go the house?"

[Jay R]

All the complaints about it being a Deus Ex Machina are off the mark, since it was very clearly foreshadowed.

Anytime somebody says, "Don't go out alone," or "I'm not going to the elephant graveyard in the northlands," or "I'll never tell anybody your secret," or "And I'm never coming back," you know it will happen by the end of the story.

Julio's statement that he didn't want to return guaranteed that he would.

[Liliet]

I've been reading the topic, trying to decide what and why I myself think about this, and at some point I started laughing because I realised how backwards everything about DeM is.

See, the feeling of a DeM, the ultimately unsatisfying plot twist out of nowhere, does not appear when a situation is hopeles. To the contrary, it appears when there are lots of other means to solve the problem.

When Frodo and Sam were saved by the eagles, when Elan met Julio, no-one felt dissatisfied because it was pretty obvious that apart from that the situation was hopeless. (unless you thought Frodo could teleport or Elan's corkscrew plan could work) Something out of the left field had to happen to show that at least luck was still on the heroes' side and Cosmic Justice or something like that existed. If it hadn't happened, all would be lost, or at least a little important something.

Actually, a better example is the triple cry "Nale!" when Haley was about to be killed. Neither Sabine nor Thog and Elan were foreshadowed in any way, and there was nothing Haley could do to save herself. Then, suddenly - BAM! Deus Ex Mechane. Everyone expected it, because there was no way Haley could die at that point, so it was all "SOMEONE PLEASE COME SAVE HER". And they did, and it was ultimately satisfying.


However, when the situation can still be resolved by other, more immediate means, but the author chooses instead to resort to luck and outside forces, that's when people start crying "Deus ex!!!" They wanted everything to end in the other way. The wanted Elan and Roy to save themselves heroically or Haley to come save the day, because it was plausible. They wanted... hey, what's the other recent example of everyone crying DeM?

Anyway, I can give lots of examples from other works. Good DeM is necessary for Good guys to win. Bad DeM is unnecessary and negates the built-up tension instead of resolving it.

[Vinyadan]

To me, a deus ex machina is Athena appearing on the roof to avoid unknowingly members of the same family to slaughter each other near sacred ground (see Euripides' Ion).

Everything else is an extension of the concept and its transformation into a trope, often with a ridiculous bad connotation (there aren't bad tropes, only bad applications or a temporary dislike of the audience fro some of them. Or, you know, we have people here who write better than Euripides.).



How many times did Tolkien save the party with those eagles from out of nowhere? No one complained then. And this is a much less formal style of writing. A webcomic, not an epic fantasy novel.

As far as I remember,
the eagles are Manwe's messengers and agents;
the Eagles protected Gondolin;
Thorondor saved Fingolfin's dead body from being thrown to the foxes;
the Eagles saved 13 dwarves, a Wizard and a Hobbit from Goblins and Wargs;
the Eagles fought near Erebor;
Gwaihir brought Gandalf away from Ortanch;
Gwaihir brought the inanimate body of Gandalf to Lothlorien;
the Eagles fought the Nazgul at the Black Gate;
Landroval, Gwaihir and Meneldor pulled Frodo & Samwise away from the Orodruin's volcanic activities.

Tolkien himself noticed in a letter about the proposed script on a LOTR film that eagles were very easy to abuse to solve problems, and that the screenwriter was making mistakes in this.

I also think that Tolkien's writing is simply too deep to be merely analyzed on a stylistic basis. I think the presence of the Eagles is to refer to the general problem of Grace, about which he abundantly wrote in his letters.


Dei Ex Machinis. :smalltongue:

I'd rather say dei ex machina. It's not like they had a bajillion cranes = mechanai hanging around in the theatre in Athens. Although I seem to remember a chorus in Aeschylus entering dressed as Erynies on flying thrones, which probably (I hope) were held up by different cranes; but, in this case, it really was no deus ex machina as we mean it. The crane was made of fig wood, and not very resilient - this is why I think there had to be more than one in this case.

So, if you have many dei coming in in succession and using only one crane, dei ex machina; if a lot and all together on different cranes, dei ex machinis. :smallwink:

[Ron Miel]

I'd rather say dei ex machina.

That would imply several gods from one machine resolving one dilemma. If you are talking about fiction in general, with many different stories, each resolved by a different god from a different machine, then 'gods from machines' is correct.

[Scow2]

That would imply several gods from one machine resolving one dilemma. If you are talking about fiction in general, with many different stories, each resolved by a different god from a different machine, then 'gods from machines' is correct.

There's only one "stage", but many performances. Same machine, different gods, different times, different places.

[Vinyadan]

You know, I like the idea of several dei intervening at the same time, each one with a different method, and creating such a confusion, that they don't really resolve anything, but only create a fully different situation, totally full of problems.

Does anybody know of some work where it has been done?

[Havokca]

First of all, great job here advancing an argument under the guise of a question. I was impressed by your sneakiness. It's obvious that you don't think this is a Deus Ex Machina, but you phrased your post in a way that makes your position seem more neutral, thus artificially giving your opinion more weight. I'm not being sarcastic - I'm legitimately impressed. If I weren't so old and cynical, that would have totally slipped by me.


Apologies for the late reply. I completely missed this.

Honestly, I thought I made it clear in my post that I had certain assumptions about what a DeM was and wasn't, and how, framed by those assumptions, the comic in question didn't fit as a DeM.

The neutrality stems from having phrased my post in (I hope) such a way as to indicate that I would welcome having my position *changed* through rational discourse... Especially given my "boldly-stated" uncertainty as to whether or not my assumptions would hold under general scrutiny.