quote:

---

Deus ex Machina or "God in the Box"

Story featuring a miraculous solution to the story's conflict, which comes out of nowhere and renders the plot struggles irelevant. H G Wells warned against SF's love for the deus ex machina when he coined the famous dictum that "If anything is possible, then nothing is interesting." Science fiction, which specializes in making the impossible seem plausible, is always deeply intrigued by godlike powers in the handy pocket size. Artificial Intelligence, virtual realities and nanotechnology are three contemporary SF MacGuffins that are cheap portable sources of limitless miracle.

---

I was first exposed to D.E.M. when I took a theatre class a couple of years ago. Apparently it is from Greek and Roman Theatre and means machine of the gods (this was an actual machine that lowered an actor, playing a god, onto the stage). It should only describe when something unbelievable happens to save the protagonist and resolve the plot.

Tonto coming to the aid of the Lone Ranger is not D.E.M., unless Tonto only appears for the rescue. Supporting characters are there for a reason.

OSC's Xenocide has such an occurance, I believe. Two characters in jail (sorry, I can't remember their names) create and develop an existentialist view of the universe, likening it to a bubble, where the world we see is only the surface, and if one has enough mental capacity, one can transport him- or herself beyond, and appear anywhere in the universe. Instant teleportation. It's in this jailcell that we first see the seeds of this idea, and in the same jailcell (and in the space of a day or two) that they fully develop the idea, so that they can test it when they get out. Successfully, I might add. This method of teleportation saves their planet from annihilation.

It's been a while since I've read the story, so if I'm a little off (or a lot), please say so.

A secondary character can help, or even save the day, I think, as long as he isn't introduced into the story simply to do so.

Just my thoughts.

Okay, I'm being serious here. There are two characteristics that make something a Deus ex Machina.

The first is that the solution is a potential source of "limitless miracle". A good example is the end of Xenocide, where the theory of "outside" not only allows instantaneous interstellar travel but also allows creating of humans, viruses, and pretty much anything else by simple act of will.

The second is that the "god" thus introduced is controlled by the author. Again, the end of Xenocide is a perfect example. Rather than using the power of "outside" to do any number of easily possible things like will a bunch of orbiting supercomputers/defensive weapons/superships into existence or anything like that, the book ends with all-powerful Jane angsting about how she's got all this power but can't possibly do anything to save herself. See, if the "god" introduced here were given free play, that would ruin the plot, so the god is kept tied to a machine so that it can be controlled from backstage.

Usually, it is sufficient that the "source of limitless miracle" is only invoked near the end of the story. Keeping the "source of limitless miracle" back until you need it at the end is a form of artificially controlling it from backstage, unless the "source of limitless miracle" comes into existance because of events during the story. In this less usual case, we have to see other artificial authorial restrictions on what the "source of limitless miracle" is allowed to do.

One example of a "source of limitless miracle" ending that doesn't cross into ex Machina territory is The White Plague. There, the "source of limitless miracle" is a completely new paradigm in biological engineering (needed to cure the incurable white plague). But in The White Plague, there is no attempt to artificially limit this "source of limitless miracle". Thus, the paradigm that can produce a cure for any biological disease is allowed to produce a cure for aging. Reading The White Plague, you quickly realize why the normal thing is Deus ex Machina.

If you introduce a "source of limitless miracle" and let it do everything it would logically do, you end up with a story that is really much worse than a simple Deus ex Machina.

So the solution is to avoid introducing a "source of limitless miracle" in the first place. The central dramatic tension of the story must be solved the hard way. If your character has superpowers, then the story must revolve around a problem that his superpowers can't solve for him. Conventionally, superheroes have secret identities because their superpowers can't protect their loved ones when the superhero isn't present. The secret identity is to keep supervillains from exploiting this common weakness. But the various difficulties that arise from trying to maintain a secret identity are often outside the competence of the hero's powers.

Often, the superhero faces a supervillian who is smarter than the superhero. This is another way that you put the central tension on a fulcrum that the superpowers can't affect.

Take Card's story about a super strong guy named Bork. Bork is physically strong enough to defeat entire armies singlehanded, but the things he wants can never be achieved by his strength.

The end of War of the Worlds isn't a Deus Ex Machina at all! It was just germs doing what germs do. The entire lead up shows how powerless man and his technology is against a superior foe, but then that same foe falls to the tiniest forms of life on Earth.

> because I don't believe there is anything
> of redeeming value about mosquitoes at all

Think of the livelihoods of all the people in the mosquito-net manufacturing industry!

But would they bite a martian?

quote:

---

What?

The end of War of the Worlds isn't a Deus Ex Machina at all! It was just germs doing what germs do. The entire lead up shows how powerless man and his technology is against a superior foe, but then that same foe falls to the tiniest forms of life on Earth.

How is that a Deus ex Machina?

---

In a way it is; the main characters of the novel struggle against the Martians but achieve nothing... then, at the very end, an unforeseen "ally" arrives on the scene and quickly and easily wipes the invaders out.

If you read the story as being the story of the invasion and eventual liberation of Earth from the Martians, the ending is Deus Ex Machina.

Of course, the story is actually about how the protagonist managed to survive the invasion, and all the interesting people he met along the way. From this perspective, there is no Deus Ex Machina ending. The events that are used as the background of the story draw to their natural close.

quote:

---

-because I don't believe there is anything of redeeming value about mosquitoes at all.)

---

Really? Hmm. Do you like birds? Because they eat mosquitoes. In fact, when humans use pesticides to reduce mosquito populations, there is often a marked reduction in bird populations as well.

And birds, obviously, are quite useful creatures for our ecology, too.

In effect, most lifeforms on Earth have a defined role in the ecology, with the possible cynical exception of humans. Nearly everything is food for something else, or helps keep the circle of life going.

So, while mosquitoes are nasty, disease spreading pests for we humans, they do have a purpose for existing.

I think I can see where one person's deus ex machina (sorry for the misspelling earlier) is another person's happy ending. It depends upon what, ultimately, you belivee the protagonist's main goal is. If the protagonist's main goal is simply to observe and survive then the fact that he does not personally end a threat may not be a deus ex machina?

I really don't know if mosquitoes are important or not. But, I'll play devil's advocate anyway:

1. Mosquitoes ensure survival of the fittest. That's one role they fulfill quite well. Even if it's by bad luck you get bitten by a disease-carrying pest. If your immune system isn't up to par, then in the words of many famous scientists: "Too bad, so sad."

2. Since many believe this to be true: God wants them here otherwise he wouldn't have made them. Therefore (and this is completely tongue-in-cheek, so check your sensitivity levels and don't be offended -- that should cover it, I hope.), if you question a mosquito's validity in the ecosystem, then you're questioning God's will. And (still tongue-in-cheek) that would be a grave error.

So, I present these statements not as fact, but as a theory as to why mosquitoes are here and if they have any redeeming value. Pick one, whichever suits you... argue against them, or not... (and sorry for dragging this way off topic, but these things often happen during the normal course of discussions.)

So, the Martians all die from human disease. Did Wells never consider that humans might die from Martian borne disease? It goes both ways. Columbus took Small Pox to the new world, traders brought Bubonic Plague to Europe from the Far East.
So does that one-sided 'miracle', over which we are all bantering in a friendly manner, strengthen the argument that Wells performed a Deus ex machina?

The quote I put up earlier from The War of the Worlds is kind of hidden in my message, so let me repeat it here. It's from about 75% through the book, and is kind of hidden in the middle of an infodump about Mars and Martians. But it's clearly setting up the ending.

quote:

---

Micro-organisms, which cause so much disease and pain on earth, have either never appeared upon Mars or Martian sanitary science eliminated them ages ago.

---

quote:

---

Okay, the ending of War of the Worlds is not a Deus ex no matter how you look at it.

The microbes act just like real microbes do. They evince no sudden superpower, they are not a "source of limitless miracle".

---

Sorry, I don't buy this. Just because it's true to our view of the universe doesn't mean it isn't Deus ex Machina. The gods of the original ancient greek plays that the term was coined to derscribe behaved exactly as the ancient greeks believed gods to behave. The point was, though, that the ending was unsatisfying because the audience wanted the characters to sort out the mess for themselves.

A young boy is in a fight with the resident bully. He's getting beaten to a bloody pulp when all of a sudden....a teacher shows up.

The thing about this explanation is that it leaves a great many things open to deux ex machina, including, as I brought up when I first started this thread, the idea that if the hero is not specifically driving everything then there is a problem. (Sidekicks can't help.) On the other hand, I think Survivor might have cast the definition too extreme in the other direction with his "limitless source or miracles." I know that the term came from the sudden rescue by a god in Greek plays, but that does not mean it only applies to godlike acts now. Besides, Greek Gods stepping in to help were more commonplace than our own God stepping in to help

Of cousre, in the example I was given the teacher is only there to rescue the boy today. What happens tomorrow? The situatuion is not over as it is in War of the Worlds when the martians all die.

But the martians all dying in war of the worlds, the more I think about it, is more s stupid coincidence that a deus ex machina. They did set up for it with the comment that Eric has mentioned twice now. And while the hero did not actually do anything himself to make this happen, he did survive with his own life to tell the tale which, set up properly, can be the goal of the main character. (In fact a short story I just finished has a main character who's goal is to live rather than to kill anyone and I set it up in the very first sentence quite on purpose.)

I was thinking about another movie recently that was very very very very bad and I wish I had never had to sit through....Signs. When War of the Worlds was brought up I wondered if it, too, had a deux ex machina ending. If you care what the ending is, don't read further.

...

SPOILER ALERT –

I do admit that I need to use my Disbelief Suspenders when swallowing the notion that the aliens are stupid enough to not only want to attack a world of water, but also that they use hand-to-hand combat to do so. I think the concepts are partially explained by the radio announcement near the end, in which it is explained that the aliens did not want to invade, but rather to round up some slaves\food.
It was an obvious info-dump, but there was really no other way for the intentions of the aliens to be portrayed other than after the attacks, unless the filmmakers were to resort to a voice-over or actually showing an alien planning session. They could not do that because it would have broken the “fear of the unknown” atmosphere that was being established.

The water, baseball bat and asthma, which are the things that help the family survive the attack, were all well established in the beginning of the movie. So I don't see it to be a case of DEM.

God is present as a motivator of the movie’s action. But that is also presented in the very first scene of the movie. In which a very obvious shadow of a crucifix is shown on the wall. The very first time I saw the movie, I immediately recognized that image and that it was there for a reason. To me, it was a pretty obvious clue about the direction the movie would take. Someone lost faith and took down their crucifix. Before the end of the movie, I expected that issue to be addressed or resolved.

The movie was not really about alien invasions, it is about a loss of faith and figuring out whether you are a person who hopes against hope, or gives up. Presenting that information to a largely faith-ignorant, or religiously-resistant public was a big challenge. I think the concept was presented in an interesting and new way, so it does have merit.

Maybe I'm improperly limiting the meaning of the phrase deus ex machina. But since a deus ex machina ending is almost universally seen as being a negative thing, I find it hard to apply to endings that I happen to think are well-conceived.

If Zeus himself comes out of the sky in a red convertible, I don't consider it a deus ex machina ending if it's properly set up during the course of the story.

It's not even a problem to have a source of limitless power show up at the end of the story, if the story is about trying to get that source of power to show up.

The reason why writers are warned against using deus ex machina endings is because they often seem to be the result of the author writing himself into a dilemma he doesn't know how to resolve, and so he brings in an element foreign to the rest of the story in order to "fix" the problem.

If a proper foundation is laid for that element during the course of the story, it's no longer foreign.

quote:

---

and so he brings in an element foreign to the rest of the story in order to "fix" the problem

---

If Zeus shows up for obvious reasons of his own and then acts like himself (i.e. steals all the glory and takes off with the heroes girlfriend), then that isn't an ex Machina ending. It is when the god shows up for the author's reasons rather than his own and then is jerked about like a bad marionette rather than doing whatever that particular god would naturally prefer to do that we have an ex Machina.

So, a teacher showing up to stop a fight isn't an ex Machina. But, once the teacher shows up, then he has to be treated like a real character, one with more power than the kids. If there's not going to be a trip to the principle's office and whatnot then the teacher better have a reason to not want to do that.

Signs is clearly a movie about miracles and God. So when the method of salvation is miraculous, this is only to be expected. I think that perhaps the movie would have been a bit more plausible if it turned out that wine or something were the key substance antithetical to the aliens, and perhaps it would have been interesting if they had demonstrated some kind of anti-ballistic personal shielding so that you could have a scene of someone futilely trying to pump them full of buckshot. But the central element of the ending is that it is the miraculous.

That's actually not just just a pointless opinion of mine; it has to do with the discussion. It really doesn't matter if an ending falls under the technical definition of deus ex machina or not. (By the way, I thought I had a pretty good grasp of what that was until I read this discussion. Now I have no clue. Leave it to a bunch of writers to offer 15 different definitions of something that really isn't a complicated concept.) Anyway, the important thing isn't whether the ending is technically deus ex machina or not. The important thing is whether it causes the "deus ex machina reaction" in the reader.

You know the one: <rolls eyes> Oh, come on now...a baseball bat?
<Rolls eyes> Oh, come on now...The common cold?
<Rolls eyes> Oh, come on now...where did the Lone Ranger learn Kung-Fu?

Sadly enough, even that last example was real. I didn't make it up.

$0.02:

If you look at what (IMHO) the good Mr. Shyamalamadingdong was trying to get across with his film, even though you have some MAJOR eye-rollers, he pretty much stays true to his theme. Now, I only saw it once, and a long time ago, but this is what I remember. I think that any discussion about whether the aliens would actually go to a planet where poison falls from the sky (and indeed, is suspended in the air at almost all times) pretty much misses the point. All you need to deal with that are your trusty dusty Belief Suspenders, which I think come standard on the HUB.

The aliens were not the focus of the film. The focus was the main character, his loss of faith, and what transpired to help him regain it. If you look at it this way, it doesn't seem so ridiculous anymore that ordinary objects take on extraordinary significance, or that extraordinary coincidences transpire for the sole purpose of helping the main family survive. If the family survived without such extraordinary circumstances, it would do nothing to renew the main character's faith. I also don't know if the water was that off-base...I assumed it was "holy water" and was used as such.

That said, here was my actual movie-watching experience. I was terrified the entire time (the good Mr. Shyamalamadingdong is really good at that, except when he uses plots out of children's books that I've already read). But the second I walked out of the theater, I started thinking about the plot. My subsequent reaction was: "that was easily the stupidest movie I've ever seen." Whenever you have to use scare tactics to distract your audience from your plot, it's a bad plot.

All this said, I honestly don't think the people involved in this movie really gave stuff like that any thought. If personal opinions are allowed, I'd like to say that I truly thought it was awful.

Here ends my $0.02. Thanks for the read.

You may now return to the topic at hand.

[This message has been edited by Jeraliey (edited September 10, 2004).]

quote:

---

All you need to deal with that are your trusty dusty Belief Suspenders, which I think come standard on the HUB.

---

Second,

quote:

---

A young boy is in a fight with the resident bully. He's getting beaten to a bloody pulp when all of a sudden....a teacher shows up.

---

Interesting.

I'll have to go with Wetwilly on this--it goes back to the "faith" question that OSC says writers need to answer for their readers: "oh, yeah?"

quote:

---

I agree that SIGNS was a poor use of science fiction tropes to get the point across, but I did like the point of the movie (which I took to be "God is in the details").

---

This is such an interesting...because of course the movie has a point about answering the question of where God is when adversity strikes. But it also teaches us a lesson about how important details are...by so badly failing to get the details right. It's a bit like a quote my brother found the other day, which explicitly made a point about discourse on the Internet, but also served as an example of what it described. I'm going to write a paper about that, I swear.

Ultimately, Christine is right, all errors in writing fiction are in the eye of the beholder. I think that ww takes it a wee far by saying that it doesn't matter whether the ending is a Deus ex Machina or not, a bad ending is a bad ending. While this is true in one sense, in a far more practical sense it isn't true. You do one thing to fix a Deus ex Machina ending and something quite different to fix the unresolved tension ending or the "trail off with a whimper" ending.