[SPOILERS] THE Return of the King Thread

[Shadowdancer]

The thing about deus ex machina is that you'll know it when you see it--it's obvious, blatant--and there wouldn't be a debate over it. If you want to see dues ex machina in action, rent a copy of Magnolia. The only film I know of to date that takes the concept literally and uses it on purpose. For those who haven't seen the movie I won't reveal what happens.

Tim Burton's version of "Planet of the Apes" also takes the concept of deus ex machina literally and uses it on purpose.

 

[Merlion]

And Frodo's attack is noted for being completely ineffective. The Witch-King withdraws because he wants to, not because of anything Frodo or Aragorn did.

I have to partialy disagree with this. In the book Frodo speaking the name of Elbereth does in fact greatly dismay the Nazgul(I just would like to see what would happen if she actualy appeared). And they do fear fire greatly. Now yes the main reason they just went ahead and left was because they figured the blade had it sinched. But the name of Elbereth was painful to them and they fled it.

The eagles are a DEM for the fact that they showed up at the battle for absolutely no reason given in the film. (I cannot recall if a message was ever sent to them in the books.)

There isnt that I remember. But as I have said before the fact of "divine intervention" becomes even more aparent to readers of the Silmarillion, since the Eagles serve Manwe who is King of the Earth and essentialy the Creator's right hand (and they may themselves be divine beings as gandalf is)

 

[Storminator]

HEY!
Can I help it if the effects company (Ad HominFX) backed out of the post after taking my money, leaving me with simple quotes proving my points, unfestooned with lurid prose implying my opponent's lack of intelligence?

That doesn't excuse your font choice, nor your horrendous punctuation. You could have at least used some color.

PS

 

[pezagent]

To me the first time I read the books? Yes, they were. To people who've never read the books? Yes, they were.

Not to me. I expected the eagles to appear. Especially since they helped Gandalf escape the first time.

That the characters had accepted their own deaths doesn't mean the audience had.

Yes, if you re-read my posts, you'll see that's my point. Only the audience wishes them to survive. The audience, unfortunately (or thankfully, depending upon how one looks at it), does not get to narrate the picture.

I didn't see the story as "Destroy the Ring.", but rather "Destroy the Ring, Save the Free Peoples and Survive if we can."

I didn't see the story that way either. I saw the plot that way. Reading into the plot one can attach the sentiment to the story. That's how it works. So the plot--the conflict--is about destroying the ring. Your interest in saving the peoples and surviving is brought forth from your sympathy towards the characters, which once again, if you re-read my posts, I've already made that point. "Saving lives" is not the plot of LOTR. That, I am certain of.

You don't agree, which is fine. But your opinion is not an absolute.

Well, my opinion is based on my educated beliefs(!?) in regards to fiction analysis. I defend them accordingly.

And since a moderator has already had a say, I'll just add that there's really no need to be rude. Your point can stand just fine on it's own, without lashing out.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm "lashing out"--I think reaching the end of my reserve is more like it. You'll know if I lash out--I'll most likely be banned from the community when that happens.

Regards,

/johnny

 

[pezagent]

Tim Burton's version of "Planet of the Apes" also takes the concept of deus ex machina literally and uses it on purpose.

Oh man, did anyone add that to the list of Worst Movies Ever? I think you're being far too generous--it's possible it was used here on purpose--if the story was, in fact, a comedy.

/johnny

 

[Brown Jenkin]

From dictionary.com

deus ex ma·chi·na (

ks mä

k

-n

, -nä

, m

k

-n

) n.

1. In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.
2. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
3. A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

There isn't anything here about ending the story, although in ancient drama that certainly is what happened. The current meaning is more broad, as you see. So the eagles really are an example of deus ex machina, for good or ill.

I think Tolkien might be amused by this discussion.

While it can be argued both ways with the eagles my own personal feeling is that while the eagles technicaly qualify as deus ex machina, it is not the intent of the author to use them this way. Tolkien's works rely heavily on the entire history of Middle-earth and draw from each other, with all things repeating in some ways. Beren and Luthien/Aragorn and Arwen (there are numerous parts to this alone); Isuldur claiming the ring at Mount Doom/Frodo claiming the Ring at Mount Doom; Sauron loosing a finger when he loses the Ring/Frodo losing a finger when he loses the Ring. The list goes on and on. With the eagles I feel Tolkien is once again trying to bring back a piece of history for us. This time it is the repetition of the events of the Battle of Five Armies. The statement from the RotK of "The Eagles are coming!" brought back the same emotion I felt when I first read Bilbo say the exact same thing in the Hobbit. Not only do the Eagles arrive at the nick of time as the final battle seems hopeless but Tolkien specificaly uses exactly the same words to anounce their arrival. Tolkien even brings up the relationship directly in the book with these sentences right after the eagles are first anounced, "For one moment more Pippen's thought hovered. 'Bilbo!' it said. 'But no! That came in his tale, long long ago. This is my tale, and it is ended now. Good-bye!'" While I can see that if you haven't read the books this could be missed I would point as well to the animated version of Hobbit. While this may not be the greatest of interpretations the coming of the eagles was not overlooked. Yes it is deus ex machina but the real message is not how something occurs but why and history repeating itself. Just like the ancient Greeks, Tolkien use of deus ex machina is not intended to give an easy answer but to get a larger point accross: History repeats itself.

The other amusing thing about this discussion is that most of us are overlooking the real and literal deus ex machina of Tolkien. That is Gandolf. While we are argueing over the Eagles, Tolkien has wrapped his repetative and litteral use of the technique so well into the story we don't even notice it. Gandolf is a Maia, as tolkien describes them in the Silmarillion "Ainur of a lesser degree than the Valor" depending on your interpretation a lesser or demi-god, but divine and older than Middle-earth itself. This is the literal part, just as the greeks used it, it is a God helping out deserving mortals in times of need. So where does this come into the story.

In the Hobbit:

• Gandolf leaves and comes back to rescue everyone from the trolls.
• Gandolf is "left behind" when the Goblins capture the party and then shows up to rescue them.
• Gwaihir owes Gandolf a favor so helps the Party get to where they need to go.
• Gandolf shows up at the lonely mountain just in time to mediate between the Elves/humans/Dwarves.

In the Lord of the Rings:

• At Rivendell to help Elrond save Frodo from certain (un)death.
• On the mountain as he lights a fire to save the fellowship from freezing to death.
• In Moria by being able to take out the Balrog.
• In Fanghorn to redirect the trio from their hobbit quest.
• At Edoras to kick out Wormtongue and restore Theoden.
• At Helm's Deep when he apears with the Cavalry and the Hurons at the last minute.
• At the Pelenor Feilds to rescue Faramir's company from the Nazgul.
• At the gate of Minas Tirith where Galdolf blocks the entry of the Witch King (Book and possibley the EE).

It is much more direct in the Hobbit which was a earlier less refined work, but its is definitely in the Lord of the Rings as well. Deus ex machina is all over the place but integrated extremely well. So well that its use as a legitimite litterary tool is shown off. The issue of the Eagles seems to me to be a case of misinterpretation of Tolkien's intent. By trying to get that one more reference to the past a slight ommision was made in covering its possible missinterpretation.

P.S. Please excuse some typos. It is late and I got out of bed to put this down so it would stop bothering me and I could get some sleep.

 

[Wormwood]

I think Tolkien might be amused by this discussion.

While it can be argued both ways with the eagles my own personal feeling is that while the eagles technicaly qualify as deus ex machina, it is not the intent of the author to use them this way. <snip>

From a letter to Forrest J. Ackerman [Not dated; June 1958]
[Tolkien's comments on the film 'treatment' of The Lord of the Rings.]

The Eagles are a dangerous 'machine'. I have used them sparingly, and that is the absolute limit of their credibility or usefulness.

 

[pezagent]

I think Tolkien might be amused by this discussion.

Why, did you know him personally?

While it can be argued both ways with the eagles

I agree anything can be argued about--but I'm still waiting for a good one to come my way--because...

my own personal feeling is that while the eagles technically qualify as deus ex machina,

...people like telling me (us) this, but do not clearly explain why. Why do think the eagles "technically" qualify as deus ex machina?

[...] While this may not be the greatest of interpretations the coming of the eagles was not overlooked. Yes it is deus ex machina

No, it's not.

but the real message is not how something occurs but why and history repeating itself. Just like the ancient Greeks, Tolkien use of deus ex machina is not intended to give an easy answer but to get a larger point accross: History repeats itself.

History repeating itself: You're talking about a theme. I don't think there was any "hidden" meaning behind using deus ex machina--as spelled out by (a) definition it wrapped up a play that had no way out of plot. It is my pet theory (based on my limited knowledge of Greek history) that Greeks would make up plays on the spot, as entertainment was extremely important in a civilized culture, and with nowhere to go, the statue would be lowered or placed on stage. To give this any more credit than it deserves, such as suggesting that it had some sort of deep, spiritual, or perhaps revealing power, I think is very imaginative--and idealistic.

The other amusing thing about this discussion is that most of us are overlooking the real and literal deus ex machina of Tolkien.

I think some of us have injected symbolism, thematic representation, and supernatual aid into the term deus ex machina.

That is Gandolf. [...]

I'd like to point you in the direction of Joseph Campbell.

Gandalf is not, in any way, shape, or form, deus ex machina. I believe what you're trying to get across is that Gandalf represents supernatural aid--perhaps like Merlin to King Arthur or, with respect, Obi-Wan to Luke Skywalker. Although he helps the characters of Middle Earth, he does not relieve the characters from the burden of resolving their own conflicts. His presence is setup, known, he is a hero with flaws, and has limitations. He is, like the other characters in the story, just another character, albeit more powerful and more wise than the others. His wisdom is a guide, a beacon of light and hope.

Deus ex machina is all over the place but integrated extremely well.

No, it's not.

You've pointed to situations where Gandalf has helped others, but, as I've pointed out in my previous posts, this doesn't mean dues ex machina is at work.

Whatever Gandalf does in LOTR or elsewhere, we expect it from him. Does he change himself into a giant dragon to fight and destroy the enemy? No. He lights a fire to help his friends from freezing to death. This isn't an example of dues ex machina, this is an example of supernatural aid.

Supernatural aid--as described by Campbell, is often necessary within the scope of fantasy, as the characters often start off too "weak" to be able to complete the adventure on their own. What makes the story interesting is how the characters grow with the help of supernatural aid.

This has nothing to do with dues ex machina. As I've pointed out before, deus ex machina has to do with the plot--not the characters. It's a device, like using the cheat codes on your Playstation to get all the powers without playing the game to get them. If the author has introduced a character, such as Gandalf, into the story, there's going to be very little need for any unnecessary and unexpected plot resolution, because that's what the supernatural aid is all about. I believe this may be more along the lines of what you're talking about.

So well that its use as a legitimate literary tool is shown off.

Deus ex machina is not a legitimate literary tool. That's the whole point. It's a device--an event, a character--something totally absurd and so unexpected one would want to punch the author in the nose for tying us in knots only to find there's no way out but through extraordinary means that have not been set up through exposition.

I was thinking about this earlier today, a good example of exposition, and I was thinking of the movie Die Hard. At the end of the movie, the villian is dangling off the high-rise, and in super-slow motion™ the tension builds as he swings his gun forward to get off a last shot--and most likely kill--our hero. But he's holding onto the wife's watch, and our hero quickly unlatches it in a nick of time, sending our villain to his death. The end.

So where did that watch come from? It was an essential part of the plot resolution, because how else could our hero have sent the villain to his death before getting a bullet between the eyes? (Or even better, the wife?)

If, within the first act of the movie, one of the characters didn't spend a few minutes making sure we knew about the watch ("Hey, look at that watch we got her. See that watch? Show him the watch.") then we'd have a classic case of deus ex machina. But because we know about the watch--and might even forget about it as unimportant--it's not deus ex machina. It might be a surprise, but it's explainable. But by the very dictionary definition everyone is hiding behind in this dicussion, taken out of context--it would be dues ex machina. And that is not how to use the term at all.

Getting back to Gandalf, he hardly qualifies for a clumsy, contrived, and sudden literary device used solely to relieve our heroes from responsibility. Sure he helps out, but what are friends for? And I'd also like to point out that having powerful friends in adventures such as these helps achieve something else--it helps us suspend our disbelief further. We know our characters can't be too much in peril because they have a powerful friend. He's kind of like a security blanket in the readers mind. Think of the exhilaration when Gandalf falls down the chasm--what will the characters do now? We can only hope that they've become powerful and wise enough to continue on their own, and of course, we secretly hope that Gandalf has something up his sleeve to come back to us. This isn't dues ex machina at work. I believe this is powerful, straightforward, fiction at work.

I think you're on the right track here, I think Gandalf has obviously been included as supernatural aid, which is a great literary device to use. The difference between something like supernatural aid and deus ex machina is that the former is welcomed by the reader/audience, the latter is not. The latter is more like a slap in the face. As a "participant", you'll feel ripped off. To paraphrase Cartman, you'll want to kick somebody straight in the nuts.

The issue of the Eagles seems to me to be a case of misinterpretation of Tolkien's intent. By trying to get that one more reference to the past a slight ommision was made in covering its possible misinterpretation.

I'm not sure I agree with this--only because I'm weary of those who seem to have a handle of Tolkien's "intent" when reading between the lines. I like decomposing the work to see what makes it tick--in hopes I can put my own together one day (!?) but that's as far as I'll go. The only thing that I can ever be sure of is that he intended to write a story and went pretty far with it.

/johnny

Edit: Two notes... one, that I am not trying to infer that Tolkein has inserted Gandalf into the story as a gimmick, which I don't think anyone would suggest, and two, that when I refer to deus ex machina making us aware of the author--I mean just that--the author, not the narrator. The slap in the face I'm speaking of is the snap back to reality, removing us from the story dream-trance that we've been in, being made to be suddenly aware of another's presence, namely the person writing the story. Suspended disbelief breaks and falls to the floor in pieces, and we shake our heads, and say "what the f6ck are you doing?" -- j

(eat snacky smores)

 

[Shadowdancer]

In the Lord of the Rings:

• At Rivendell to help Elrond save Frodo from certain (un)death.
• On the mountain as he lights a fire to save the fellowship from freezing to death.
• In Moria by being able to take out the Balrog.
• In Fanghorn to redirect the trio from their hobbit quest.
• At Edoras to kick out Wormtongue and restore Theoden.
• At the Pelenor Feilds to rescue Faramir's company from the Nazgul.
• At the gate of Minas Tirith where Galdolf blocks the entry of the Witch King (Book and possibley the EE).

You forgot his arrival at Helm's Deep with the Rohirrim to save those besieged by the Uruk-hai.

 

[Storm Raven]

I have to partialy disagree with this. In the book Frodo speaking the name of Elbereth does in fact greatly dismay the Nazgul(I just would like to see what would happen if she actualy appeared). And they do fear fire greatly. Now yes the main reason they just went ahead and left was because they figured the blade had it sinched. But the name of Elbereth was painful to them and they fled it.

Actually, it is not commented on in the book how deadly the name Elbereth is to the nazgul. The only remark made about that is that the name was "more deadly" than the completely ineffective cut that Frodo made that messed up one of their cloaks (i.e. the name Elbereth was better than something that did absolutely no damage to them).

Basically, they withdrew because they wanted to. Not because they were driven off by Elbereth or anything else. Their work was done for the night. Like most of Sauron's servants, they are cowardly in the end, and try to accomplish their goals with as little effort and risk as possible. This is just one example.