[SPOILERS] THE Return of the King Thread

[Brown Jenkin]

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

That was on my list last night. I just forgot to include it. It is edited in now.

 

[Storm Raven]

*sigh*
Your typical "rabid fanboy" reaction to my review and questions is why I normally don't post in these threads. Just because I didn't rate it a 10 does not mean you get to ridicule my tastes.

I ridicule your taste when it is clearly driven by an expectation that a twelve hour story will have the same denoument as a half-hour Thundarr the Basrbarian episode. I ridicule your taste when it is juvenile, and most of your criticisms concerning the length of the ending are juvenile.

I also ridicule the fact that you completely missed basic information told to you during the course of the movies. If you can't be bothered to actually pay attention to what is on the screen, then your review deserves criticism.

And I'm still trying to figure out how you are able to determine that the Dragonlance books are more "user friendly" than the LotR books, since by your own admission, you haven't read LotR. I suppose you have some sort of skill in reviewing things you know nothing about? That would explain your "review" of the movies on elements that you didn't bother to pay attention to.

 

[Merlion]

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).

Uhhh.....ok first of all you as well really need to tone down the attitude, especialy since you yourself have made some errors(you said Merry and Pippin were in their 40s in LOTR...Pippin tells Bergil he is 28 or 29 in ROTK). and now this. You obviously do know a great about the story but as the Moderators and MORRUS have already said everyone (but basicaly mostly you and pezagent) need to stop telling the rest of us that what we say is inacurate even when it is acurate, and talking to us all like children
When he said Elbereth...they all ran away. And Aragorn more or less says that was why. Now as I allowed, the fact that they thought there work was already done was a big reason they were willing to "give up" for the moment that easily, but I think saying "more deadly to them was the name of Elbereth" implies it was pretty unpleasant for them.
But of course I'm probably wrong seeing as how the rest of us are so illiterate and stupid

 

[Brown Jenkin]

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

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 is plot problem for the characters. They are getting trashed by the Nazgul in front of the Black Gate. Pippen in fact believes he is about to die. The good guys are about to loose. Out of nowhere the eagles show up. That qualifies as "sudden and unexpected" and is a solution to a plot issue.

Additionaly from a readers perpective we want to see Frodo and Sam live even if they are resigned to death. They are on Mount Doom with no food or water and are surrounded by lava. This is certainly a big problem and the Eagles are an "sudden and unexpected solution."

I beleive that this was not Tolkien's intent in using them but by the dictionary definition this qualifies. Therefore the eagles "technicaly" qualify. I hope that is good enough since it seems very clear to me.

No, it's not.

Is too, infinity.

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.

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

1.In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.

What is this if not supernatural aid.

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.

It seems the problem is that we have a difference of interpretation of the definition of deus ex machina. You are trying to differentiate Supernatural Aid from dues ex machina. I would argue that there is no difference. One is a subset of the other. You interpret dues ex machina as a wholely negative thing while that is but one of the three definitions given. Definition one lists a god being used to resolve a plot or extract the protagonist from a difificult situation. Gandolf is a god and he is used repeatedly to extract the protagonists from a dificult situation. There is nothing about sudden, unexpected, or improbable in this definition. In fact the is no indication that you can't use the same god over and over in this way as part of the story. Definition three also does not list any negative conotations. It is the same as one except that it widdens the field to include not just gods but any character or event. You seem to argue that Supernatural Aid is something different from dues ex machina which you use only definition two to define. I counter that your supernatural aid is just definition one or three.

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.

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.

Again you seem to just be focusing on definition two. Both definition one and three do not carry the negative bagage. Your concept of Supernatural Aid as a legitimate literary tool is my concept of definition one or three of dues ex machina.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Is too, infinity.

Infintity + 1!!! Nyah!!!!

Seriously, though...I think part of the problem is assuming that deus ex machina HAS to be a bad thing. It doesn't. The definition itself shows that it isn't just because an author can't think up any other way...its a valid literary technique. The fact that modern literature doesn't seem to like it kind of annoys me...but what can I say, I love the old Greek plays and Norse sagas where things like that happen all the time...and no one cares.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Storm Raven: You are coming across like a rabid fanboy attacking the IQ anyone who dares critizise your beloved JRRT. Jeez. He's not perfect, your interpertation isn't the only valid one. Take it easy.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

And yes, the Dragonlance novels were far more user friendly. A lot less to digest IMO. As good as LoTR? Well that's for the reader to decide. I enjoyed the first two trilogies quite a bit and would love to see a movie trilogy made out of the first set of books.

 

[pezagent]

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 is plot problem for the characters. They are getting trashed by the Nazgul in front of the Black Gate. Pippen in fact believes he is about to die. The good guys are about to loose. Out of nowhere the eagles show up. That qualifies as "sudden and unexpected" and is a solution to a plot issue.

"Out of nowhere" is vague. Of course the eagles came from somewhere.

I believe that you, like others, would have liked to have the narrative explain "why" they arrived just in a nick of time--or even take the time to explain where they came from. This is just a high-point of drama--nothing more. We see that our heroes are in a perilous situation, but we know there is hope. When the eagles come and help out their friends, you don't get up out of your seat and wonder what the hell is going on, do you?

Additionaly from a readers perpective we want to see Frodo and Sam live even if they are resigned to death.

Yes, I know, I've already made this point a few times.

They are on Mount Doom with no food or water and are surrounded by lava. This is certainly a big problem and the Eagles are an "sudden and unexpected solution."

To you it's a problem. As I've mentioned, to the characters, they have accepted their fate. I've already commented on this fallacy, please read my posts.

I beleive that this was not Tolkien's intent in using them but by the dictionary definition this qualifies. Therefore the eagles "technicaly" qualify. I hope that is good enough since it seems very clear to me.

If you wish to take a dictionary definition out of context and be happy with it, that is certainly your choice, but I wouldn't recommend it. What I mean is, I still don't think your explaination qualifies, because it's not related to the plot. I believe it's related to your wishes of what the narrative should have been. Not what the narrative actually is.

1.In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.

What is this if not supernatural aid.

This is you trying to create a correlation between supernatural aid and dues ex machina to prove that your argument may be valid. You're wasting my time, and I'm offended.

/johnny

 

[Storm Raven]

Uhhh.....ok first of all you as well really need to tone down the attitude, especialy since you yourself have made some errors(you said Merry and Pippin were in their 40s in LOTR...Pippin tells Bergil he is 28 or 29 in ROTK).

The ages of all the characters in LotR is given in the appendices of RotK. Frodo is 51. Merry is 37. Sam is 38. Pippen is indeed 29. These are not "young characters" though. They are fully grown adults well into their maturity. Pippen is a "tween", but at the tail end of that.

and now this. You obviously do know a great about the story but as the Moderators and MORRUS have already said everyone (but basicaly mostly you and pezagent) need to stop telling the rest of us that what we say is inacurate even when it is acurate, and talking to us all like children

I'm talking to you like someone who has read the books (and happens to have them on hand). If you think that correcting your errors is talking to you like children, that's your problem.

When he said Elbereth...they all ran away. And Aragorn more or less says that was why. Now as I allowed, the fact that they thought there work was already done was a big reason they were willing to "give up" for the moment that easily, but I think saying "more deadly to them was the name of Elbereth" implies it was pretty unpleasant for them.

No, it implies that the ineffective cut Frodo made was completley ineffective. He cries out Elbereth before he cuts at the Witch-King, and before the Witch-King stabs him. If it was deadly and drove them off, they wouldn't have stayed around to stab him, it would have driven them off before they could do that. They withdrew because their work was done. The sequence of events makes this pretty clear: Frodo swings his sword, Frodo uses the name "Elbereth", the nazgul attack, the Witch-King stabs Frodo, the nazgul withdraw, Aragorn shows up.

Aragorn's quote (after finding a torn cloak) was "This was the stroke of Frodo's sword. The only hurt that it did his enemy, I fear, for it [the sword] is unharmed, but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth." In other words, the sword stroke was completely ineffective, dealing no harm, and comparatively, the minor discomfort Elbereth's name might have caused was more deadly. Its not a comment directed at showing how dangerous the name is, it is a comment directed at showing how completely ineffective Frodo's sword work was.

 

[Storm Raven]

And yes, the Dragonlance novels were far more user friendly. A lot less to digest IMO.

I'm still trying to figure out how a person who hasn't read LotR could come to that conclusion though. Obviously, you've read both (as have I), and I didn't find Dragonlance that much more user friendly (mostly because I was bored most of the way through them), but I am not sure how someone who hasn't read both could make a comparison.