Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pezagent" data-source="post: 1291809" data-attributes="member: 15568">Why, did you know him personally? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />I agree anything can be argued about--but I'm still waiting for a good one to come my way--because......people like telling me (us) this, but do not clearly explain why. Why do think the eagles "technically" qualify as deus ex machina? No, it's not.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. 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.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.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.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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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)</blockquote>

Verification