Deus ex machina

Let me try this one more time. People keep trying to interpret Tropes Are Not Bad and its ilk to mean that "no trope can ever be bad". That's not what it was created to say. The point of every page in that family is to avoid problems where people try and argue about how their favorite show didn't ''really'' use some trope, or where they try and shoehorn in a trope that isn't really there because that makes it 'better'.

It was never supposed to a blanket statement that All Tropes Can Be Good.

@Miller Cross: Here's the thing. The reason I consider Deus ex Machina inherently bad in the first place is because of those "pop-culture literary analysts" in the first place. I may or may not actually agree with them, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is that in the minds of modern culture, the term Deus ex Machina has become inextricably associated with bad writing.

While the connotation is definitely negative, I don't think that the actual definition of deus ex machina has ever changed to include "it is bad writing". Interestingly, tvtropes believes that Chekov's Gun is an example of one way to do a deus ex machina.

For me, I was personally contemplating what counts as a "deus ex machina" since one of settings has the dieties that the characters worship actually exist and are capable of direct intervention (and do it every so often). Their powers are vastly beyond what the characters in the story are capable of but are limited.

Not really. From the page:

If the "gun" is set up in the way it's eventually used, that's not a Deus ex Machina at all.

What pop culture considers good or bad is irrelevant. Pop culture will always try to have artists walk down the beaten path and let that be the only path an artists uses. Art doesn't care about beaten paths.

Mind you this doesn't mean that an artist has to break rules to be an artist. As long as he's using his art to express something, it's art. Method and quality don't matter. And if a writer decides to use a Deus ex Machina in his story then that won't stop the story from being meaningful or well written.

I think you're approaching this from a different standpoint then I am. I'm not arguing from a literary standpoint so much as a linguistic one. It's possible - though very difficult - to use a "Deus ex Machina" well, but I think from a definitional standpoint that means it isn't really a Deus ex Machina.

edited 2nd Aug '12 10:11:43 PM by nrjxll

Even if we talked about definitions, you'll notice that nothing in the definitions says "Bad writing".

it's basically thus:

Quality of writing's never mentioned

Same as above too.

And even if you had to define the plot device in question, saying that it's bad writing wouldn't help the reader understand what does Deus ex Machina mean or what is it. What'd help him understand would be simply describing the term. And the term's definition's basically "Something that wasn't foreshadowed happened and saved the main characters forever"

I'm not talking about what it says on the trope page. I'm talking about the term "deus ex machina" as used in everyday life. Nobody is ever going to say "Wow, what a well-done deus ex machina Alice and Bob had", except maybe sarcastically. Likewise, I'm not trying to define the plot device, but to argue that said device shouldn't be called "deus ex machina" due to the inherently negative connotations that term has developed.

Also (emphasis mine):

This, I think, actually can't be done well. Using a Deus ex Machina (for lack of a better term to call it) as the ending of the entire plot/work as a whole is pretty much irredeemable, except maybe for thematic purposes - and even then I don't think I would risk it.

edited 3rd Aug '12 2:05:35 AM by nrjxll

Honestly, that's like saying that if people use a jargon word (Because, let's face it, that's what Deus ex Machina is.) like "interlocutory" to mean "Talking between two people" rather than "provisional", then their meaning's the only valid one or the one that matters. Yes words' meaning change as time goes by, but when it comes to jargon, it's much more complicated because the meaning in the context in which it was originally created (Literature Analysis).

Again, nothing in the definition says "Deus ex Machina's a bad form of writing". Mayhaps "Deus ex Machina's seen as a bad form of writing" but that doesn't define the term. What defines the term is the quick resolution of a (sub)plot through a previously unseen device. Normally, that's considered bad writing because the viewer operates under the assumption that the world we see is the world that is. And that's because reality and fiction operate under hugely different levels of course. In the real world we aknowledge the existence of objects we do not see whereas in fiction we simply cannot, because a writer's duty is to show us the world in his head and walk us through it as well as introducing us to the people populating it. As such when he misses something, we feel that our guide is incompetent.

So yes I can understand why people believe that DEM's obligatorily a form of bad writing but no, it isn't. If you don't like it, that's awesome and all (Not a fan either, myself) but the definition of the term doesn't describe quality. Just a method and a tool to finish a story.

As for the colloquial definition...well, it's wrong if you actually care about understanding fiction. Otherwise? cool.

I think arguing that a word's definition changes due to public perception may hold true in the long run but not so much while the word's definition has yet to formally change. I wouldn't say that just because biologists think unicellular life means life with just one cell, whereas I being one of 5 billion laymen believe it actually means life that communicates wirelessly makes that the "correct" definition.

But I'll say that deus ex machina has serious problems.

However, let me draw up some made-up examples on the spot to see how you think of them.

A band of adventurers need to get through the valley of certain doom in order to enter the plains of pain to reach the skull fortress of Horribad Man. They have no viable means of transport to get across the valley of certain doom. Suddenly a zepplin crashes down in the distance and they use that as their form of transportation which only takes them as far as the plains of pain. There was no foreshadowing or anything to indicate that they would get this easy break.

Characters pray for a minor miracle in the course of a battle while trying to defend the city. After the gates are breached they fight the attackers. Afterward the city is in ruins. But, miraculously they find that the civilians managed to hide within a previously unknown bunker and thus all survived.

@breadloaf, I like the second one. Or at least don't mind it.

Nrjxll, Deus Ex Machina endings are typically called anti-climaxes when they are done properly, and it can be done well. For example, Scott Pilgrim and the Infinite Sadness has such an ending. In the climax, Scott fights Todd who is unbeatable because of his special vegan powers. Scott thinks: I can't even get near him, I need some kind of...like...last minute, poorly set-up Deus ex Machina (note the Lampshade Hanging) Then the vegan police pop out from behind the bar, and take Todd's vegan powers away because he gelato that afternoon. Frankly, calling an story like Scott Pilgrim and the Infinite Sadness irredeemably bad because solely because it has a anti-climatic ending doesn't make much sense. Scott Pilgrim is a comedy and the ending succeeds in being funny. It works because of the Rule of Funny. I'll be the first to say it, "What a well done Deus Ex Machina Scott Pilgrim" had.

edited 11th Aug '12 1:37:35 AM by jpoelma13

That's not a deus ex machina. It's a parody of one.

And I don't know who said that having a deus ex machina makes a story irreparably bad, but it wasn't me; in fact I said pretty much the opposite.

^ That is just nitpicking.

It is a Deus Ex Machina, plain and simple. Just because it refereed to itself by name doesn't mean it isn't still one.

It is absolutely not nitpicking. A case of Parodied Trope should never, ever be brought up when discussing the merits of that trope.

@ Evergreen

I'd probably use it very sparingly (like maybe one every two novels in a series, otherwise readers might be able to predict when it would happen) but I think that perhaps it can add a nice touch. It feels like salt to me, too easy to have too much.

Diana Wynne-Jones. In particular, The Dark Lord of Derkholm, but there are other examples. It's fine.

Could you explain those? I'm not familiar with that work.