Deus ex Machina

[doug*platypus]

I've come across a few references to the Eagles in particular as a Deus ex Machina. It's been 7 years (OMG!!) since I studied Classics in High School, and 9 (I'm so old!!) since I studied Shakespeare. I'm a little rusty on my definition, but I don't believe that the Eagles really qualify.

When they turn up at the Battle of Five Armies and at the Battle of the Morannon, the Eagles seem more like the good old Cavalry than anything else. True, they are the creatures of Manwë, and lend his approval to the side of the so-called Free Peoples, but they don't really do much in terms of the narration.

Christopher Tolkien, in War of the Jewels, points out that Mablung acts as a Deus ex Machina in the Tale of Turambar. He comes in at the end, with the "irrefutable truth" that Nienor had left Doriath, in effect sealing Túrin's fate (as Mablung admits). I have seen an allegation that this plot device is used several times in the Lord of the Rings (which goes to show that whoever wrote that doesn't understand the term, anyway), but I think this was just an attempted jibe at Tolkien more than anything useful.

What exactly is a Deus ex Machina? Do you think it is fair to place this label on the Eagles? Are there any other examples you can think of?

[littlemanpoet]

The best I can do is hazard an attempt without dictionary. A 'Deus Ex Machina' is a plot device using divine intervention; that is to say, it is aid unlooked for that comes without precedent; an intervention without plot set-up in order to make the story work. Perhaps my definition is narrow, but if it's accurate, Tolkien doesn't use it. The Eagles are written deeply into his entire mythos and play their role effectively.

[Amarinth]

hi doug [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] i'm no real proficient, but what i understand of deus ex machina - hand of god - is that it is that literary device where the central conflict cannot be resolved by any related turn of event according to plot, but is suddenly resolved by a miracle or a miraculous turn of events- an act of god. the writer, of course, being god.

hmmm, in a way deus ex machina does apply to the role of manwë's eagles in resolving one or two grim situations in silm. like the case of maedhros hanging outside morgoth's tower by a cruel manacle, and fingon rescuing him with a prayer to manwë that sent thorondir lord of eagles swiftly to their aid. but if i can think about it longer i bet there'd be more deus ex machina in the beren-luthien story that anywhere else in the silm.

thought provoking topic...

[ February 21, 2003: Message edited by: Amarinth ]

[Manwe Sulimo]

This brings to mind Bored of the Rings, in which the eagle that saved Frito and Spam (Frodo and Sam) was part of the "Deux ex Machina Airlines", or something to that effect. That one use (or two, if you count the dwarves in the trees) can be very easily interpreted as Deux ex Machina. I think that the eagles earned their pay in that departement.

But then, think of the Balrogs. They filled that role for Morgoth, don't you think? I mean, they killed a great many Elf heroes, and always seemed to show up in time to do lots of damage to the good guys.

Then there's Gandalf (the Balrog, the Lord of the Nazgûl, the battle of Helm's Deep), who actually is, literally, divine.

While I think that Tolkien wrote excellent stories, he did use Deux ex Machina a lot (in my opinion, of course). But it works.

[ February 21, 2003: Message edited by: Manwe Sulimo ]

[littlemanpoet]

But it works.

Working with your broader definition of Deus ex Machina, Manwe Sulimo, I find your acknowledgment that it works to be an valuable fork in the road for discussion, if I may.

If the Eagles are indeed 'DEM', how is it that it works? And maybe we can discover through talking about this, why others don't?

[Manwe Sulimo]

What I mean by "But it works" is that even though it seems to be a bit unfair, or uninspired, it fits with Tolkien's world, and doesn't destroy the story. It's accepted by the fans as a realistic facet of Tolkien's world.

[Mister Underhill]

In my opinion, it’s a common misconception of modern critical analysis that DEM is always a “cheat” and never works under any circumstances. Trusting in faith is a major theme of LotR, and within that context, the occasional DEM not only works but is more or less necessary to support the theme. The characters trust that good will, in some way that they can’t foresee or completely cause themselves, triumph over evil, and their faith is rewarded.

I think it is important, on the other hand, that the DEM doesn’t directly solve the characters’ most critical obstacles. If a breath of divine wind blew the Ring from Frodo’s hand into the Crack of Doom, or an Eagle had scooped up the Ring and dive-bombed it into Orodruin’s cone, I think we’d all have been throwing our RotK’s across the room when we got to Book VI, Chapter 3.

[Bill Ferny]

It is refreshing to hear the term deus ex machina without reference to a certain console game [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] .

I always felt that Tolkien’s use of the eagles was a type of deus ex machina, but, like Mister Underhill points out, it is not a random device that makes the story work. It is something that is written into the fabric of the story, and it does not negate the efforts of the characters in their struggles against the protagonists. We should bear in mind, though, that the use of a deus ex machina isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

[Lyra Greenleaf]

wouldn't eru taking melkor/morgoth out of the world count as deus ex machina, as he 'is' God? or does that not count because he is also a character?

[ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: Lyra Greenleaf ]

[doug*platypus]

As I understand it, it was the Valar who booted Melky out into the Outer Void, and not Ilúvatar.

On a similar note, though, perhaps you are right if you are saying that the War of Wrath was an example. Although I am still not convinced that rescuing the good guys is the sole function of a Deus ex Machina, if this is in fact so, the War of Wrath is a prime example.

I agree that the use of this feature was not just Tolkien being stuck for ideas. He seems to be showing us that somewhere out there is a benevolent force that is always watching. The Eagles and the Valar do not interfere until the uttermost need, but they do not ultimately fail to protect the heroes.

JRRT paints a picture of a benevolent something out there that will not desert the world, or at least did not up until the end of the Third Age. Perhaps, sadly, when the Elves leave Middle-Earth, the Númenóreans diminish and vanish, and the Eagles stop talking and get a lot smaller, mankind has lost the right or the ability to enlist the help of this higher power.

[Lyra Greenleaf]

yes, you're right, it was the Valar.
I wonder why i was so convinced it was Eru?
sorry

[DaughterofVana]

deus ex machina - hand of god

Sorry. May I have permission from the peanut gallery to correct my betters? Please withold fruit projectiles. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

deus ex machina [L., god from a machine] 1. in ancient Greek and Roman plays, a deity brought in by stage machinery to intervene in the action 2. any unconvincing character or event brought artifically into the plot of the story, play, etc. to settle an involved situation 3. anyone who unexpectiedly intervenes to change the course of events

-New World Dictionary, 1974

I had to speak up and show off my higher education--studying Greek Theatre in Theatre App. and going to "Bacchae" this Wednesday.

Okay. Commence throwing fruit. :ducks and runs away:

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

-'Vana

[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[Bill Ferny]

Daughter… One of the only reasons why I chose my moniker, Bill Ferny, was so I could control a monopoly on the fruit (namely apple) hurling puns. Kindly refrain from stepping on my toes in this regard.

I’m just kidding, of course. Thank you for the clarification.

Machina is a difficult word from an etymological standpoint. It is a Latin transliteration of the Greek word μηχανή (michani). Machina isn’t really a Latin word. You are right that it definitely doesn’t mean “hand” which would be generically manus, -us f..

[DaughterofVana]

control a monopoly on the fruit (namely apple) hurling puns

My goodness, I thought I thieved the idea from one of the Elanors running around here. Kindly forgive me. Commence throwing potatoes. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Machina isn’t really a Latin word

Really? I copied straight out of the dictionary on my above quote, and usually the little "L" means of latin origin. I don't know if my source being from 1974 really mattered in that aspect, though. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] You'd think that with all the technology around I could get a better source to turn to when I can't figure out how to spell something; but I stole this from the house. 'Twas my mom's, back in the day. It all goes back to the thieving.

Here's what Dictionary.com had to say:

deus ex ma·chi·na (ks mäk-n, -nä, mk-n)
n.
In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.
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.
A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[New Latin deus ex mchin : Latin deus, god + Latin ex, from + Latin mchin, ablative of mchina, machine (translation of Greek theos apo mkhans).]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Hehe. Published by Houghton Mifflin. Above it says "new latin," so methinks that's the ticket right there.

-'Vana

[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[littlemanpoet]

I wish I could say that those definitions helped in much of a measurable way, but they don't seem to - the concept is a slippery one, especially considering how we have three different meanings even in the "authoritative definition". What really intrigues me (maybe gets on my nerves is more accurate) is how Tolkien's "eucatastrophe" seems similar, on the face of it, to the third definition in both sources. But the third definition does strike me as the most excusable, no desirable, for fantasy. Ne?

[Imladrien]

According to the definitions given, though it may seem that Eagles do serve as a Deus ex Machina, Tolkien uses them consistently throughout his writings of Middle-earth. If you read Sil, Hobbit and then LotR, by the time you get to the Field of Cormallen chapter , you might be wondering "Where the heck are they already?" They have become expected.
Because of this consistency of use (mostly high or remote tight spots, not just anywhere) I think they don't qualify as Deus ex Machina. Eagles have always been a part of the story.
If Tolkien had used Eagles one time, giant butterflies the next and flying monkeys yet another...then there would be something to talk about.
--Imladrien

[The Saucepan Man]

I had always thought of the Eagles as a kind of Deus Ex Machina (although, until reading this thread, I never had a phrase to describe it!)

But I agree with Imladrien that, on the definition given, the Eagles don't qualify because they are not "artificially" or "improbably" introduced to save the day. They are well-established elements of JRRT's works. The same goes for the Valar, Maia and Vanyar in the War of Wrath.

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

Oh, thanks a lot! Now I have a vision of the Valar lowering Gandalf into Middle Earth on a winch. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[littlemanpoet]

But what about according to these pairs of definition?

anyone who unexpectiedly intervenes to change the course of events ... A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

If this is also a definition of Deus ex Machina, do not Tolkien's Eagles qualify? Does not 'eucatastrophe' as an element in Fairie Story always qualify?

[Meoshi]

Not unexpected. I think Imladrien is right about "Where are they already"? They're well established as the official Rescuing Airline of Middle-Earth, and thus not a surprise.

[Imladrien]

After thinking a bit more about it, maybe Eagles do qualify as Deus ex Machina in individual books, The Hobbit, for instance.
"The Eagles! The Eagles are coming!" is an eucatastrophic moment. Tolkien even wrote about it as such in Letter#89.
The concept IS a slippery one! You are so right, Littlemanpoet!
--Imladrien

[Meoshi]

Well, the first appearance of the Eagles was a Deus Ex Machina, but after that, you come to expect them.

[DaughterofVana]

Well, the first appearance of the Eagles was a Deus Ex Machina, but after that, you come to expect them

Doesn't make them any less of a Deus Ex Machina. Gods were alwayslowered onto the stage by cranes to resolve problems in Greek drama--that was their job. It was so the audience came to expect it, and the playright was considered foward-thinking (or odd) when he wrote the play otherwise. Since the plays were performed in honor of the gods, odds are that the god in question (Appollo, Dionysos, Zeus) would play a big part in the plot. Why not come in and fix everything? It would both tie up the loose ends and show the overwhelming power that was being glorified at the festival to begin with. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Now, back to LOTR (thank god! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]) I think that it has been already established that the Eagles were DEM. They fit criteria noted. The question remaining is that if their repetition made them any less of a DEM. I venture to say no. The audience came to expect Dionysos decending in all his glory suspended on a rope held by a crane (or oxen, or slaves, or whatever), but he was still "god in the machine." The fact that he continually came to the rescue did nothing for the catagorization. The Eagles are the same. Perhaps the effectiveness or the believeability of the DEM... but that's another topic.

-'Vana

PS: this is so fun!! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

PSS:

Oh, thanks a lot! Now I have a vision of the Valar lowering Gandalf into Middle Earth on a winch.

Teehee. It could be worse.

[ February 27, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

i think in LOTR and the hobbit, they have to be classed as D E M. This is because their ONLY appearances (unless i've forgotten one, please throw that fruit if I have [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) is rescuing characters when all seems helpless. The fact that they appear more than once doing this, and never otherwise, adds to the argument rather than detracts from it.

[littlemanpoet]

This discussion is getting fun - new wrinkles constantly sprouting.

It seems to be relatively well established, now, that the Eagles do qualify as DEM, and thank you, DaughterofVana, for the expert information on Greek drama and the origins of 'deus ex machina'.

So...: how effective as a DEM are the Eagles?

Here's a question that may help us get at an answer: How is it that they arrive when they do? Do they get a direct message from Manwe? From Gandalf? Do they have such good eyes that they can see what's happening from their Ery - uh - eri - uh - nests? (I don't remember how to spell that word :P) Even if they do, why do they rescue? Do they do some kind of air-patrol, flying even higher than the Nazgul?

[Lyta_Underhill]

The thing I find interesting about the Eagles is that they seem to be DEM's because of their peripheral but key status in the story, but you get the idea that they and Gandalf share a very complex relationship; in fact, if not for Gwaihir, Gandalf would never have made it to Rivendell. But it is an interesting twist of fate that brings Gwaihir, if I recall, to Isengard, for it is by means of Radagast the Brown's attempts to communicate with him that Gwaihir comes to know of his imprisonment; also Gwaihir appears to rescue Gandalf from the peak of Caradhras following the battle with the Balrog. He is quite the consistent DEM! Perhaps he is DEM because we do not get a thorough history of the Eagles and their relationship to the humanoids of ME, except through hints of Gandalf's. I find it a refreshing enigma myself! But I do admit to hearing the squeaking of a cord on a pulley, a la Ed Wood, when I think of the traditional DEM applied here.

Cheers,
Lyta

[DaughterofVana]

thank you, DaughterofVana, for the expert information on Greek drama

Hehehehehehe. Two months in Theatre App. and I'm labeled an "expert." I've got you guys fooled, don't I? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Now. On effectiveness:

Mr. Underhill-

Trusting in faith is a major theme of LotR, and within that context, the occasional DEM not only works but is more or less necessary to support the theme. The characters trust that good will, in some way that they can’t foresee or completely cause themselves, triumph over evil, and their faith is rewarded.

This is a vote for the effectiveness of DEM, for it shows that higher powers (Vala, Eru) are pulling for Gandalf and co.--a reason why the Eagles keep showing up. Eru works in mysterious ways, I suppose. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Not saying that the Valar would just descend out of the West and appear in the eyries (the word you were searching for, I believe) of the Eagles and say "well, I think it's time for another pick-me-up for Gandalf."

I think it is important, on the other hand, that the DEM doesn’t directly solve the characters’ most critical obstacles.

Well said. This is where the DEM of Tolkien differs from that of the Greek. When Dionysos comes and fixes everything, that's it. No more story. There's basically a couple more lines of prose, the Chorus comes out and dances a bit, and then curtain (or whatever).

In that case, if one wants to get technical, the Eagles are a DEM-ish "nudge" in the right direction rather than a full-out, by-the-book example. They come because they are friends of Gandalf (and perhaps because of his staus as a servant of the "gods", I believe), but when they leave, there's still a Ring. There's still Sauron. There's still problems. And in that aspect, they don't really qualify as a "hard-core" example of DEM. And so, they're not "effective" in that aspect.

But effectiveness as a "DEM nudge"? Very much so. They help win the Battle of Five Armies. Gwahair rescues Gandalf (both times) effectively. They do what they were intended to do: get everyone back on the right track.

Argh. I think I'm confusing myself. Hopefully I didn't confuse anyone else.


-'Vana

PS: Thoughtful post, Lyta_Underhill! :raises glass: Welcome to the Downs!

[ February 27, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[The Saucepan Man]

It seems to be relatively well established, now, that the Eagles do qualify as DEM

Now just hold your horses, littlemanpoet ... I'm not so sure. Taking the wider definition:

anyone who unexpectiedly intervenes to change the course of events ... A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

Now the Eagles may be unexpected when they first appear to rescue Bilbo, Gandalf and the Dwarves from Goblins, Wargs and burning trees (assuming one reads The Hobbit first), but their later appearances are not unexpected. Having been established as part of ME, and notably as being close to Gandalf, it is no surprise when they later turn up in times of (usually Gandalf's) need. They do not come "out of the blue" (other than in the literal sense, of course [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). So, they are not really unexpected, save in the sense that most situations where the problem facing a character is resolved, the solution will (in a good novel at least) be unexpected. Surely DEM is not that common a device.

But I do have one worthy candidate for DEM. None other than jolly old Tom Bombadil. Who would expect that, when the Hobbits are just about to be devoured by a particularly malign Willow Tree, a funny old man with a blue coat and yellow boots to come strolling along with a "hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!" and rescue them? Now that's unexpected. And not only is Tom unexpected, he is (as many threads on this forum will testify) inexplicable. He does not really fit into ME since he is like no other character. He is one of a kind. OK, so he does make a second, more predictable, appearance to rescue the Hobbits from the Barrow Wight, but that is his final appearance ...

... Surely a candidate for being lowered by the winch if ever there was one. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Lyta_Underhill]

Thanks for the welcome, 'Vana! (clinks glass and drinks deeply, perhaps TOO deeply!). I can't resist a good discussion! And Saucepan Man (great name, by the way!), thanks for bringing up old Tom of the yellow boots! Tolkien certainly defined him as an enigma, and perhaps the enigmas of the world are the only real DEM's; taking that thought slightly further--perhaps the only things we believe are DEM's are those things which are beyond our understanding and so are classified by us as enigmas! I take this as a corollary to the magic/science threshold...

Cheers,
Lyta (proud but also strangely humbled to be a pile o' bones!)

[Mister Underhill]

Here’s a little deus ex machina for you: Gandalf’s resurrection, an event which seems to be the most blatant (and literal) example of all. As others have observed, this sort of plot development only works under a proper set of narrative circumstances. What are those circumstances? I have a few ideas.

For starters, we, the audience, usually need some sort of foreshadowing or setup in order to make the DEM satisfying. We hate to get sucker-punched with a Ridiculous Development by a storyteller. On the other hand, the need for foreshadowing seems to be proportional to the difficulty of the problem that the DEM solves and where in the story the incident occurs. As ‘Pan-Man rightly points out, Bombadillo arrives to help the Hobbits with no foreshadowing or setup at all, but the problem he solves is relatively minor and occurs at the very start of the journey.

Also, I think the story needs, whether explicitly or implicitly, to deal with spiritual or supernatural themes. If towards the end of Die Hard, a story with no spiritual component or themes, Bruce Willis were to die and be resurrected, audiences would riot. Okay, maybe not riot, but you see my point.

Here’s an interesting example from the movies: Raiders of the Lost Ark. Now the end of that movie is pure DEM. The Nazis have captured Indy and Marion, they have the Ark, and they’re prepared to open it and begin learning its secrets – all seems hopeless for our heroes. But then the “power of God” literally intervenes to melt all the Nazis and save the day. Two things are interesting about this ending. One is that it is effective – not only does it work, but you can scarcely imagine any other way for the movie to end. The other is that the reason it works (again, IMO) is because it is in line with the theme of the movie, and the filmmakers set up and foreshadow the mystical power of the Ark throughout the story.

[littlemanpoet]

I think, Mister Underhill, you have captured the essence of what is required for DEM to work in modern story telling. I'm just glad it has a place at all. Not long ago it would probably have been thrown out as ridiculous without consideration. I think we have Tolkien and Lewis, in part, to thank for the paradigm shift.

[The Saucepan Man]

we, the audience, usually need some sort of foreshadowing or setup in order to make the DEM satisfying.

Sorry to be a fly in the ointment again, but isn't it the sudden and unexpected nature of a DEM that helps define it as such? If an event is foreshadowed, it is not unexpected when it occurs, or at least we are not surprised when it occurs. I had understood that DEM involved something that was so unexpected, having not previously been a feature of the story, that it does seem faintly ridiculous to the reader, just like the God being lowered onto the stage by a winch.

Or perhaps I'm being unduly restrictive in my interpretation and slightly unfair on DEM as a plot device. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Edit: You may think that the combination of this and my previous post suggests that I consider Tom Bombadil to be faintly ridiculous, but I couldn't possibly comment. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

[ February 28, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Meoshi]

As for Bombadil, he is, in my opinion, more of a DEM than any other: he shows up to save the day, as some of the Eagle DEMs did. He also show up out of nowhere, unheard of before, unsuggested, and, to add to it all, a character that seems, given the rest of the story, to not fit.

But let's get off the Bombadil topic...quick.
The Valar at the War of Wrath- were they a DEM?

[mark12_30]

After reading about Tom Bombadil and the eagles, and recalling the point my high school english teacher made... don't ask how long ago! Anyway:

Deus Ex Machina does not, to me, seem to apply to any of Tolkien's characters at all. (Especially not to Tom Bombadil!) My impression of a Deus Ex Machina is that the introduction of the DEM is an inherent breaking of the rules; that the DEM intervenes in a campy, unsatisfying rescue that essentially removes the hero's chance to be a hero.

Tom Bombadil would be DEM, I suppose, except for the fact that the Old Forest was enchanted to begin with. Tom doesn't break any rules. He's as wierd as the forest. Two guys eaten by a tree? Come on! If you expect the next thing that happens to be normal, or the next person to come along to be average and boring, what are you thinking?

It would be like walking into Mirkwood and expecting no good magic. Only spiders and no elves.

Likewise, on another thread, it's been argued-- why didn't the eagles just fly the ring to Mount Doom in the first place? Why the whole quest? And one of the responses was, because the airspace over Mordor was controlled by Sauron and his ringwraiths. So they could have tried, but they would have ended up in a direct confrontation (kinda cool to imagine, a "dogfight" between Gandalf on an eagle, and the Lord of the Nazgul on his "Not-A-Pterodactyl".)

But to continue: You've got dragons in the North, especially Smaug guarding the Lonely Mountain; why are Giant Eagles any more surprising? And you've got "Wraiths on Wings" in the south guarding Mordor; why should the reappearance of the Giant Eagles bother us?

At least the Eagle's commander (Gwaihir? Thorondor?...?) had the sense not to deploy them until they had a chance of effectiveness, instead of wasting them early on in the war and not having them later when they were critical.

And in terms of Gandalf's resurrection: Tolkien had laid the foundation for the return of dead Elves, the Halls of Mandos and their reincarnation, long before he wrote the Lord of the Rings. The story of Feanor's mum, who dies and refuses to return to her hubby, proves that. Feanor was ancient history for Gandalf. So the resurrection/reappearance/whatever you choose to call it is, once again, consistent with Tolkien's world-- not a mechanical contrivance.

Back to the eagles: if we criticise the eagles for showing up 'every' time somebody good needs air power (and there were plenty of times they didn't show up when they would have been handy) then don't we also have to criticise the Ringwraiths for showing up 'every' time somebody needs a good scare or a dose of the Black Breath? Fair's fair...

--Helen

[The Saucepan Man]

the DEM intervenes in a campy, unsatisfying rescue that essentially removes the hero's chance to be a hero.

That's our Tom! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

But surely the situation has to be pretty unusual for a DEM to be required to resolve it?

[tangerine]

In classical times, deus ex machina was considered the equivalent of giving the audience the finger by some playwrights, insulting their intelligence by making everything better by introducing the so-called 'god in the machine'.
Tolkien did this once or twice in the hobbit, but that's almost excusable, being a children's book. Bombadil strikes me as a borderline DEM, being always there at the right time, and yet their meetings seem almost coincidental. Otherwise, most occurances can be fairly well explained in one way or another.

[Mister Underhill]

Sorry to be a fly in the ointment again, but isn't it the sudden and unexpected nature of a DEM that helps define it as such?

“You got fly in my ointment!”
“You got ointment on my fly!”
“Hey, it tastes great!”

Ahem. My answer to your question (and its implication that foreshadowing always spoils the surprise, addressed in a moment) is a definitive “Maybe”. I guess it depends on what definition of DEM you’re working off of. If DEM to you means by definition a narrative cheat, then I guess any setup or foreshadowing lifts the event out of the muck where the other unforeshadowed DEMs dwell, waiting for their chance to spring on unsuspecting climaxes and flip the metaphorical bird to the audience.

In the context within which I frequently encounter the term, though, the definition is more complex, in ways that I’ve tried to capture in my posts above. I’m sticking with Raiders as my most instructive example. The climactic events are sudden, unexpected, don’t leave you feeling cheated, and are foreshadowed from the first moment when Indy cracks open that fat tome with a picture of the Ark and Spielberg cues the creepy Williams music.

If an event is foreshadowed, it is not unexpected when it occurs, or at least we are not surprised when it occurs.

As you can guess, I have to respectfully disagree with you here, SPM. Maintaining a tension between foreshadowing and surprise is the Holy Grail of storytelling, or if not the Grail, at least one of the holy implements – the Holy Fork, maybe. Storytellers who strike a successful balance in this area have success, those who are unable to manage it don’t. A prime example of this principle is The Sixth Sense. Having the answer in front of your face the whole time and still being surprised by an unexpected climax is a rare and wonderful experience.

Some stories and some storytellers rely on this tension more than others, but it’s present in all good fiction. It’s meat and drink to mystery writers. If a climactic resolution occurs in a way that we haven’t been set up for in some way, we feel cheated.

So, insofar as this relates to our discussion of DEM, I’d say that a good DEM moment can be foreshadowed and still surprise the audience.

And in terms of Gandalf's resurrection: Tolkien had laid the foundation for the return of dead Elves, the Halls of Mandos and their reincarnation, long before he wrote the Lord of the Rings. The story of Feanor's mum, who dies and refuses to return to her hubby, proves that. Feanor was ancient history for Gandalf. So the resurrection/reappearance/whatever you choose to call it is, once again, consistent with Tolkien's world-- not a mechanical contrivance.

Hi, Helen! Good to see you chipping in your always articulate comments, but I suggest that your justification here is stretching it a bit. Taking LotR on its own terms as a story, you’ll have to agree that most audiences (and certainly all audiences prior to the publication of The Silmarillion) had no access to all that stuff about the Halls of Mandos and Elvish reincarnation and whatnot. Even if they did, Gandalf isn’t an Elf and he isn’t reincarnated – he’s directly resurrected by Eru, the head honcho, the big cheese. I can't think of a plainer example of "divine intervention".

But I think we’re just stuck on semantics here. You’re working off of a definition that inherently frames the DEM as a dissatisfying cheat, a “breaking of the rules”. I happen to think that definition is too restrictive.

Back to the eagles: if we criticise the eagles for showing up 'every' time somebody good needs air power (and there were plenty of times they didn't show up when they would have been handy) then don't we also have to criticise the Ringwraiths for showing up 'every' time somebody needs a good scare or a dose of the Black Breath? Fair's fair...

Some writers say that audiences will always forgive a coincidence that gets your heroes into trouble, but won't buy ones that get them out of it. Must be some sort of manifestation of Murphy's Law. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ March 01, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

Thanks for the extra-erudite explanation, Mister Underhill! I know I, for one, and most other regular readers of fiction, will miss subtle hints until something large happens to reinforce them and draw a sudden but strong web through the entire story, making everything fall into place, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to one who only sees the isolated "DEM" event. That is, indeed, the Holy Grail of storytelling, for it gives an internal consistency within the reality drawn by the writer. If the writer has done a good job, the web will suddenly appear, but will be as if it were a blanket that had been over your eyes the entire time, but only now do you feel its light touch. If the writer has failed to provide this narrative consistency, then the catastrophic event that draws your attention fails to illuminate the structural web of the story, and all the reader sees is an isolated ridiculous DEM.

I'd rather have it said I did it as the "bird to the audience" than as a result of my own ineptitude in storytelling if I were to be accused of using the DEM! As for Bombadil being a DEM, didn't Frodo call for him, using the song Tom taught them? Tom is not just magically appearing, he is being called by Frodo.

As for Gandalf's reincarnation, well, that IS the Hand of God, but not something I would totally disbelieve, for what kind of death did he die? Perhaps he was in the grey area, had the NDE and believed Eru had called him back for a purpose. But I choose to believe in the supernatural explanation, because, after all, this is Gandalf we're talking about! And he WAS literally called back for a purpose, the destruction of Sauron, and, once it was achieved, he left again! He did not tarry along the way to help the hobbits out with their little problem in the Shire (which some people I know are very angry with him for not doing!) but retired and then went on over the Sea. He was consistent, at least! But I ramble on again. Forgive me for my long-windedness, and thanks very much for your indulgence!

Cheers,
Lyta