Limyaael ([info]limyaael) wrote,
@ 2004-07-24 19:40:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: amused
Entry tags:fantasy rants: summer 2004, plotting rants

Avoiding deus ex machina
There are a few definitions for deus ex machina, but the one I'm using here (courtesy of dictionary.com) is "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." It is, by definition, stupid and evil and not something you want to have around. Even the mildest definition, "unexpected," points to a failure in the story, since something introduced well enough can be traced back by the reader and admitted as part of the story without straining suspension of disbelief. So this is a list of ways to avoid reaching for one of those gods by machine at a critical juncture in the plot.



1) Don't bring in an outside force or person or god to settle the conflict. This can seem obvious, since it's the very definition of deus ex machina, but it's something that fantasy tends to suffer from. The protagonist gets himself or herself into a corner, and suddenly there's the wise old wizard with a solution, or a goddess who chooses the heroine her champion, or some ancient, evil dragon awakened by the bad guy who picks that moment to turn on him. Even a little of this is far too much. It not only shatters the story and reminds the reader that she's holding nothing but paper in her hands; it also makes your protagonist seem nothing more than lucky. Usually, there's no mention of the protagonist being so worthy that the goddess chose that moment to show up, or the dragon rebelling after a long period of mistreatment. It just happens, and the hero or heroine escapes (with the treasure and the girl or guy, of course), full of undeserved good fortune.

If you know that a powerful force is going to show up and save the day, it has to be mentioned at numerous points in the story, long before it does save the day. The goddess should put the protagonist through a series of tests, or tell her that after she fulfills some task, then she'll get an infusion of godly strength. Even then, the motivation should be reasonable, or the goddess will resemble a petty child who insists on almost breaking her toys before she deigns to step in and do what she could have done since the beginning of the story. I have heard objections that if the goddess steps in too early, there will be no story. Well, exactly. A tale that could be solved by something simple happening in the first fifty pages is not a tale that deserves to be told. The author has to come up with logical ways of stretching out the tension, and making the goddess change her mind for no reason just at the most convenient point for the heroine is not one of them.

Also, if a mortal king or lord suddenly decides to join the conflict against the bad guy and provides the necessary manpower to topple him, there have to be reasons for that, too, particularly if he was moodily refusing to come out of his castle until then. It's always best to show the change of heart, either before or after the fact. (This is another reason why telling a fantasy story through multiple narrators if possible is a good idea). A calculated stroke falling at just the moment when the bad guy believes he's won is much better, more awesome, and more impressive than an evil lord deciding to turn good because "it's the right thing to do."

If you come up with the idea for the outside force on the spur of the moment, be prepared to do a lot of rewriting and retrofitting of the story into its correct path. Or just drop it, let your protagonist suffer through it, and have the climax play out more darkly than you had originally intended.

2) If the backstory plays a large part in the present story's resolution, it needs to be introduced as soon as possible. Spoilers for Anne Bishop's Black Jewels trilogy follow.

At the end of the trilogy, Jaenelle, who's practically a goddess all by herself, comes up with a way to get rid of evil forever. However, that way depends on a story that we haven't been told yet--a story that was detailed only in The Invisible Ring, a book that Bishop published a year later than the trilogy. In the trilogy itself, it's related very hastily by another character, who himself heard it secondhand. Jaenelle decides it's the only way that will work, adopts it, and, surprise no surprise, it works.

This should not be allowed to happen in a well-constructed fantasy. If you know that your character has the necessary skills to survive the ending, but you haven't showed him developing those skills in the present story, then mention them early, mention them often, and, ideally, show them in smaller operation somewhere else. It's much easier to believe that a character could do an exaggerated version of something he was doing all along than believing that, "Oh, yeah, in an adventure I never said anything about until just now, he acquired the Tongue of Tupin and the knowledge of the Riddle of Gavlere!" You may know your own canon backwards and forwards, but you can't require that your audience know those kinds of things about unpublished books or adventures that exist only in character profiles. If you tack them on at the end, they'll feel you're pulling things out of the air, and rightly so.

3) Don't ignore the obvious. There are several times I've read a fantasy book and wondered why the heroine or hero didn't simply walk right out of the cell, when earlier they'd been shown having the ability to pass through walls; or fly to the top of a wall, since earlier they could transform into a raven; or sneak across a room quietly, since they'd had training to do so. The authors too often ignored solutions they'd built into the story. Whether it was through wanting a big, dramatic climax, something more showy than just a raven flying to the top of a wall with a grappling hook, or whether they'd actually forgotten, I'll never know. But any author worth her salt should be sharper-eyed.

If you're the kind of writer who plans out her story's resolution in advance (as most of the writers I meet seem to be), then study every element, and ask yourself whether it couldn't be subverted by something else in the story. If the answer is yes, either go with the simpler solution, which is less likely to feel like a deus ex machina, or come up with some way to disable that ability, person, or trick. Be careful, though. Too many disabilities, and your ending can feel like a house of cards, once again leading to the deus ex machina syndrome.

Another, perhaps simpler way to do it is just not to pile so many special abilities on your characters. If you don't forget that they can turn into ravens, and have to work with that one fact all through the story, you're less likely to toss it out the window when the big finale comes.

4) Establish some rules of magic that you will never break, not even for your characters. I imagine that love of their created characters, as well as love of writing about unique people, lies behind many fantasy writers' tendencies to make their people the Most Special Magic-Users Ever. So the character can do magic that no one else of his gender can, or magic that no one else of his race can, or magic that no one's been able to do in a hundred years, or magic that was last seen in his great-grandfather and that he shouldn't have inherited, and so on. The author brings in fate or destiny to explain it away, and then often bends the rules further, so that something impossible even for that character does occur at the end of the book. If magic isn't supposed to bring back the dead, it will reverse itself for the hero's dead best friend or beloved. If the heroine absolutely cannot pick up a mountain, then rest assured she'll find the strength to do it when smashing the bad guy.

Stop that.

At some point, the rules have to stand firm, or you begin to have an "anything-goes" fantasy world, where the main characters could probably just wish the villain away if they tried hard enough. And the explanations for why this one particular impossible thing is happening for this one particular person get to sound flimsier and flimsier.

You should empathize with your characters, all your characters. But don't sympathize with them. Don't start feeling as if their goals are your goals and you have to make sure the characters achieve them or you'll feel terrible, because if you get to that point, you're going to introduce a deus ex machina without blinking twice.

Have some rules of magic that are final. No exceptions, no taksies-backsies. The characters will be forced to fall back on what they have, instead of what they want, and they might surprise you. And it's possible to do wonders with a handful of nothing. People do it all the time in our world, without magic, and in plenty of good fantasies with nothing more than intelligence and courage.

5) Remember that not all surprises are good ones. A good surprise is pretty much a must of a deus ex machina. Someone the character barely remembers comes up and saves his life. Aid he never expected from a god descends from heaven. Something he never knew his powers could do happens. A lot of fantasy authors try to explain this as a result of chance or good storytelling, though unless it has a good basis to rise from, something the reader could have guessed even though she didn't, it still looks like the author meddling where she has no business to meddle.

But why does a surprise need to resolve a plot? Why not have a nasty one that comes along and complicates it further, perhaps into something that the characters or you, the author--if you're stuck behind writer's block--can solve, where before they were trotting complacently along?

I always wanted to see a fantasy where the hero looks to someone to save him, such as the faithful sidekick who's hinted that she'll sacrifice her life so that he can be happy with his true love, and hears that person say, "No." In some fantasies, it would work a hell of a lot better with the established storyline and characters than the unquestioning act of self-sacrifice. It would also force the hero to fall back on his own resources, and maybe save his own ass. And it would give the sidekick the ability to shine, if only for a moment, and step beyond the role of corny plot device.

This would also require build-up, of course. But nasty surprises don't require as much as good ones do, I think. Readers are often more willing to accept something that complicates the plot and forces the hero to think fast than they are something that steps up and wraps everything in a nice package with a bow on the top. They also are more likely to work with the prevailing temper of some stories. If the hero's been slagging all over the sidekick during the story, I sigh when she steps up and sacrifices her life. She was only there for one reason, then, and the author's just proved it. Something that displays a spark of independence and spirit would make me cheer for her, even though I know the hero's still probably going to win. It also makes the victory that much more interesting.

Don't just think about the wonderful secrets that are going to fall from the sky. Think about the nasty secrets hiding in the closets.



If the majority of authors do outline, as I've been assured they do, it puzzles me why so many fantasy stories feel forced and contrived in their endings. Maybe they just need to do more rewriting.




(Post a new comment)


[info]tsuki_no_bara
2004-07-24 06:57 pm UTC (link)
one of the things i really like about jk rowling is that she's laid everything out by the time she gets to the big climax. you might not remember all the details, because a lot of them are worked into the story without huge fanfare, but if you go back you can see that everything's there to lead up to the conclusion. harry's already tried the skills, found and/or tested the stuff, had the appropriate conversations or learned the appropriate details. i don't know how much outlining she does, but if she doesn't outline she must do some serious revising after she's finished the story.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kiena_tesedale
2004-07-24 11:08 pm UTC (link)
But that doesn't hold over from book to book. There have been a number of minor plot points (or even major ones) that would be horribly useful in earlier books, but don't show up until later ones. It goes back to the idea of ignoring the obvious, sort of, except backwards. Instead of ignoring a skill that the protagonist had before, she *introduces* a new skill that helps the group now, but would have helped them in the past, too, and should have been there the entire time.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]swtalmnd
2005-02-27 07:21 pm UTC (link)
Well, when your protagonists are students in a school, it only makes sense for them to acquire new skills as time goes on. Plus, Harry specifically is woefully ignorant and deliberately kept in the dark a lot of the time, and that circumstance explains a lot of the things that he ought to have known, but didn't until later in the books. Yes, summoning spells would've been great for the key problem in his First year, but they don't study them until Fourth year, so he didn't know it until then.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onyxflame
2006-02-26 03:49 am UTC (link)
Yes but it also applies to various worldbuilding thingies too. The main one I'm thinking is...what's it called, side-along Apparition? Up until book 6 he has to sneeze through the floo powder or use various other tactics.

And I'm still wondering if she's ever gonna clear up why house elves can apparate in the school but no one else can. If it's because of the afore-mentioned differences in elf-magic, then someone had better tell Harry and the gang to stop calling it apparition when it's actually an elf thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kandelschwartz
2006-01-25 08:23 pm UTC (link)
The time traveling in the third movie still felt cheap. It's actually a great example of ignoring a great big rhinocerous of a plot hole.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]karenrei
2006-01-30 12:28 am UTC (link)
Agreed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]dawnkiller
2004-07-24 07:54 pm UTC (link)
I imagine that love of their created characters, as well as love of writing about unique people, lies behind many fantasy writers' tendencies to make their people the Most Special Magic-Users Ever. So the character can do magic that no one else of his gender can, or magic that no one else of his race can, or magic that no one's been able to do in a hundred years, or magic that was last seen in his great-grandfather and that he shouldn't have inherited, and so on.


Y'know, I've always wanted to see a story where it turns out that the sidekick or bully or whomever else is in the party and not enormously respected by the hero turns out to be able to do the Rare Magic the hero can do, and better. That'd be especially fun if the person was the bully, because not only would that give the "he doesn't appreciate my specialness" aspect a sound basis (re: he doesn't respect your specialness because you aren't that flippin' special), it would add some depth to the bully -- because hey, if it turns out the bully is the "surprise" that ends up saving them all, it means the bully (unlike the hero) hasn't been advertising his abilities all across the countryside. I'm all for humoring the hero. (This is one thing Rowling actually does pretty well; Harry is clearly outclassed on several occasions, like the Tri-Wizard Tournament, and recognizes it. He gets by by playing to his strengths, not taking wild, experimental shots in the dark.)

All in all, though, the "rare rule-breaking magic" cliche really irritates me, especially when it's pulled out at the last minute. Most of the time it almost seems as if magic as an art or speciality (which a lot of fantasy depicts it as, judging from the number of wizarding schools and master/apprentice pairs that pop up) has not history. Which mage pioneered telepathic communication, or the reattachment of human limbs? If people remember who built that temple or discovered the composition of gunpowder, then why aren't there any magical equivalents to pioneers in the field? How does anyone know that no one else has ever done [insert mystical cop-out] before? The idea still leaves room for surprises (the heroine may later find out that her trick had been done centuries before by an obscure foreign mage, for example -- or heck, maybe that footnote is what gave her the idea to try it) without making your hero so painfully Special.

Anyway, #1, 2, and 5 are all incredibly apparent in Erikson's books. His characterization, as mentioned, isn't as solid as, say, Martin's (and the fact that there's usually one character per book that I want to smack), but his structure is fantastic. Things that were alluded to in the first book turn out to be pivotal in the third, background for the second book is laid in the fourth -- it's the first entirely three-dimensional series I've ever seen. It's a masterwork of plotting -- and, more importantly, never, ever taking the easy way out. You've mentioned "happy" endings that leave you sobbing before, well . . . the first book won't do that, but the second one -- my god. The "if only" factor went through the ROOF.

. . . Y'know, eventually I'm going to get through these damn books and stop mentioning them every other post. :P

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2004-07-26 06:21 am UTC (link)
"Rare" magic irritates me in general. I see it as much like extraordinary beauty or sudden shining sword skills or unusual height; it's another way to make the person special without actually going to the trouble of characterization. Want to make your character the heroine but don't know how? Give her some magic no one's seen in a thousand years! That's supposed to work.

And the historical mages! Where are the historical mages? I think one of the problems there is that too many fantasy authors, while creating magic, are influenced by folklore rather than history, or by what they think of as folkore. (We don't know the specific name of a lot of the authors of folktales, but as Tolkien pointed out, that's no reason to think they were all made up by some vast nameless collective). They think magic is just a kind of thing that "mages" use, even when they have the names of the last mages who could do that kind of rare rule-breaking magic. It doesn't make sense even in the contexts of their own worlds, but do they mention that? No.

...Sorry, that irritates me. A little.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]dawnkiller
2004-07-26 01:34 pm UTC (link)
I see it as much like extraordinary beauty or sudden shining sword skills or unusual height; it's another way to make the person special without actually going to the trouble of characterization. Want to make your character the heroine but don't know how? Give her some magic no one's seen in a thousand years! That's supposed to work.

I always wanted the rare magic to be rare for a reason. Y'know, like the users eventually disintigrate from the inside out or something. :) "Congratulations, you are the chosen one!" "Neat!" "Of course, the downside is one of your internal organs is going to start failing every time you use your powers, so watch out for that." ". . ."

Then again, I'm of the school of thought that believes magic should cost and cost and cost, so. :)


They think magic is just a kind of thing that "mages" use, even when they have the names of the last mages who could do that kind of rare rule-breaking magic.

I still don't see why there isn't as much variation among fantasy mages' powers, regardless of their education. Ex: A mage who is trained in a school knows how to call lighting. A mage who grew up in the boondocks without any other mage to instruct him . . . knows how to call lightning. The hell? Shouldn't their magic have developed in different ways according to necessity and experience? If there's only one TYPE of magic (like, say, pyrokinesis) then I guess that's acceptable, but most of the magic seems to be kind of versatile. Healing spells, lighting spells, offensive spells -- all available to the same person. So if there's this huge, unspecified well of power to draw from, why wouldn't the mage raised as a farmboy have developed, say, weather powers or plant-growing powers, or hell, even pesticidal powers, while the kid raised in a bordertown accustomed to raids develops the offensive powers? At some point nurture has to come into it, right? I think I'd be okay with less sense of mystical continuity if all magic was very, very individual-specific in a way that actually made sense.


Erikson, despite his parred-down characterization, actually handles "historical" magic pretty well. If you remember the bit about Hairlock in the first hundred pages or so, and the big deal that was made over Quick Ben knowing how to "soulshift", which is supposedly a lost art, well, it turns out that Quick Ben actually learned it not because he's naturally talented or in touch with the gods, but because one of his colleagues was a scholar who went through the trouble of cracking a damn book on the subject. That pleased me greatly. :) Also, there's this whole strange thread of a handful of constantly referenced historians and historical texts in the chapter epiteths -- plus a bunch of historians and authors talked about by the characters themselves. You can tell the guy's an anthropologist. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]beccastareyes
2004-07-29 12:18 pm UTC (link)
... You just gave me an idea for tying up some loose threads in my webcomic, thank you.

And, to be honest, this is an idea I like playing with in said webcomic -- one universe in it has psionics powers. And one of the species has grouped psi powers into three groups: the lengendary hero-shamans of the past who have left and will return in dreams to teach their powers if ever needed, the minority-religion witch-mystics who the majority doens't quite trust, and the alien psis who are Corrupting Our Honest Youth With Their Foreign Ways. The thing is... it is enitrely cultural. The power is the same, it's just each of these groups manages to teach it differently. And, eventually they will figure this out, and one of their leaders will try to twist it into a political agenda, and it will be great fun.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]eldena
2004-07-24 08:43 pm UTC (link)
Completely and totally off-topic, but you can add me to your tally of George R. R. Martin converts now! I just went through the existing Song of Ice and Fire at about one book a week (which in retrospect may not have been the best way to do it; that much misfortune in a small space of time can be exhausting, even if I do appreciate his willingness to let his characters suffer). Truly is good stuff; utterly compelling, and that rare kind of realism is just wonderful. (Though, in all honesty, the parts with the Others didn't do much for me... I'm kind of desensitized to ancient evils rising in the north by now.) I am certainly looking forward to the next one, and I'm glad I took your gushing to heart.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2004-07-26 06:17 am UTC (link)
Ha! Good! *adds you to the tally*

The parts I find weakest in Martin are generally the ones that come closest to the regular fantasy tropes. The Others is one of them, and finding the dead direwolf in the snow was another one; I went through a small sense of, "Is he serious?" that I relive each time I read that chapter. On the other hand, I love the way he handles dragons. I have hope that he'll resolve the conflict in some unexpected way, too (some people have suggested, and I agree, that it's not entirely out of the question that we'll get a viewpoint from an Other).

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]avrelia
2004-07-25 06:26 am UTC (link)
I cannot, as usual, think of any example, good or bad, but I hate the deux ex machinae endings. I feel cheated by the book when this happens. In all incarnations you wrote about. There is no really any story if everything can be resolved any moment at the will of the author. The story must have its own rules, limitations, and logic, otherwise it is just piling up words and images.

If the majority of authors do outline, as I've been assured they do, it puzzles me why so many fantasy stories feel forced and contrived in their endings.

Well, they get too attached to prepared ending, in my opinion. With outline or without, the story changes in the course of writing – sometimes slightly, sometimes seriously. So the decision to hold on to the outlined ending may cause disagreement with all previous development.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2004-07-26 06:13 am UTC (link)
You may be right about the prepared ending. I've heard some people say that the ending is the hardest to write and they're always scared it won't come out, so if they come up with a good idea in the middle, they may cling onto it like mad. It's really too bad, though. I've seen some places where the "obvious" course for the ending to take would have been eminently suitable, rather than the flying leap the author took to make it more "dramatic."

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]corundum
2004-07-25 09:53 am UTC (link)
I saw a sort of "reverse deus ex machina" in a book I read recently. Throughout the entire story, it's repeatedly made clear that a certain wizard has very tenuous control over an intelligent magical weapon he's created - it's always testing the bounds of what he'll allow it to do, and nearly causes a number of bad accidents that he only barely manages to pull it away from. At a climax of the story, it does in fact get out of control and nearly kills everyone in the entire castle before it's brought back under control at the last minute. So far, so good, right?

Soon after, the wizard joins the "good side" and from then on, his weapon works perfectly, killing the bad guys and only the bad guys when it's deployed in battle. There's never a hint that it would attempt to do anything else. No explanation, no justification. It just stops being a problem.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2004-07-26 06:12 am UTC (link)
Why, it was because he was on the good side, of course! Don't you know anything? /sarcasm

But yeah, I hate that too, when it seems as if moral judgments the characters make can influence everything else in the book.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]wireandroses
2004-07-25 12:07 pm UTC (link)
you have given me the sudden terrible urge to write a deux ex machina story. something like this:

random god (preferably on a swing lowered from the sky. or in a peter pan harness): uh, hey there. i'm here to solve your problems.
protagonist: have you been watching all this time?
random god: hell yeah! better than all those damn reality shows!
protagonist: so why the hell didn't you show up earlier?
random god: um... IT SUITED ME. BOW TO ME MORTAL.
protagonist: ::eyebrow raise::
random god: okay, okay. i'll go on fixing your problem now. ::fixes problem:: ::is raised back up to the sky::
protagonist: WTF!!!

hee hee hee.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2004-07-26 06:11 am UTC (link)
*grins* The reasons that gods give to show up late are rarely more convincing than that. Usually, when it's a test of the protagonist, I have no idea why they needed to be tested at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onyxflame
2006-02-26 06:13 am UTC (link)
hehehe...if my death god was in that situation, he'd claim he showed up late because he was in the middle of eating a restaurant. :P

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Different idea
[info]karenrei
2006-01-30 12:31 am UTC (link)
I had a different idea when I read over the topic. I was picturing a parodic fantasy novel in which our daring protagonist is pursued to the site of a classical amphitheatre by the nemesis, and therein is fought until nearly beaten. However, right before the nemesis deals the killing blow, one of the theatre's god machines, damaged by the combat, collapses and crushes the nemesis beneath it, thus giving the victory to the hero.

I.e., both a literal and figurative deus ex machina. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]otakukeith
2004-07-25 12:29 pm UTC (link)
It's much easier to believe that a character could do an exaggerated version of something he was doing all along than believing that, "Oh, yeah, in an adventure I never said anything about until just now, he acquired the Tongue of Tupin and the knowledge of the Riddle of Gavlere!"

The writers of the Dragonlance Chronicles do this to a truly heinous extent. Characters go off and do stuff between books and between chapters, and we don't hear about it except second-hand, even when it impacts the plot. AARGH.

Have I mentioned that I think Dragonlance is really, really badly written?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2004-07-26 06:10 am UTC (link)
DragonLance was the first fantasy I read besides Tolkien and a few isolated Anne McCaffrey books, and while I'm glad I found it because it led me to other series, I have to agree with you there. The whole skipping of the Ice Wall adventure made me go, "Buh?" How do we suddenly have dragonlances, and how in the world could that kind of important information be skipped? I was irritated that they skipped so much development of Alhana Starbreeze, too. She could have been a cool character, and her relationship with Sturm much better than it was portrayed, but no, we'll just stick her over in Silvanesti and let her mourn for a while, then have her experience a stupid reaction at the end of the book.

Silly things.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kadaria
2004-07-25 02:17 pm UTC (link)
I thought of this comic as soon as I saw this post:
http://www.missmab.com/comics/Vol276.htm

(Reply to this)


[info]auturgist
2004-07-26 03:16 am UTC (link)
Hey, I created a writing journal and thought it would make more sense to add you on it. If you want to unfriend this journal, that's cool. If you don't, that's cool too. I'll likely leave you friended here because you seem interesting beyond your writing. Anyway, if you have any interest in reading any of my creative writing, that is the journal to friend if you can only stand one instance of me. (I would have made this comment with that account, but I'm at work and can't verify the account via e-mail yet, so when I get home and do it, then I'll be able to comment from that account on others' journals.) ^_-

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2004-07-26 06:07 am UTC (link)
Thanks! I''ve friended the writing journal and would like to leave this one friended too, just so that I can keep up with both aspects of your life. I generally find people interesting beyond just their writing too. *grin*

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]ex_auturgist509
2004-07-26 06:09 am UTC (link)
Well, I'm kinda ADHD and frequently suffer motivation deficiency, so we'll see how often I write... but here's to hoping! I think having a place to do so and get feedback from others will prompt to do so more often. ^_^;;

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]castiron
2004-07-26 10:10 am UTC (link)
If you know that a powerful force is going to show up and save the day, it has to be mentioned at numerous points in the story, long before it does save the day.

Bujold does a good job with this in her Chalion books; gods are heavily involved in the endings, but because of the way the Chalionverse works, the protagonist's actions are still the most important factor in getting things done.

(Reply to this)

Character-driven epic fantasies?
(Anonymous)
2004-09-11 08:04 am UTC (link)
Well, it seems to me that the main problem that leads to Deus ex machina is this: POOR CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. By the end of the story of book, oftentimes the characters are so underdeveloped that they seem incapable of solving their own problems. Characters in fantasy sometimes seem to take a backseat to the plot. It puzzles me that there are not a whole lot of character-driven fantasies out there. Magic realism is often character-based, but rarely epic alternate-world fantasy. Perhaps it is the sheer number of characters needed in epic fantasy? I would LOVE to see a fantasy with character development to rival that of John Steinbeck's East of Eden (Good book, by the way.)

(Reply to this)

A good DEM?
[info]retlor
2004-10-10 01:47 am UTC (link)
I don't know, you may disagree, but I always liked the ending to HG Wells 'The War of the Worlds.' It is a big Deus ex Machina but it works and is actually more realistic than a battle would have been. Basically (*spoilers*)all the aliens are killed by a disease that they did not have on their planet and so they had no immunity.

Just an example of where it works, although I did feel a bit let down by it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: A good DEM?
[info]rhjunior
2006-01-27 03:04 am UTC (link)
well, It wasnt as much of a DEM.... because it fit in with the story's entire theme, that of humanity's helplessness in the face of creatures as advanced beyond us as we are advanced beyond the beasts of the field. Humanity's only possible chance was divine providence.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…