Talk:Deus ex machina

Beerfest and the Natural

I don't think either qualifies as a deus ex machina and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkyisdashiznit (talk • contribs) 04:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph

The first paragraph seemed messed up, so I changed it back to what it was a few edits ago. I saved the messed up part, as it seemed to be part of another section:

A deus ex machina (/ˈdeɪ.əs ɛks ˈmɑːkinə/ or /ˈdiː.əs ɛks ˈmækɨnə/, ==Ancient uses== The Greek tragedian Euripides is often criticized for his frequent use of the deus ex machina. More than half of Euripides's extant tragedies employ a deus ex machina in their resolution and some critics go so far as to claim that Euripides invented the deus ex |title=The Arabian Nights Reader|first=Ulrich|last=Marzolph|publisher=Wayne State University Press|year=2006|isbn=0814332595|pages=241–2}}</ref> Just when Harun is about to have Ja'far executed for his failure, a deus ex machina occurs when the murderer suddenly reveals himself, claiming to be the woman's husband. Daedalus733 (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Deus Ex Machina in video games

In the LucasArts video game The Curse of Monkey Island, the hero Guybrush Threepwood finds himself trapped in a quicksand pit. The only way to get out is reaching a life-saving vine that, as for most of the things on Plunder island, has a plaque near it. This one explains that its latin name is "Arborealis Deusexmachinas" (reference: World of Monkey Island, a fan web page about the Monkey Island series). Marzios (talk) 22:37, 15 march 2010 (UTC)

Did some "modern" pruning

The Natural and Pineapple Express are not examples of DEM. Neither is Dodgeball, really, but its writers seemed to think so. DEM properly comes at the end of a narrative and features a character unseen up to that point. Ifnkovhg (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Deus ex machina in Lost

Episode [1x19] of the TV series Lost bears the title "Deus Ex Machina". In a nutshell, the survivors of the plane crash find a previously unnoticed seaplane perched in the jungle canopy, which miraculously contains a functioning radio. Unfortunately, just as they manage to make contact with their potential rescuers, the plane falls, destroying the radio. In my opinion, this is an extremely well-executed example of both dramatic irony and deus ex machina. After all, if the plane had not fallen, the survivors would have been able to relay their position to their rescuers, and the plot would be resolved. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it should be noted here for further reference. Perhaps a section on irony in combination with deus ex machina could be added to the article, if more examples can be found. 70.181.149.37 (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank You For Smoking

The editors of this page will know whether this is relevant or not but the satirical film (and book) Thank You For Smoking contains a hilarious (and clever) scene that highlights the cringe-worthy use of DEM in cinema.

Jeff Megall: Sony has a futuristic sci-fi movie they're looking to make.

Nick Naylor: Cigarettes in space?

Jeff Megall: It's the final frontier, Nick.

Nick Naylor: But wouldn't they blow up in an all oxygen environment?

Jeff Megall: Probably. But it's an easy fix. One line of dialogue. 'Thank God we invented the... you know, whatever device.'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/quotes

Use at your leisure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.115.253 (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between a DEM and a lampshade.--Louiedog (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Toy Story 3

Removed this from the examples as it's a previously set-up rescue, not a deus ex machina. The source used was from an author's personal web site. The screenwriter himself explains why it's not a DEM in the Creative Screenwriting podcast 29th Oct 2010 edition. Jumble Jumble (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Incorrect Attribution of the Phrase to Horace

My research indicates that the phrase is not from Horace's poem. Rather, the Oxford English Dictionary says that the Latin phrase is a translation of a Greek phrase.

You can search Horace's poem for the phrase here: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/horace/arspoet.shtml but you will not find it.

I am unsure about how to go about correcting wikipedia.

Cheers,

Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.130.104 (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Wiktionary has the standard classic pronunciation: IPA: /ˈdɛ.ʊs/ (Sort of like "day-oos", but shorter) I've always heard this pronounced the classical way also. Should we add an alternate pronunciation with the correct/classical way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.87.110 (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not just do it yourself? 173.216.128.176 (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The chapter on Piano in the Bushes does not end in a complete sentence...

Could someone who knows the topic fix that, or erase the entire section? Cuardin (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a lot weirder before I trimmed a bit (and before it disappeared completely, of course). As the paragraph that I deleted went on, it made less and less sense. It kind of dissolved into complete nonsense at the end. It was either a prank, or very badly translated text. RIP Piano in the bushes. You were enjoyed. --Andylindsay (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

One more example in a film....

I remember the movie Mars Attacks! has a thoroughly ridiculous example, when the attacking Martians, with advanced technology, amazing weapons that can absorb a nuclear missile and convert it into a balloon etc, start blowing up whenever a Slim Whitman musical number is played! This finally saves the earth-lings. I thought it was neat, in keeping with the rather crass, yet subtle spirit of the movie. Is it worth a mention? NarasMG (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Translation

The translation "god out of the machine" seems to be wrong. It should be "god in the machine" or "from/of the machine", like "ex libris". So "a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention" of a supposed "god in/of the machine", not from outside.

You could call "the market" in economics a deus ex machina.

Janosabel (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mass effect 3 ending

Mass effect can be added to the video game section of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Grebe (talk • contribs) 08:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the Mass Effect 3 ending is deus ex machina according to the article cited. The matter is still very much under debate. --63.148.11.11 (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)sam

It fits the definition perfectly. Unsolvable problem: Reapers are destroying all life in the galaxy with no conventional solution available. Contrived and unexpected intervention by a new character: the Star-God appears abruptly and offers to end the Reaper threat. What's the debate? 99.32.177.26 (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Star Child is not a case of deus ex machina. He is there to explain the situation, not solve the problem. The Crucible itself may be a case of deus ex machina, however, as the previous two games never mentioned the past cycles building a super-weapon to destroy the Reapers and it appears abruptly at the beginning of Mass Effect 3. Shanook28 (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Star Child is the Catalyst, aka the Citadel itself. The Crucible is the other half of the tool that is capable (somehow) of doing one of three distinct things, hence the three endings. The Star Child IS the tool, literally. He explains your choices as well, of course. But since he is the Citadel, and the Crucible combines to make one object, he is the solution to the problem. It wasn't clear up until that point that the Citadel was even a character instead of an object. If that argument is deemed a failure, I have another. Now, yes, the Citadel has been around since the beginning and the Catalyst and Crucible were around for most of the third game. But the definition as read here calls for "some new event, character, ability, or object." The scene with the Star Child is most definitely an unexpected and contrived event, and arguably the three heretofore unmentioned abilities may also qualify, IMO.99.32.177.26 (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect, the Citadel is the Catalyst's home, not the Catalyst. The Catalyst is not an unexpected event, it is one of the 3 main plot points (build the Crucible, gather forces, find the Catalyst) and a driving force behind a lot of the game (going to Thessia, going to Cerberus, going to the Citadel). What it is is unexpected, but the Catalyst itself is not newly introduced at the end of the game and is known about from early on in ME3. The Catalyst also solves nothing, it mearly relays information on what the Crucible does, it's Shepard, the Crucible, and the Citadel which solves the problem. Seeing as though it's a plot device that is introduced early in ME3 and doesn't actually solve anything in the end I have removed it. 81.155.99.127 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I find the debate over this to be nit picking at best. You may as well remove the Lord of the Flies' Deus ex machina because the boys created signal fires, foreshadowing their rescue. Just because Mass Effect 3 foreshadows the Crucible, the Catalyst, and Shepard's involvement in uniting the two doesn't make the ending any less of a Deus ex machina. I mean, why even argue it? The Reapers, of which the Star Child/Catalyst is the head member, fancy themselves unknowable God-like beings. The Star Child shows up literally out of nowhere at the end, when all hope seems lost, to offer 3 different solutions that work "just because." It is literally one of the most straight-forward examples of Deus ex machina in videogames ever to exist, but we're arguing that it doesn't qualify as Deus ex machina because it involves 3 different factors conveniently solving everything instead of just one factor, among other specific things. I will concede that the Catalyst specifically isn't a Deus ex machina (even though it is a literal god in the machine), but that doesn't change that the ending still relies on Deus ex machnia to solve its primary problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.217.124 (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not deus ex machina as you're told well in advance that you need the Catalyst and the Crucible to stop the Reapers and all of the choices are foreshadowed throughout the game (Destroy being the primary objective of the galaxy, Control being the Illusive Man's goal, Synthesis being essentially what the Reapers were doing). You're told that the Crucible joined with the Catalyst will stop the Reapers, and you do exactly that in the end. What option you choose or the Catalyst being an AI within the Citadel does not change that in any way. The entry also claims that organic/synthetic conflict is "the series' primary problem", which is entirely inaccurate: you sought to stop the Reapers in the first game, sought to stop the Reapers in the second game, sought to stop the Reapers in the third game, and stop the Reapers at the end of the third game. The idea of organic/synthetic conflict is the reason why the Catalyst was created and why it created the Reapers, but the ending does not revolve around that conflict; in fact, the Catalyst itself explicitly states that Destroy is not a solution. CaiusRagnarok (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Another Example in Animation

An awesome, shameless use of DEM can be found in "The Angry Beavers" S4 E7 "Moby Dopes" where Norbert and Daggit are saved from a rampaging Killer Whale by a tyrannosaurus rex. Norbert: Where in the name of deus ex machina did that T-Rex come from? 118.209.130.77 (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It came from China?

just wanting to see if it's really noteworthy to point out that China isn't "China" in China & that "deus ex machina" is logically identical to those little stickers on the bottom of various goods that says...

"made in China"

pointless? not really. ironic? totally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.93.150 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia

Only on Wikipedia could an article about a literary device provide as illustrations Greek tragedy and The Lord of the Flies, on the one hand, and a "Simpsons" episode on the other! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partnerfrance (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Structure

I added an 'Examples' header, as I found myself reading examples when I expected criticism, ruining the endings of a couple of things I haven't seen / read. 217.37.109.89 (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Stargate SG-1

Should Stargate SG-1's use of the idea that a third shot from a Zat'nik'tel disintegrates a target be mentioned. They only used it to dispose of a body in season 2 and stopped talking about it afterward. -William slattery (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Return Of The King

Eagles can see a rat one mile away. Apply it to a hypothetical giant eagle and you have a one hundred mile long vision. Add to it the fact that Gandalf knew exactly where Frodo and Sam were (Mount Doom) and the hope that they were still alive and it was not only POSSIBLE but TOO EASY to the Eagles finding the Hobbits.

Therefore stop calling this scene a Deus Ex Machina because it isn't. 189.81.74.9 (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, stop mentioning a blatant example of Deus Ex Machina because of some weird scientific reason that doesn't change neither the fact that the eagles appear out of nowhere nor the fact that the whole climax wouldn't have happened, had they appeared earlier. How does it not match the definition given in the article as "a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object." 85.181.2.80 (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

1. It is true that the Eagles serve as Deus ex Machina. 2. Within the context of Eagles appearing, it is no (further) miracle that the Hobbits are actually found. 3. That this is so does not mean that the Eagles are not a Deus ex Machina. 4. By the way, there is a compelling internal reason, not only "needed for the plot", that the Eagles do not simply transport the ring there. Namely, that would have been an open attack and Sauron would have brought them down with his superior force, capturing the ring and all.--131.159.76.236 (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Deus ex

Shouldn't the game Deus Ex be in this line under computer games. At the end of part one you're defeated or has to surrender and you end up in a cell. Then suddenly Daedelus hacks the door. The name of the game is also a reference to this subject. 193.11.163.141 (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad examples

Yeah, I'm a bit peeved that someone has used The Lord of the Flies, The Lord of the Rings and The War of the Worlds as examples. In the case of The War of the Worlds where you have that old-school, more hard-sciency, less literary material, if you are quite involved in the story as a reader you can be forgiven for feeling a bit cheated with the ending. With the Lord of the Flies, the contributor has redeemed himself somewhat by qualifying his inclusion of that great novel. In the case of The Lord of the Rings, however, I just don't see where he is coming from. The phrase 'Deus ex machina' is defined in the article as an "...unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object"... to read: it should be too convenient and not in keeping with the rest of the fiction. The eagles dropping in was a piece of luck, but this is Heroic fantasy... such devices are essential to the genre, and the eagles were not quickly invented and inserted to get Tolkien out of trouble. The man was far too invested in his work to be accused of any cheapness, and the suggestion of cheapness makes me choke. I'm too upset to correct this article myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GetSnufflegartened (talk • contribs) 04:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Lord of the Rings: after being appalled by the blatant use of DEM in the movie, I didn't bother to check the novel, but there is no doubt that it's DEM in the movie: our heroes are helplessly outnumbered with no way in sight of accomplishing their mission, when suddenly the sky opens and vastly superior creatures that we haven't seen before appear, make their entry, defeat the enemy and help our heroes accomplish their goal. It is even quoted as "classic example of deuts ex machina" http://contemporarylit.about.com/od/literaryterms/g/deusexmachina.htm on other webpages. But to make the argument really clear: DEM is when a god suddenly appears on the scene and solves and unsolvable problem in the play. In LotR, eagles suddenly appear on the scene and solve our hero's unsolvable problem. Yes, it is DEM.85.181.22.32 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC) ps Merry Christmas!

There is no such scene in Return of the King - eagles do not defeat the enemy (at the battle by the black gates of Mordor). Eagles are used as DEM to carry Frodo and Sam from the Mount Doom after the destruction of the ring and ending of the battle (which was lost by Mordor army not due to eagles, but due to destruction of the ring). Eagles were also used as DEM in the first LOTR movie when Saruman trapped Gandalf on the tower and they rescued him. The information which is now in the article - " the final resolution of the battle where the good heroes are vastly outnumbered is brought about by magically appearing bird-like creatures that easily defeat the evil forces" - is factually wrong. Mpov (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree the section in question is factually wrong (it is also problematic for other reasons: POV, questionable claims with no reliable sources, redundent with the example already given with regard to the book, poorly written, etc.) I will remove it. Paul August ☎ 17:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with GetSnufflegartened, though not for any sentimental reasons. In The War of the Worlds the whole point of the story is that we (the human race) are defenseless against the superior invader, but they are defenseless against terrestrial microbes. Microbes were not invented ex nihilo to 'save the day' - they really exist. As the final paragraph states; "It was inevitable. By the toll of a billion deaths man has bought his birthright of the Earth, and it is his against all comers; it would still be his were the Martians ten times as mighty as they are. For neither do men live nor die in vain."

Similarly, in The Lord of the Flies, it was inevitable that the boys were going to get rescued eventually (though they didn't know that of course). It was hardly outlandish, and the naval officer wasn't just passing; he was looking for survivors. It was only the boys' naïvety that led them to believe they were there forevermore, and behave.. *gulp* ..accordingly.

And finally, there are lots of parodies of The Lord of the Rings that make fun of the eagle saving Frodo and Bilbo from certain death, asking why didn't they just use said eagle to complete the task in the first place. The thing is, parodies are just for fun. They don't make very good sources about the films they parody. And the whole reason the hobbits were able to complete the task that no-one else could was because they could slip under the proverbial radar. One might imagine a parody of the parody in which the eagle is entrusted with the ring and flies to Mt. Doom only to be instantly incinerated before it gets within a country mile of the all seeing eye!

These are very bad examples, not in keeping with the working definition of deus ex machina, and should be removed. nagualdesign (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so the eagles don't defeat the enemy, they just distract them successfully, leading to their defeat. It's still blatant deus ex machina. And it remains so even if the same device was used before. There is a reason this is cited across the web as deus ex machina, there is a reason why there are fan-sites defending it as not deus ex machina, and there is a reason why it's being parodied as deus ex machina: because it is a blatant example of deus ex machina.

I think it would be more helpful if the people who can describe the proceedings accurately correct the paragraph instead of removing it. The only reason I can see anyone disputing that we're dealing with deus ex machina is a combination of strong emotional investment in the book and the negative connotations of DEM. That shouldn't keep wikipedia from describing the facts. If only people who are emotionally invested in the book or film can describe the proceedings accurately enough to meet the standards of the people emotionally invested in the book or film, wikipedia should at least try to break this vicious circle instead of just looking away.

Now one could discuss whether it deserves mention in both the sections on literature and in the section on movies. I would — to noone's surprise — argue 'yes': from what I found on the web, fansites argue that this is not DEM, because this is explained in more detail in the book. So while this may apply to the book, the movie has to stand on its own. Best regards. 2001:4CA0:0:F292:1431:72F5:9DA0:BD26 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, though I would point out that I have zero emotional investment in The Lord of the Rings series. You are mistaken though. A quick read of this and this would tell you that Tolkien hardly painted himself into a corner, then whipped out a Get Out of Jail Free card. His books describe in great detail an entire world with its own elaborate history, languages, etc. Mark Flanagan has evidently only seen the films, or watched a few online parodies, and is mistaken in his assertion. As for the film having to stand on its own; why is that? Surely a movie adaptation of a book cannot be accused of making up the ending due to a lack of forethought. And finally, the idea of adding examples to this encyclopedic article about DEM is to elucidate the topic. A questionable example is therefore useless, no matter which camp you ascribe to. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I should really get an account. The second of the pages you linked to again feels the need to describe how the appearance of the eagles is not Deus Ex Machina (see under trivia). I would say that's clear proof that it is. If it isn't, it wouldn't have to be justified in a contrived way. Actually, the logic is faulty: just because the second part of the original criticism -- namely, that the movie could have been much shorter, had the eagles not come to the rescue -- doesn't apply, doesn't explain the fact that they suddenly intervene. Anyway, because I think it's funny that conservapedia would be on my side, I feel the urge to link to it. Here's a LOTR wiki which explains the eagles as Deus Ex, this comment calls it an obvious Deus Ex, the following few comments add some nuance, etc. There are literally dozens of places calling it Deus ex. Here it's listed as one of the best and one of the worst battle scenes in movies. Why worst? Because of "[a]n oversimplified cop out", i.e. deus ex.

If you say that in the book it actually isn't a Deus Ex Machina moment, then this would even be a very interesting example, as it would show how the requirements of a different medium affect the original artists work in a detrimental way. I cannot tell, because after seeing the movies and being very disappointed by what I felt was an "oversimplified cop out" -- to use the expression from above --, I had no more interest in reading the books. 85.181.1.233 (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A few points: Try to stop inferring people's feelings! The second of the pages I linked to explained, in logical terms, why LOTR could not have been cut short as some would have it. This explanation is obviously a response to the meme-ish accusation (for want of a better word) that can be seen in various places on the Internet (this one's quite funny). To state that such explanations, by their very necessity, are 'clear proof' of the opposite being true is very blinkered. Sometimes there really is smoke without fire. And please do not link to conservapedia or user-generated comments within the article (see WP:RS).

Look, I'm not trying to convince you of anything here, only to address the issues with some discussion, and I've pretty much said everything there is to be said on the subject. But I do want you to understand this; To give an 'example' of anything, which may arguably not be that thing, is to give a bad example. That is to say, if it doesn't elucidate the reader to the topic it is, by definition, a bad example. A strawberry would be a bad example of a berry, for instance, not an 'interesting' example. Similarly, High-dynamic-range imaging has been pared down recently because of some confusion as to what it is, mainly due to the current trend of people confuddling each other online with pseudo-HDR examples. Just because lots of people on the Internet say something is so, it does not make it so, and it is our duty as editors to disabuse readers of their misconceptions, not throw another proverbial log on the fire. nagualdesign (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, bad choice of words, I said 'feel' where I could have just left out that part of the sentence. I wasn't inferring people's feelings. Sorry, this is not my native language, I may sometimes infer meanings that I don't intend to, especially when I try to write in a way that one actually enjoys reading. My main point was that their arguing against deus ex machina exactly DOESN'T address the question of whether it's deus ex machina. I linked to real critics calling it an "oversimplified cop out", i.e. deus ex machina, and to a fan-site that calls it deus ex machina. Those are not random comments on random websites. I also pointed out that I was linking to conservapedia for the humorous value of it. Anyway, so far the counterargument against deus ex machina is "in the book this, this and this is explained beforehand, that's why the eagles couldn't intervene earlier". This doesn't address why they suddenly intervene, this doesn't make it any less of a cop-out, and it doesn't explain it to moviegoers. Are German- or French-language resources valid research on wikipedia, I just did a search and found several critics that support my view. 85.181.12.226 (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC) ps I may have mixed up the various dei ex machina there, what is the Army of the Dead again? see the bottom, where I give more links that specifically address the eagles.

It must be an ironclad rule of literary tropes that every last example be backed up with a decent critical source identifying the trope as being used in the example. If we feel that the eagles in LoTR are a deus ex machina, that's too damned bad; we need a citation from a real critic which says so, and not just J Random Blogpost. This is absolutely not negotiable; to do otherwise is to engage in orogonal research. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I gave a linnk in this discussion, I'll repeat it here. Now you can argue whether "contrived cop out" === "deus ex machina", but to me the case is clear. 85.181.12.226 (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC) ps, sorry, I got mixed up in the various dei ex machina … here's a critic that actually cites both examples, eagles + army of the dead. Also here, plus another example of deus ex machina in the movie. This page refers to Gandalf as 'resident deus ex machina of LotR', in particular because he leads armies (= the eagles) at convenient points. etc.

another ps with a few example quotations: "However, J.R.R. Tolkien is the one who used this device extensively in all his stories.", "You can’t have a list of deus ex machina without mentioning Tolkien’s giant eagles." etc. Maybe we can agree on the wording giving on this list of "deus":

"In J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, some consider the rescue of Frodo and Sam by the Eagles a deus ex machina. They also arrive to help the Army of the West against Sauron in the Battle of the Morannon, though Sauron is not defeated until the Ring is destroyed. It should be noted that the Eagles play the role of unexpected helpers throughout most of Tolkien's writings. In various versions of The Silmarillion material, an eagle saves the body of the elf-king Fingolfin from defilement, another carries the lovers Beren and Lùthien away from dire peril, and Eagles help fight the dragons of Morgoth during the War of Wrath. In The Hobbit, they helped the Dwarves, Men and Elves defeat the Goblins (Orcs) and Wargs at the Battle of the Five Armies. Tolkien's consistent use of the Eagles in this way, and the fact that these Eagles were servants of the angel-like Vala Manwë, suggest to some readers that this was entirely intentional, making them agents of fate — "machines of the gods" rather than "gods in machines". (Also, some readers believe no satisfactory explanation is given as to why the Eagles could not have simply carried the Ring to Mount Doom, though others disagree with them.)"

I think this is much to weak a statement, it's hard to find a more blatant example, but if we need outside research even for blatant examples, and if the research I've linked to isn't enough, then such a "neutral" statement would be more suited to the article. 85.181.12.226 (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

These are blogs, blogs, blogs, and, well, one best/worst entertainment list about the movie by someone who clearly slept through part of it. Find a book by someone qualified. Better yet, find several texts about literary tropes and see what examples they use in common. This is the work that needs to be done, not simply thinking to yourself and then finding someone to support your idea. Heck, around this house we are wont to refer to Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen as "the big blue deus ex machina" because of the way he functions in the denouement, but I don't have a work of real criticism to justify this, and I don't think that most critical works on the book see this particular problem.

Get the big, historically important cases first about which there is a lot of agreement. Resist the urge to put in your or someone else's pet peeve in the article. Mangoe (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You may want to apply the same level of rigor to the Eucatastrophe article while I go looking for a source that satisfies you. I don't share your opinion that wikipedia should only contain the smallest subset that everybody agrees upon, and I find this such a blatant example, and I'm not alone in this view, that I have a hard time seeing what more could be needed. I mean, there's a whole wikipedia article on how Tolkien tried to discuss away Deus Ex Machina (namely Eucatastrophe), so he deserves at least some mention in this article. 85.181.12.226 (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I might, and I don't think it would be hard to put some citation force behind what is said in that article: substantive criticism of eucatastrophe is abundant. But that's other stuff. You aren't an expert in plot tropes, and it doesn't matter if you and your friends agree that this is a blatant example. You need to find someone whose opinion is authoritative. If you cannot see how the sources you are providing are inadequate, then it's time for you to head over to WP:RS and pick up some education on this. I think it is an extremely safe bet that, when English teachers talk about this trope, Gwaihir is not the first example they pull out; indeed, I imagine that he isn't used as an example at all, and I think it's also a safe bet that this is because they don't think this trope is in play at those points in the story. (I would also point out in the movie at least it is made quite clear that Gandalf has ways of getting the eagles to come.) Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW I was strictly talking about the movies. 85.181.12.226 (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Eucatastrophe is directly related to this. This is pointed out in the Eucatastrophe article which dedicates its major part to defending Tolkien from the "accusation" of Deus Ex Machina. You can tell, I'm not too familiar with wikipedia's practices, but there should certainly be some level of coordination between articles.

Anyway, back to the original subject, since only printed stuff appears to be good enough for you: Tolkien's Art: A Mythology for England names it Deus Ex Machina. The relevant section is also reproduced in this book on the best Tolkien criticism, so other critics agree. This source of course refers to the books where I was referring to the movies so far. 85.181.12.226 (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The Jane Chance passage (it's the same text in both books, BTW) looks to me to be a good reference; you can also look her up and see that she has creds. But was that so painfully hard? Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

=Arbitrary break for eucatastrophe

Happy new year. I've reinstated the example, linking the reference. I have also added a reference to Eucatastrohe and a quote of Tolkien's where he describes the eagles as 'machine' (in quotes). 85.181.4.145 (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated, though I did reword the paragraph slightly to remove the last remnants of POV. I hope you can see why we were such sticklers in demanding reliable sources, and why 10,000 assorted blog entries count for absolutely nothing. And I also hope you got some satisfaction from putting in the effort and building an objective and robust case. ...Now the onus is on me and others to find a solid source that refutes Professor Chance's position. (Although you're welcome to help with that too, of course.) Little by little we make progress. Happy New Year, 85.181.4.145! Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! You will see that I slightly reworked it once more to make clear why Eucatastrophe is mentioned in this context, because your edit obscured the connection. The work on this item made me find another interesting reference on the relation between this and DEM, so I added the reference to both articles. I think that now we have the whole of this specific topic covered. I'm not sure I buy that any reader is helped by requiring references for obvious examples, but I learnt that having a "good" reference certainly helps when people don't see as obvious what I see as obvious :) Happy new year again. 85.181.4.145 (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... Now it's beginning to look like you're applying undue weight, since at the moment we lack any mention of counter arguments (which we know to exist in relative abundance). Tolkien himself certainly did not equate eucatastrophe with deus ex machina, hence his coining of the term, though the section now appears to assert the opposite. Try to remember, this isn't a battle of wits in which one set of editors vehemently fight for one point of view while another set fight for the opposite, and expect that to produce a neutral article. We must all strive for WP:NPOV together. In answer to your question, it is WP policy to demand good references for this kind of thing, as is stating the obvious. Perhaps if you let go of what you consider obvious and embrace a more objective stance you will better serve Wikipedia, as well as gaining a better understanding of any given subject (and even of yourself). Now there's a thought! nagualdesign (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

...Actually, in the spirit of stating the obvious perhaps I should spell out here the difference between eucatastrophe and deus ex machina. (And I urge you to read this carefully, and with fresh eyes.) In eucatastrophe a sudden change of events occurs which saves the hero. These events were foreshadowed earlier in the work, and the agents of eucatastrophe were well established. In Tolkien's works they often represent 'the will of the gods', to put it crudely, as is the case with the eagles. Deus ex machina also involves a sudden change of events which occurs which saves the hero, but these events are not foreshadowed, and the agents of change are conjured ex nihilo, without previous mention. They don't necessarily embody 'the will of the gods', despite their Latin nomenclature. So you see (I hope), they are similar in some ways, but very different in actual fact. Does this help at all? nagualdesign (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Consider this reference: "Eucatastrophe is not synonymous with deus ex machina (literally 'god in the machine'), which is an implausible or inept plot device used to escape a storyline quagmire, nor is it used merely for commercial appeal. Rather eucatastrophe makes the bold claim that the arc of human history ultimately curves toward justice, restoration, and hope. From this perspective, rescue comes not from a conveniently inserted god but is part of the very fabric of a fictive world. The approach is easily distinguished from films that seek to demonstrate the gritty realism of human existence, such as one might find in film noir." Mallinson, Jeffrey. "Eucatastrophe". In Mazur, Eric Michael (ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion and Film. ABC-CLIO\YEAR=2011. p. 175. Retrieved 2014-01-01. Mangoe (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added this into the article and reworded once again to provide balance. I also removed one of the references to The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy as it was a redundant duplicate. So, now that all the hard work is done we are left, as expected, with an example of DEM in an article about DEM that is merely a pseudo-example. If others think it interesting enough to leave in then I won't complain any further. Personally I think, as I stated way up there ^^, that it doesn't provide an adequate, unambiguous example whatsoever. However, since the Interwebs are replete with people who blindly believe that Peter Jackson somehow committed the sin of deus ex machina, because they haven't read the books (and perhaps lack the attention span to watch a 3-hour film without getting woefully distracted, I half-jest) then at least they might find something of interest here. Everyone happy? nagualdesign (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. I believe the definition of eucatastrophe given falls well into the range of what constitutes a deus ex machina, but I guess in the current version the reader can form their own opinion on this. I think a lot of the back and forth took place simply because "deus ex machina" is associated with "bad composition" automatically, and some people like their Tolkien a lot. This is to be contrasted with the two references I gave: they are fully sympathetic towards Tolkien, yet they are very clear in calling the eagles DEM. Concerning the attention span of the various web-critics who have labeled divine creatures falling from the sky in the most convenient moment DEM, well, I don't think we have to pursue this further :) Bye, and thanks! 85.181.1.195 (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Lord of the Flies

I propose that Lord of the Flies be removed from the examples, or the reference be heavily rewritten. Though the source is solid it does not simply state that the ending of the book is DEM. In fact it goes on to say:

What Golding calls the "gimmicked" ending of Lord of the Flies and the Greek deus ex machina used most conventionally in Iphigenia in Tauris are alike in their technical function: to reverse the course of impending disaster. Yet their effects are quite different. Athena's wisdom is incontrovertible, her morality unassailable. High above the awed mortals she dispels chaos and imposes ideal order. The very fact of her appearance underlies the role of the gods in shaping human destiny. Golding's spiffy naval officer is, however, no god. Nor does he represent a higher morality. Confronted by the ragtag melee, he can only wonder that English boys hadn't put up a better show, and mistakes their savage hunt for fun and games à la Coral Island. While he cannot know the events preceding his arrival, his comments betray the same ignorance of human nature that contributed to the boys' undoing. Commanding his cruiser, the officer will direct a maritime search-and-destroy mission identical to the island hunt. Lord of the Flies ends with the officer gazing at the cruiser, preparing to reenact the age-old saga of man's inhumanity to man.

As noted in William Golding, the author fought in the Royal Navy during WWII onboard a destroyer, and was briefly involved in the pursuit and sinking of the Bismarck. It's hardly a stretch of the imagination to concede that the ending to Lord of the Flies was indeed a plot device (ie, "gimmick"), but one based on his wanting to make a deep sociopolitical statement, not the shallow 'cop-out' that the article currently implies. Using it as an example of deus ex machina demonstrates great ignorance unbefitting of an encyclopedia. nagualdesign (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that earlier in the passage Friedman says that "the officer is neither more nor less than the Greek deus ex machina in modern uniform." Friedman's argument is rather involved but I think it would be accurate to say that he holds that the arrival of the navy officers has the same effect within the plot, but because they are not god-like, this effect is also necessarily not god-like. It would be good to get another source on this to corroborate/supplement it, given Golding's admission that this is something of a weakness. Surely Friedman isn't the only source. (BTW, please be more careful with the citations, folks. Harold Bloom didn't write this text; he was only the editor of the book.) Mangoe (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The way I read it was that Friedman was elucidating both sides of the debate. He first states that Golding's 'admission' of the "gimmick" ending has been used by his detractors as a means of bashing him, then goes on to delineate the differences between the ending and classical deus ex machina. It can't really be said that Friedman holds either camp as being right or wrong, only that he provides a discourse on the subject. Therefore, to quote Friedman's paraphrasing of Golding's detractors as Friedman's opinion, and then to state that opinion in Wikipedia's voice, is misrepresenting of the source. Moreover, a gimmick is simply a device intended to attract attention. Unfortunately the word is synonymous with contrivance, a device that gives a sense of artificiality. Golding 'admitted' the former, not the latter. nagualdesign (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "the way I read it" should be ringing alarm bells. There's plenty of indication in Friedman's words which tell us that there are other analyses out there which address the ending and its defects or virtues as a DEM; it's time to go looking for them rather than rely on boiling down an extended argument. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I was simply conceding my own fallibility. Was Friedman elucidating both sides of the debate? Yes, he definitely was (stated nagualdesign, self-assuredly). Friedman does not argue that the ending is DEM, he actually goes on to describe how the ending is much more nuanced than that. nagualdesign (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If you're happy with the current wording, I'm satisfied that it be retained in the examples. After all, critics have indeed argued that the ending is DEM, and the source expands upon that discourse in a well-written NPOV manner. The problem I had with this and other examples is that they were written in WP's voice as though things are definitely DEM. Thanks for the help, Mangoe. Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Infinitely improbable

I've taken out the section about the infinite improbability drive from Hitchhiker's guide because it is uncited and because I don't see that a citation is going to be forthcoming. But don't let me stop anyone from finding a real reference for the claim. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Asimov and ironic use of deus ex machina

It seems ironic that asimov's fascination and use of deus ex machina in the Foundation series and I, Robot is not included in this article. The irony of its use in I,Robot where Asimov seems to take its more literal meaning and the irony of its omission in Wikipedia the modern realization of azimov's Encyclopedia Galactica from his Foundation series are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.244.79 (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Jurassic Park

I added an entry into modern examples of Deus ex machina, yet it was removed today. Can you enlighten me as to why this example should have been removed? Frankly, I find the "modern examples" section interesting -- if the examples there are good. Yet it appears as though others have listed examples that have later been removed. Sure, perhaps one doesn't want 50 examples here, that isn't really necessary. But there are so few modern examples currently, that there really is room for more.

Here is what I added yesterday, please enlighten me as to why this shouldn't be in the list:
At the end of the film "Jurassic Park" (1993), Grant, Sattler, Tim and Lex are cornered by two Velociraptors in the Visitor Center. Suddenly a Tyrannosaurus appears from off-screen, attacking and killing the Velociraptors allowing Grant and everyone to escape. Not only was the Tyrannosaurus too large to enter through any doors of the Visitor Center, it was unmotivated and didn't allow the ultimate confrontation between man and Velociraptor to be solved by the characters in the story. Classic deus ex machina. 76.175.167.85 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Because your own authority in analyzing this is insufficient. You need to be able to cite some reputable critic who gives this analysis, and really, it needs to be more than one person's eccentric idea. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ideas about Edits

Hi everyone-

I wanted to introduce myself. I am taking a look at this page and editing it for my graduate theater history class at Brooklyn College. Here is a list of my proposed edits based on research that I am doing. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

Structure (sections should be flushed out more and organized better) a. Origins, Greek, Roman (if any), Renaissance, Neoclassical, Modern, etc. 2. Discussion on Aristotle, Horace, and any other critic 3. Flush out the examples a. Shakespeare uses it (does he)-how? 4. Influence over theater a. Why do we care? 5. More/better pictures a. Possibly a timeline 6. Term usage a. Do we still use the term to discuss magical plot endings? Has a different term been coined?

Jsattler07 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Donnie Darko

As someone noted above, the list of examples could use extension. Is there something wrong with mentioning Donnie Darko? It's a great example, it's talked a lot about above. If it's any help, the director Richard Kelly had an extended scene directly addressing the mechanism that had to get cut out of the film because it was too lengthy. It's on the deleted scenes of the original DVD. Squish7 (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Please ping me with [[User:Squish7]] whenever replying to me.

Please, the translation is wrong and in fact much simpler.

Noun

māchina f ‎(genitive māchinae); first declension

1. machine
2. scheme, plan, machination

Literally from Latin: machination from god, scheme from god, plan from god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davedudie (talk • contribs)

While machina may indeed mean "scheme" or "plan", your translation is still back to front! It says "god from the machine", or "god from (the) plan" at a push, but not "plan from god". I'm going to revert your edit once more. Please do not edit the article again unless you can provide a reference to back up your assertion. nagualdesign 21:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, however. Languages don't translate straight like that. It clearly makes more sense with "plan from god" and isn't back to front at all. I thought wikipedia was collaborative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davedudie (talk • contribs) 00:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I have a strong feeling that you know even less about Latin than you do about Wikipedia. Yes, this is indeed collaborative, hence the three of us (Vítor, Davedudie and nagualdesign) thrashing this one out. Let me ask you a simple question; What makes you think that Deus ex machina means "Plan from god"? Did you read it somewhere? And if so, where? Wikipedia relies on reliable references. nagualdesign 15:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of Gendered Pronouns

Hey, I'm new to editing on this site as opposed to simply reading it, so sorry if I missed anything or went about this the wrong way, and also sorry that I end up getting so verbose in this entry, but I changed an instance of the pronoun "himself" to "themself", since the pronoun refers to a hypothetical writer whose gender is left unspecified. However, since the phrase in which this pronoun appeared was in quotation marks, and since there was no superscript hyperlinked number enclosed in square brackets indicating that the phrase was a verbatim quote from one of this article's sources, I am unsure whether the quotation marks are supposed to convey that the phrase was indeed intended to be a verbatim quote, or that the phrase expresses an opinion which is included for the sake of making the reader aware that such opinions exist rather than making the article itself explicitly express said opinion to the reader. If the quotation marks are in fact supposed to convey that their contents are a verbatim quote, then I suggest that either the source of the quote be cited and the word "themself" be enclosed in square brackets, or that the quotation marks be removed for the time being. If the quotation marks are there for the other reason I hypothesised above, then I believe that the article is acceptable as-is. AriaLyric (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to WP, AriaLyric! I see that somebody has already undone your edit before I could, and although it wasn't me who undid your edit perhaps I could explain why I would. Basically, "themself" isn't really a proper word. It mixes them, which is plural, with self, which is singular. While it's becoming more commonly used it should be avoided in formal written English. In the English language it's perfectly normal to say "himself" when describing somebody of indefinite and irrelevant gender. Don't worry, this has no bearing on the subjugation of women. Nobody is being oppressed by the fact that the writer "painted himself into a corner", rather than herself. I believe that the quotation marks are there to signify that the painting is done only figuratively or metaphorically. It's a turn of phrase. nagualdesign 02:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

'Is "themself" a word or not?' That's the wrong question. "An electron has mass" is a comment that is true or false about electrons, which humans did not invent and cannot control. We cannot re-engineer subatomic particles to our liking. But statments about language are not like this. We INVENT language. We do not DISCOVER the properties of a language by analysis in a laboratory. Since languges are DEVISED by humans, we can RE-DEVISE them at will. And we SHOULD do so, when there are moral stakes. It raises the question "Does someone who'll write things that sneak in a tacit assumption (because were it not snuck in tacitly but, rather, overtly declared, its immorality would be too obvious) that the language in question is a natural object which we can't alter to suit our aims hiding some immoral purpose like authoritarianism?"

Since WE MAKE language (and should exercise moral responsibility in doing so) the correct question can't possibly be "IS 'themself' a word?". The correct question must be "Do we DESIRE for 'themself' to be a word so that we can avoid gender-partiality?" The answer to that question is "yes". Language is not something OUTSIDE of ourselves that we observe and describe without choice. Language is what we CHOOSE it to be, what me MAKE it to be, and there's a reason NOT to make "him" serve as the gender-neutral singular pronoun. The very idea of something NOT being correct language as a fact of nature is a pretext for a hidden agenda of authoritarianism and social conformity. The truth is that nothing is or is not correct language unless we say so, just as there is no INHERENTLY correct side of the road to drive upon as long as drivers on the same road agree about it.

Futhermore, I've read somewhere that some centuries back "them" WAS in fact both the singular and plural pronoun. If that's not possible, please explain "you". It's both singular and plural. I'm not going to bother to track down the source that said that long ago "them" was a singular pronoun. One reason is that I have other things pressing on my time now. Another reason is that it shouldn't be necessary. Even if that source can't be found or was incorrect, it shouldn't matter. We have a reason to start using something other than "him" as a singular pronoun when gender is uknown AND ESPECIALLY WHEN gender is known but is simply not relevant to the discussion. Unlike subatomic particles, the laws that govern language belong to those who use language. Therefore those laws don't deserve to be held as sacrosanct (and certainly not as having a ranking higher than something like Equality). Swedish drivers used to drive on the British side of the road. Now they drive on the American side. The fact that they had always driven on the British side before was simply no argument against the change. What is best now? Should be change things to align with what is best NOW? The answer is yes. Conventions must not be carved in stone. They are ours to change as we see fit. And avoiding change for the sake of avoiding change isn't an example of someone arguing for what they think is best based on the purposes that language should serve. They're just being traditionalist, rather than arguing in good faith about how language works.

(Take for instance the rule against split infinitives. I am going to incessantly split as many infinitives as I can before I die. The splitting of infinitives doesn't undermine any clarity in what is said, and in fact refusing to ever split them can result in ambiguity: "I am running quickly to deliver medicine" is ambiguous in a world without split infinitives: is the person RUNNING quickly, or trying to mercifully DELIVER quickly? The rule against splitting infinitives was invented by pompous grammarians of the 18th or 19th century ONLY because they wanted to show the world that they knew that in many other languages the infinitive is a single word and thus can't be split. They were not concerned with language acquiring some ambiguity if rules were constructed a certain way. Their only concern was being "correct" No. Wrong. Their only concern was BEING SEEN to be correct.)

I've heard that "he not working" isn't correct language. Well, it absolutely is. The vast, no, not "vast" but "overwhelmingly vast", majority of languages in the world allow negatives without helping-verbs. English is very alone in that respect. French and Spanish people can say "he not working" without the waste of an "is". There is no valid and logical reason for requiring the "is". The other languages where it is not required (sorry, I meant "it not required") whose countries, trading-systems, and governments run perfectly well without helping-verbs in negatives prove beyond any doubt at all, I mean just SHATTER any argument to the contrary, that the "is" in "he is not working" is just plain BAD. Just wait 200 years. By that time, at least everyone in the U.S.A. will be saying things like "We not having any of this business of freezing language as it is rather than changing it to fit our purposes!"

Finally, the salutation "Welcome to WP, AriaLyric!" followed by the dismissal of all of AriaLyric's concerns as the anxieties of some naif who doesn't know better and only needs to be informed of her error by you is patronizing and disingenuous, offensively so. I didn't begin my post "Hello, nagualdesign, and I hope all is well with you" as if you are a friend because that's not who I am. I am honest. I DO hope all is well so that you live long enough to see your notions discredited by the world at large. But I don't have enough contempt for honesty, for myself, or even for you to pretend that I like you when I don't. Doing so would only undermined my credibility, my earnestness. I think you have ideas which, when examined under the brightest of lights, are revealed to be immoral (which is why you do some things to keep the lights dim, like suggesting that "themself" either is or is not a word as if that were a law of nature and not subject to human designs. I think (subject to correction by acquisition of future evidence) you're a bad person. I'm not going to hide it, as you would, behind an offensive veneer of politness. What would have been wrong with typing "Hello, AriaLyric, you're so wrong and here's why:" or "AriaLyric, you ignorant prole", since that is what you really think? They're probably an adult who can take it when they know they're right, as is the case here.74.64.104.99 (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

@74.64.104.99 oh for fucks sake. 146.200.132.29 (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien, eucatastrophe, cleanup and removal

Tolkien's concept of 'eucatastrophe' has nothing to do with 'deus ex machina'. It is a sudden turn in a story, but typically one that has been earned. The example Tolkien gives is this, from The Black Bull of Norroway:

Seven years I served for thee:

The glassy hill I clomb for thee:

The bluidy shirt I wrang for thee:

And wilt thou not wauken and turn to me?

He heard, and turned to her.

The material I have removed, conflating this concept with 'deus ex machina', contains no evidence that either Tolkien, or anybody else, believed that the two concepts had anything in common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChengduTeacher (talk • contribs) 04:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

God from Machinations

You're all wrong; machinations not machine. Credibility means nothing these days, everything is incredible. 142.113.114.180 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about Deism

I didn't know until today that "Deus Ex Machina" means "god FROM the machine". I guess I should've caught the "ex", but I didn't. What is the word for a god who has made the universe as a clockwork automaton? The goal of making an automaton is that it require no intervention once it has been created, wound up, and set to running, but will do what it is supposed to do guided ONLY by the clockwork driving it. If you believe in that kind of god, you believe it is a kind of blasphemy to say that God intervenes. If the Universe that God made was perfect from the git-go, everything that was ever going to happen was willed by that God into the Big Bang (or similar event) at the moment timulled was pe began. God would need to fix something only if God's design wasn't perfect. So what is the name for this conception of a god (the Deist god, the God AS Machine, not God FROM Machine) and would you consider posting a disambiguation-link at the top if the phrase for that is sufficiently similar to "Deus Ex Machina"?74.64.104.99 (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

It's called that because in the old Greek theatre they had a contraption called a roll-out, in which a god was brought out to the stage. The Latin word does not necessarily mean a machine with working parts, Virgil uses it of the Trojan horse. Suggest you read Aristotle's Poetics, tr. Butcher. It is nothing to do with the universe! Esedowns (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Oliver - reference to DEM might be incorrect

In "Oliver Twist," the fact that Rose is his aunt is central to the plot -- not a last-minute addition to resolve a problem. His grandfather recognizes early that there is something familiar about Oliver's appearance. The story is not about a poor boy who gets lucky, but of a wronged boy who is restored to his rightful place. A large portion of the story is devoted to the machinations of the other heir who seeks to deny Oliver of his inheritance. The fact that Rose is his aunt is central to the plot and without that fact, major portions of the book would need to be removed entirely. Dickens has a habit of revealing such hidden facts until the end of the story, but I don't think this is what the DEM phrase is meant to convey.2600:1700:51B3:5630:D92B:8D1D:A02:9729 (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

"At the end, Heracles shows up"

I can't decide if I like the informal tone of "At the end, Heracles shows up" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgrrr (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"Black box (fiction)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Black box (fiction) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 16 § Black box (fiction) until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)