Deus Ex Machina vs. A Twist

[PTeppic]

I have a philosophical question about plot devices, though it sounds like a cheap cracker-joke:

What is the difference between deus ex machina and a good/bad twist?

I happened to be checking the Wikipedia definition of deus, which is as follows:

...a surprising or unexpected event occurs in a story's plot, often to resolve flaws or tie up loose ends in the narrative...

That to me just sounded like "a twist", the sort of plot turn you'd expect to find half a dozen of at the end of an M. Night Shyamalan movie. Is a twist therefore a cheap, layman's term, or are there differences?

 

[Strain Of Thought]

I'd say the differences involve how sudden it is, how foreshadowed it is, and how consistent it is with the story so far. A deus ex machina may be very abrupt and completely unforeshadowed without actually being surprising: for example, the tendency for the cavalry to arrive and save the day just as things look hopeless in old westerns, or the Millennium Falcon swooping down to pull Luke's fat out of the fire just before he gets toasted.

On the other hand, a twist may explicitly contradict earlier story elements, and require a further explanation- for example, Commissioner Gordon saving Batman's hide in The Dark Knight when he's supposed to be dead. A twist must be surprising to be good.

Also, a deus ex machina usually resolves or reduces conflict- a twist usually increases conflict.

 

[Peter Graham]

Hi PTeppic,

The difference is really one of degree - the point at which a plot twist becomes an enormous contrivance in which a powerful but hitherto unknown third party is introduced to shoehorn in a particular outcome (or to achieve something which the characters can't achieve themselves because the writer has carelessly painted them into a corner) is the point at which you have crossed the line into deus ex machina.

"Deus ex machina" as a phrase comes from the ancient Greek playwrights, who every now and again would physically lower a character suitably doled up as Zeus or whoever onto the stage. As gods had to come down from Mount Olympus, the character might be lowered onto the stage by a crane (one possible translation of the word "machina").

Once in situ, the god would then use his or her divine powers to direct the outcome of the plot, effectively riding roughshod over the previous twists and turns of the action. By way of a modern(ish) example, the "Sinbad" and "Jason of the Argonauts" films of the 1970's used a lot of deus ex machina as the gods played out the human action like a game of chess. But it works in that context, as divine intervention is actually all part of the mythos and the backdrop.

A 21st century equivalent might be the old schoolboy cop out of "a big black dog came and ate them all up", but more subtle versions might include The Sudden Discovery Of A Phenomenally Powerful Artifact Which Gets Us Out of That Scrape But Is Then Forgotten About or the Sudden Arrival Of A Mysterious Patron Who Gets Us Out of That Scrape And Then Goes Home Again.

Basically, if your characters remain in control of their own destinies and stand or fall by their own actions and decisions, then whatever the plot twists, you are unlikely to stray into deus ex machina.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Boneman]

You know, I've learnt more from this thread than I thought possible.....do you teach writing courses, Peter? That is the clearest, most jargon-free explanation I've ever seen....it should be a sticky, can't believe the clarity of it!
ps: how are the taters?
pps: sorry, not meaning to hijack thread...don't reply!

 

[PTeppic]

Thanks for the replies.

It does suggest an obvious (though perhaps overly subjective) game for the games-room "deus or twist"...

 

[Peter Graham]

Thanks Boneman- that's really appreciated.

Jargon is the curse of any profession or hobby and, unfortunately, writing is no exception, which surprises me as surely a good writer should be a good communicator! That said, this forum is kept mercifully jargon free, for which everyone deserves a huge pat on the back!

The taties are fine, thanks. They'll want earthing up soon.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Team 2012]

I'd say your question stems from a bad definition. What deus ex machina is about is not "surprising" so much as "unwarranted by the story". It's an intrusion into the plot, the characterization, etc.
It's seen as a copout.

Whereas a twist is generally an organic outgrowth of the story. Generally, the twist is the generating idea behind the story.

And while it may surprise the reader, it is usually positioned of fore-shadowed. It's a natural twist, so to speak.

Readers can tell the difference between these. A woman suddenly turns out to be a vampire is often what the story has been setting up, or turns the story into another street, so to speak.
A guy hopeless trapped in a hole who suddenly turns out to be an android so he can jump out is a different matter and read as a copout.

 

[Team 2012]

By the way, the all-time champion machine god intervention has got to be in Mel Gibson's "Apocalypso".

The hero is saved by the sudden appearance of a jaguar who prefers to attack his pursuers than him, by a solar eclipse occurring at the exact second his head is laid on the sacrificial chopping block, then by a once in all history event... he is caught, but ignored because it happens to be the exact moment when the Spanish conquistadors arrive in the Americas in a galleon.

Thing is, nobody complains. It works for that film for some reason. Perhaps in the same way it works for John Wayne to shoot twenty baddies with one six gun from a bucking horse.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

A woman suddenly turns out to be a vampire is often what the story has been setting up, or turns the story into another street, so to speak.
A guy hopeless trapped in a hole who suddenly turns out to be an android so he can jump out is a different matter and read as a copout.

These are both twist endings, in that a character already part of the story turns out to be something you weren't supposed to expect. Unfortunately, a lot of twist endings are unintentionally telegraphed (the turns-out-to-be-a-vampire story has become such a cliché that it telegraphs itself), or make no sense, or are tacked on at the end of otherwise pointless stories. It's actually very difficult to pull off a twist ending that doesn't fall into any one of those categories.

With a deus ex machina, someone or something enters the story -- presto! -- just in time to provide the resolution.

On the one hand (the twist), the character was a vampire all along, the reader just didn't know it. On the other (the deus,) the main character's hitherto unknown fairy vampire-mother appears and waves a wand.

 

[Pyan]

Good article:

Deus Ex Machina - Television Tropes & Idioms

 

[Lith]

Ideally a story's outcome is determined from the beginning by the characters and situations first given. A plot twist is an unseen part of this structure; a deus ex machina isn't, and in a sense it never resolves the thematic problem set out at the beginning, though it can wrap up a good adventure story where the theme isn't such a big part of the book as, say, with a serious piece of literature.

It's a pretty forgivable plot trick if it isn't overused.

 

[ctg]

Maybe I could put Deus Ex Machina in different way. As if to say that the characters are given a quest, like cast the one ring in the fiery depths of Mount Doom. Readers know that and they ultimate want to see it happening, but they don't see the twist. Golum gets the ring and takes it with him to the end. In there both accounts has been fulfilled. One was known from the beginning and one couldn't be seen happening.

 

[Peter Graham]

Hi CTG,

How goes it?

Maybe I could put Deus Ex Machina in different way. As if to say that the characters are given a quest, like cast the one ring in the fiery depths of Mount Doom. Readers know that and they ultimate want to see it happening, but they don't see the twist. Golum gets the ring and takes it with him to the end. In there both accounts has been fulfilled. One was known from the beginning and one couldn't be seen happening.

This isn't deus ex machina, though. The fact that the plot had been carefully set up and that no-one but a post modern numpty would seriously doubt for more than one second that the ring would be destroyed is not the same thing. Frodo and Sam stood or fell by their choices. At the crucial moment, Frodo had a wobbler and Gollum had to finish the job, but by that time Gollum was an intrinsic part of the plot and the resolution - he hadn't just been wheeled on at that moment to interfere with, and direct, the all-important final resolution.

By way of contrast, the following outcomes would have been deus ex machina:-

1. The LOTR Pedant Universal Whinge Resolution. As Frodo keels over on Mount Doom, Gwaihir the Windlord appears out of the mists, picks the ring up, drops it into the mountain and then goes home to eat some more rabbits.

2. The Older Forces are at Work Resolution. Right at the point that Frodo keels over, blue-hatted snake-oil vendor Tom Bombadil suddenly bounces up the mountain with a "hey derry whack fol diddle in the merry merry month of May, me hearties!" Confuscating the Nazgul with a series of tawdry card tricks and by magically producing toffees from behind his ear, Tom flicks the ring into the fire and then prances back down the slope like a superannuated fairy, no doubt twittering all the while about how "Goldberry is a-waiting."

3. The Hollywood Blockbuster Resolution. As Frodo keels over, a Great Hero with a Massive Gun (choose from an ageing actor in a vest, Will Smith with an enormous cigar or a detachment of US Marines) drops out of a Chinook, blasting the Nazgul with HE rounds and sassy one-liners. The Great Hero picks up the ring and, remembering some past agony (choose from the orcs killing his Dad, the Nazgul killing his son or Sauron furtling his goldfish), wipes away a tear and drop kicks the ring into the fire, whilst a hastily assembled cast of oppressed villagers whoop like a bunch of retarded baboons.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Ursa major]

LOL (particularly for variant 3).


* Begins to suspect that Peter is a script doctor for Hollywood blockbusters. *

 

[dreir]

Hmm.. I'm beginning to think that ending your novels with a deus ex machina is a lot more fun than the old unexpected-but-satisfactory twist method. An ageing Rambo surfing down an avalanche using an elven shield while spraying the Dark Lord with bullets sounds just perfect for the climax of my book..

- Dreir -

 

[HareBrain]

Peter, I'd be interested to know if you think the rescue of Frodo and Sam by eagles constitudes a Deus ex Machina? In Bored of the Rings (in which I now think you might have had a hand) they actually have the words "Deus ex Machina Airlines" written on them - but is their sparse presence earlier in the story, including Gwaihir's rescue of Gandalf, enough to avoid this tag?

 

[Peter Graham]

Hi H-B,

That's a jolly interesting question. Whilst not pretending to be an expert on these matters, I'm going to say that it isn't a deus ex machina, but only just!

Points in favour of it being a DEM are that without the eagles, Frodo and Sam would have been dead meat. Their rescue is highly convenient, if nothing else. In addition, the eagles have (as you say) only made the briefest of appearances to that point and, when they did appear, they did so unexpectedly in order to save the day at the Black Gate, which was also rather convenient. That said, Gandalf's rescue from Orthanc worked well and wasn't at all contrived in my view, thanks to Radagast the Worm Tamer.

But the whole point of the quest was to destroy the ring. Frodo and Sam surviving would have been nice, but getting them out of Mordor alive was no part of the plan. So, because the eagles acted to save Frodo and Sam rather than acting to achieve the actual aim of the quest, I think it falls short of DEM and instead just becomes a workable (albeit somewhat contrived) way of tying up a loose end.

What do you think?

Best regards,

Peter

 

[HareBrain]

Your argument makes perfect sense.

Is that lazy of me?

 

[dreir]

I'm in the DEM camp on this one. It struck me like a DEM the first time I read it, so I'm gonna go with that. After all, it's your reader's first impression that's going to tell you whether it's a DEM or not, I think. I'm not sure if being not part of the quest objective is a valid excuse?

Like Peter but at a reverse angle, I'm gonna say that it's only just, though..

- Dreir -

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think it may depend on whether or not you're looking at LOTR and The Hobbit as two separate works, which is a perfectly valid approach, though not the one I favor.

If you take The Hobbit into account, it's already been established that the eagles (for inscrutable reasons known only to the larger predatory avians) have been known to turn up unannounced to fight in important battles, and that they'll rescue Gandalf's friends from tight spots.

Given all this, one might even ask, "What took the eagles so long to enter the fray? Where were they while the Battle of Helm's Deep was in progress? Where were they when Minas Tirith was under attack?" (I think we must refer here to those inscrutable avian reasons.) And once they do make an appearance in the vicinity of Mordor at the strategic moment, why wouldn't Gandalf send a trio of eagles on a rescue mission? I am sure that if Tolkien's plans had called for Frodo and Sam to drown in lava and be seen no more, we would all be asking each other why there hadn't even been an attempt to air-lift them out via the eagles, why Gandalf, usually so resourceful, didn't even make an attempt to snatch his little chest-- that is, hobbits, out of the fire.

Leave out the relevant scenes in The Hobbit, though, and the eagles look an awful lot like a DEM.