Talk:Deus ex machina

Incorrect examples

Many of the things listed as D-E-M's are nothing of the sort, except as uber-literal interpretations.

As should have been remarked, it is not Deus Ex Machina to have a god emerging from a machine in fiction where gods in machines are part of the plot, well-understood, and can and do emerge from time to time.

A case in point was the entry on "The Parting of the Ways", the last episode of the 2005 Season of Doctor Who. Not only was the entire "Bad Wolf" scenario made extant throughout the entire season, the psychic capabilities of the Tardis were first made extant 30 years ago, and reiterated several times this season.

So the Deus Ex Machina can only be seen as such in a very literal interpretation, but certainly not in the traditional literary interpretation.

As such, I have removed it, and may remove several more. Some discretion needs to be taken with determining what is, and what isn't a D-E-M.

Martin Coxall

I beg to differ on this one. While the TARDIS's semi-sentient and telepathic nature were indeed long-established, the "Boom Town" episode (two episodes earlier) was the first to establish that forcing the TARDIS console open would grant the opener (in that case, Margaret Blaine/Blond Fel Fotch-Slitheen) a direct telepathic conversation with the heart of the TARDIS -- and even then, we're given no indication that the TARDIS can allow the communicant to become possessed with the time vortex and control all the minutiae of time and space! Though this development could be considered to follow naturally from what came before, it was hardly self-evident; even Rose, whose plan it was to open the console, only thought she'd be telling the TARDIS where to take her, not granting her godlike abilities.

As it happens, I reinstated "The Parting of the Ways" before I read your comment, and I didn't realize it had previously been in the list. Nevertheless, I'd like to leave my entry there... but as always, I might be convinced otherwise. --Jay (Histrion) 04:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Superman

I disagree with the assessment that Superman is an example of deus ex machina. It is well-established within the body of Superman literature that he has nearly invincible powers and in extremely vulnerable to kryptonite, so it isn't deus ex machina when Superman uses his powers to resolve an otherwise hopeless situation or when a villain uses Kryptonite to weaken him. If Superman were to suddenly develop an amazing new power to escape from a dangerous situation, then it would qualify as an example of deus ex machina; but since the entire premise of the Superman stories is that he has amazing powers, it adheres to the internal logic of the stories. A plot element doesn't qualify as deus ex machina simply because it is unbelievable or clumsy.

Actually, if you look him up, it does seem that in the early days, he WAS a sort of deus ex machina. He developed his powers into becoming near-invincible. Remember how he was orignally able to "leap tall buildings in a single bound"? Yeah, now he flies. -- MasterXiam 01:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Would it be appropriate to throw in a pronunciation guide, seeing as how this is a phrase, not a word, and it's not even in English? Something like DAY-oos ex MAH-kee-nuh instead of DOOS ex muh-SHEEN-uh. Sadly, I've actually heard someone use the latter pronunciation. :( --Dante Alighieri 08:09 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I, for one, think it could use it. —Frecklefoot 18:43 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Incorrect examples

Some of the examples cited seem way off beam to me. I can accept that the phrase is used metaphorically to refer to the resolution of the plot being taken out of the characters' hands, but surely it still has to have some element of outside intervention. Merely being absurd doesn't somehow seem to qualify. Deb 21:47 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree. One example I've frequently seen is the use of the eagle in Tolkien. When Tolkien's characters are impossibly immobilized, or hopelessly far away from a destination they need to reach at great speed, an eagle miraculously intervenes to provide transportation. It's not absurd, but neither is it well-integrated to the story: it's an author's device used to get the plot out of a jam; a deus ex machina. (And before anyone complains, I'm a huge fan of Tolkien's work. He himself thought the eagles were a bit overdone.) Jwrosenzweig 21:56 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the allegation that the term has been extended to include 007 and other "bullet-proof" characters. I've never heard of that before. Koyaanis Qatsi 22:54 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree with KQ about 007, I've never heard the phrase used this way. I am also curious as to which examples Deb questions as "off beam". --Dante Alighieri 01:10 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The one you just mentioned, for a start -- but I also think the Stephen King and Pabst examples are out of line. Okay, maybe Jack the Ripper is "ex machina", but not, I think, to a "deus" extent. Deb 17:30 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

IIRC, the King example is referred to as "the hand of God" within the text. I'll have to look up the book. I can't vouch for the others. Koyaanis Qatsi 18:33 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that one passes. Deb 19:48 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

re: The Stand's Hand of God (spoiler warning):

It's at the end of chapter 73, except it's referred to in caps: The Hand of God. Apparently this was foreshadowed earlier in the novel, though I don't remember it (so would it be deus ex machina if the author intended it? King established that one of the characters is a pyromaniac, and insane, and so laid the groundwork for the conclusion. Though in all honesty, I can't remember how skillfully he established it--rereading some of his books I'm much less impressed with them than I was 10 years ago). Anyway, so about the Hand of God--the antagonist has just been torturing someone with a small ball of blue electricity (it's a book about the supernatural, mind you) and the insane pyromaniac has just come on scene bringing along an atomic bomb on an electric cart, taking it to his master because he thinks it's the ultimate form of fire, hence the ultimate gift. Meanwhile the ball of electricity has ascended, grown, and changed its shape so that it looks like a hand. The Hand of God detonates the atomic bomb, annihilating the entire city. Oh yeah, the book's central theme is the struggle between good and evil in a post-apocalyptic world. Some of the characters think God himself stepped in at the end. Who knows what King thinks. Koyaanis Qatsi 22:08 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph from the article, moved here until it's verified:

The term is also used to describe a fictional character who never seems to have any problems getting out of a difficult situation. Examples would include: James Bond, MacGyver, etc.

I disagree with the assessment of the game 'Deus Ex' in fact the article it links to disagrees with this articles interpretation of the tituar deus ex machina. From 'Deus ex': "These most obviously refer to the game's protagonist JC Denton and the cybernetic themes of the game. Also, Warren Spector (producer of System Shock), one of the game's designers, has stated the name was a dig at the typical video game plot, which tends to be laden with "deus ex machina" artifices and other poor script writing techniques."

On Bulletproof Characters and Superheros, Specifically Wolverine

I wouldn't say bulletproof characters on their own are dei ex machinis. James Bond stories require a bulletproof character; they wouldn't work otherwise. Thus within the story, James Bond is completely acceptable. The audience is willing suspend disbelief that far. A deus ex, however, is absurd within the story. For Mr. Bond to suddenly develop perfect natural night vision just before Villain X threw him into a dark tiger-filled cage would be something of a deus ex machina.

Another example is Wolverine from the X-Men. On his own, he's a character with a deep backstory, and an explanation for just about every unbelievable thing he's done. The tendency of the writers to drop him into almost every hopeless situation is a deus ex.

Improbable but plausible: Wolverine has been independently investigating (villain). The X-(people) have also been, unbeknownst to each other. As (villain) captures the X-(people) for whatever reason, Wolverine finally breaks in and saves everyone. Not likely, but it could happen.

Deus ex machina: The X-(people) are trapped in (villain)'s lair, just about to die, when suddenly Wolverine drops in from the sky. "Wolverine!" cries (heroine) "Weren't you in (exotic location)?" "Yes, but I had a feeling something was wrong here so I dropped everything and smelled you guys out with my incredible senses!"

The first isn't likely, but it could happen believably, especially if it was properly led up to. The second really isn't plausible in the least - it's ridiculous within the story, showing that the writers were stuck for an easy out. That's a deus ex. PMC 00:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Divine intervention

Why does "Divine intervention" get sent to this page? JWSchmidt 16:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Presumably because whoever set up the redirect wasn't really thinking about it. Fixed now. --Paul A 07:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lord of the Flies: NOT a DEM

The ending of this story is NOT a Deus Ex Machina, because the Royal Navy are alerted to the island by the smoke caused by the aggressive boys setting fires all over the place in order to lure out the hunted boys. They go there to investigate and find the children.

It was my understanding that most people considered the ending innapropriately abrupt. The way everything suddenly became alright when the Navy arrived was a complete about-face from the slow, deliberate, detailed pace of the rest of the book. The ending was rushed and unlikely. A DEM does not have to be "all of a sudden" or "Out of the blue". It doesn't take much thought to tie back to the smoke, and it wouldn't have taken much to add it, creating the tie in.

I was always under the impression that it was written to be deliberately abrupt, as if to make a point. In any case, I wouldn't call it a DEM. --Anaraug 04:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I had always assumed that the ending was a DEM, but an intentional one. The boys were caught up in a war, and seemingly one with little hope. Yet their saviour stands in in the form of an adult, something which throughout the novel, and even at this late stage, has been seen by the boys as the apotheosis of authority. Yet to the reader we have a position that is slightly ironic. The boys are being saved by someone who is embroiled in their own war, caught in a sitation that mirrors that seen on the island. And yet and there is no source of authority, no DEM that will stand in in this sitution. Through using this device, Golding projects the seemingly hopeless situation on the island to mankind as a whole.--JamesGlover 00:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Authentic deus ex machina examoples are still needed

The remarks by Deb 24 Jul 2003 still hold true. Some examples from Greek tragedy and from opera seria would anchor this chatty entry. Wetman 07:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about some real life DEMs? I know that's somewhat of a contradiction, but surely there are real life events that would seem to be DEMs in a story. Is there a way to make this not original research? --SPUI (talk) 22:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--What of Teri Hatcher's recent testimony in a child molestation case? Her last minute testimony saved the prosecution's case and resulted in the conviction of a pedophile who was about to go free for lack of compelling evidence.

Pirates of the Carribean

Isn't Capt. Sparrow's "zombieness" saving him from Barbosa's attack something of a Deus Ex Machina?

Yes and no; the fact that Sparrow stealing that one coin was shown just before the fight (even though you had to pay very close attention) more or less introduces it and thus justifies it. Had it not been shown at all before but only added on in a kind of "oh and by the way we didn't tell you before, but..." afterwards it would certainly have qualified for a full case of DEM. -Bringa 11:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Night's Dawn Trilogy

"In The Night's Dawn Trilogy by Peter F. Hamilton, an alien artifact known as "the Sleeping God" is used to solve a problem which over 3000 pages have been working through, in less than 5 minutes (or an hour, in the "Tinkerbell/Ketton" events)."

A lot of people accuse the book of ending with a DEM, but it's simply nonsensical. The whole 3 books are building to this, starting from the first glimpse of the Tyrathca's shrine to the sleeping god.

It's not like they found out about the god, went to find it, and solved the story within 5 pages, it gradually built to it over 3000 pages and as such, I dont see how it really qualifies as DEM. After all, it's not as if the sleeping god actually solves the philosophical problem of the possessed, this is left to QD and Joshua - Bastion 8 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)

Plural

Can someone confirm the plural here? There's dei ex machinis in the article, while I'd be inclined to go for dei ex machina. I guess the issue is "gods from [outside] the machine" against "gods from [outside] the machines". I don't even know whether we need a Latinist or just someone with a few ounces of common sense. Or should we use dei ex machinis for a group of them from many stories, while dei ex machina is (should it ever happen) one story contains more than one instance? (Just thinking out loud now.)

I'm sticking with ...machinis for the time being, but I'd like to know. And then we've got something both consistent and (hopefully) correct. Wooster 22:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Since machina, ae is declinatio seconda, the plural should be dei ex machina for "gods from the machine" and dei ex machinis for "gods from the machines", since the e,ex requires ablativum; that depends if you want to translate also the word machine or not. Federico Pistono 12:13, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

Yes... my question was really about English grammar, not Latin. In English, would we say "the plots of these books end with gods from outside the machine" or "the plots of these books end with gods from outside the machines"? Wooster 17:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be preferrably to change the wording in these cases so that such a plural can be avoided ("instances of [deus ex machina] technique", or whatever would fit the context). Using Latin plurals in English texts, in cases where the Latin plural isn't widely used, feels quite forced and unnecessary.

Although I'm obviously not in favour of any Latin plural, my personal preference lies with dei ex machina, since you wouldn't use a different machina for each deus. (Google results disagree, though: [1] [2].) Making a difference between dei ex machinis in several different stories and dei ex machina in the same story is far too elaborate for my taste. EldKatt (Talk) 18:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect examples

Does anyone else have trouble with some of the examples here? Our definition says a DEM is "any resolution to a story which does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic and is so unlikely it challenges suspension of disbelief". Let's look at some of the examples in this light:

• War of the Worlds: the resolution is entirely within the premises of the story (assuming we're talking about the book - I haven't seen the movie). In fact the resolution seems entirely plausible, and would have seemed even more so in Wells day. In fact the resolution makes a significant point - where Man with all his power could not prevail, the humblest things in nature did so for him.
• The Pit and the Pendulum again nothing in the resolution that wasn't set up in the story, with only the exceptionally fortuitous timing making it unlikely. That makes it no more a Deus Ex than most action adventure movies, along with most action-based TV series and virtually every Star Trek episode.

Can I remove those? DJ Clayworth 15:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I added the The War of the Worlds example again, before i saw this comment. I think it is legitimate - i know a fair few of my friends thought it was a disappointing quick fix when they saw the movie. --ColdFeet 11:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Majora's Mask example is very pertinent. Isn't the whole point of Link going through the game, completing the dungeons, etc, solely to summon the giants to stop the moon's descent? Foolish Mortal 23:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If anything, the Ocarina of Time (the item, not the game) is a Deus Ex Machina. Just as the moon is falling, Link manages to obtain it in time and plays it, so he can travel back in time to when the whole thing began. -- MasterXiam 02:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My personal definition of deus ex machina is anything that makes me scream "Oh come on, give me a break!!" and hurl the book across the room hard enough to dent the wall. The so-called ending of The War of the Worlds certainly satisfied that definition. Anyway, I came here to point out a probable typo and couldn't find a better place than this to put it. Is "Where in the name of dues ex machina did that T-Rex come from?" a typo, or did the character actually say "dues" instead of "deus"? Whoever knows for sure, can fix it. Aumakua 21:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal definitions of well-defined dictionary words are not an acceptable means of determining what gets listed under those words in the encyclopedia. Objective point of view throughout is a defining characteristic of encyclopedias, and is a major obstacle for Wikipedia being considered such a work.

The ending of War of the Worlds is a borderline case. On the surface, it qualifies, but you have to consider that the first part of the definition (from wiktionary:deus ex machina) is "[a]ny resolution to a story that does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic." The internal logic of War of the Worlds, and indeed the moral of the story, is that mankind has earned the right to live on Earth by paying in blood the cost of immunity from the planet's microbes, and while man cannot defend himself from hostile invaders, the planet will take care of it.

War of the Worlds should not come as a surprise to anyone with a grounding in literature, as the novel was written with this ending in 1898. See War of the Worlds (novel). It probably does not belong on this page without a note that the ending, while a borderline deus ex machina, was intentional and was the point of the story. Regardless of its inclusion on the list, however, it should only be listed once (as of this writing, it is listed twice).

I am going to make these two edits (removing the second, movie-specific listing, and noting that the point of the story is the same element cited as a deus ex machina). Ari 04:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask a question about the examples. Would it be okay to add mentions to the Anime series "Dragon Ball Z"? I happen to remember noting many examples in there (one of the many reasons I actually don't like the show), such as Goku becoming a Super Saiyan, or the later advanced levels of it. I think it's worth a mention, but I'd just like to put that out there first and see what others thought. -- MasterXiam 01:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Split article

I think that since the list of examples is getting so numerous, it should be moved into a list article. They should also be categorised into plots that are considered deus ex machinis; and other things that are not, such as episodes called "deus ex machina". I also think that those examples that people disagree on should not be deleted, but moved to a 'disputed' group if they must. --ColdFeet 11:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Just move the (annoyingly long) list of examples to this Talk Page and have people vote on them, setting a maximum number of examples for each type before the voting begins. Simple solution.

- P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly think that the examples need to be split out to a seperate article, the article isn't really that long and would be rather short without it. I also don't agree that there should be a maximum number of examples, it will just lead to arguments about which example is better. Any disputed examples should be discussed on the this talk page as some have already been. However, I do agree that the distinction should be made between things called "deus ex machina" and examples in plot so I'll have a look at that now, any other volunteers? -- Lochaber 13:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Buffy

Can someone clean up the Buffy 7th Season entry in the list? I would, but I didn't watch Season 7, and I can't quite make out what the writer is trying to say. --Jay (Histrion) 04:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter

I don't think the Harry Potter references are D.E.M. since it's part of a longer story...

Spiderguy524

Translation

you need to add somehting that tells the reader what it means in english, damm fools of editors. thanQ

Done. Hyacinth 18:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

It would appear that this article was vandalized, the text replaced with "Poop poop poop. . ." I do not know how to restore it, but thought I should say something. -gar (Wikipedia fan) 27 Oct 2005; 22:48 UTC

I figured out how to restore the last good draft. Yeah! My first edit on Wikipedia! - gar (Wikipedia fan) 27 Oct. 2005; 22:58 UTC

Good work, kid. Don't get cocky. -Han Solo

Alligator in the transom

May I suggest an article about the Alligator in the transom. It is, in a sense, the logical opposite of D-E-M, and is likewise a cop out plot device. It refers to a situation where things are going smoothly for the protagonists, so "an alligator falls from the transom". Rather than being the "God in the machine" that saves the protagonists, it's the "Devil in the machine" that causes problems for them. Whereas D-E-M fails to follow the story's internal logic in resolving a problem, the alligator in the transom fails to follow the story's internal logic in creating a problem.

The D-E-M article mentions the scene from The Wizard of Oz where Glinda makes it snow, as an example. I would contend that the witch making the field of poppies appear, causing the characters to fall asleep, would qualify as an example of an alligator in the transom. --12.34.246.36 22:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Devil in the Machine

Requesting permission to add the aformentioned genius poster's idea of a "devil in the machine" idea to this article. While this thing is a heaping mound of garbage that is nothing more than a vehicle for random posters to express their hate for a particular series, I would like to salvage it.

Machina ex Deus

Some of the examples aren't Deus ex Machina, they are the reverse. Rather than having the solution come out of nowhere, the problem comes out of nowhere, and is set up to be one the hero just happens to be able to solve. Putting a character who can walk through walls into a situation that can only be resolved by walking through a wall is Machina ex Deus, not Deus ex Machina.--RLent 20:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be an article or a list?

I have a pet peeve about entries like this one where there's an unnecessarily long list of examples of something rather than an actual article about it. My intention is to remove a good 90% of the examples here (including any questionable ones such as those discussed on this page). I'm not sure how much I can add to the article, but to my mind, clearing the deadwood would be an "addition by subtraction" situation; perhaps if the article was pruned in actual length to the stub in really is, it would encourage some positive stuff to be added. Thoughts? Matt Deres 04:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the example list is too long; it adds nothing to the appreciation of the subject. However, I have seen the effect of trying to prune or add "notable" to the subtitles; the article becomes a hit and run target for everyone who just studied the topic in class (cf Dystopia before List of dystopian films was created). The list is now just silly. I tried to add a tiny bit more structure: I think it's important to distinguish bad writing from intentional comedy. On the other hand, creating articles that are lists is just a cop out to avoid applying quality control; once created I don't suppose they are revisited by those who worked on the main body of the original article. Notinasnaid 17:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have started pruning the lists. In the first cull, I tried removing blatant mis-ID's, generalizations, and the obscure stuff. Since the purpose is to illustrate the concept, I think the best examples are ones people are already familiar with rather than anything non-mainstream (unless it's a particularly good example, of course :-). I will cut more out unless someone beats me to it. Matt Deres 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think that the list should just be split out into a seperate article just leaving a couple of major examples in the main article. -- Lochaber 00:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If we can illustrate the point with a handful of examples from different kinds of literature, what exactly is the gain of adding a list? A dozen examples illustrate the point; a hundred examples would cloud it again. Matt Deres 11:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the point of the list would be list examples, not illustrate a point. If it's a seperate article I don't really see how it can cloud the original Deus ex machina article, if anything it will serve to stop people from adding confusing examples to the article. -- Lochaber 14:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Breaking the list out to another lets people add their favorite example into it, but we can add some well expanded and described (and hopefully well-known) examples to this article. As it is now, this page is more "List of Deus ex machina examples" than "Deus ex machina". If people want to see more examples, they would be able to click on the related article link to look at them. The demiurge 05:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree about the idea that a long list of examples is bad (I actually think they can be quite handy in reinforcing concepts), I agree that this list needs to be trimmed, but mostly because alot of them are not D-E-Ms. For example, in Jurassic Park 3, Dr. Grant calls his friend to get him the army during the course of the movie. In Metal Gear Solid, Foxdie is a main plot point. Both of these examples, and many others, sound simply like lifelines.

Another thought... one way to police a short list would be to insist that (a) the item mentioned must be in Wikipedia and (b) the Wikipedia article must actually use the "deus ex machina" phrase. That would then require consensus among people who know the subject that it really was. I used to use something similar to this to prune the ever-growing list in dystopia before it was split out. Notinasnaid 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a few weeks and I think we need to get moving. I think making a separate list page is the wrong thing to do (you're moving the problem away rather than cleaning it up), but I'll stand aside if that's the group consensus. If no move is done within the next few days, I will re-start my plan to hack down the list into some kind of manageability. One other note - if someone does move the list, please consider trimming it anyway; there are still poor examples in there that serve no good purpose. Matt Deres 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Making a separate list page is moving the problem away rather than cleaning it up, but it does move the problem to a page most people will only see if they're specifically looking for it. And if you don't move it away, people will still add their own favorite example of the device to this page even after you (or anyone) cleans it up. That said, good luck. The demiurge 22:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the rule that everything in Wikipedia has to have a source. I can already see, as Wikipedia matures, more and more articles being gone over to require sources and exclude what has no source. Perhaps now is the time to insist on sources for everything in the list (or my alternative rule that it has to refer to a Wikipedia article that uses deus ex machina directly, moving the burden of sources to another article). If this rule were applied, and consistently used to vet new entries, the list would collapse to managable proportions. It will have to be done eventually, so maybe now is the time. Notinasnaid 13:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I like both your suggestions. Getting sources for something like this might be tough, but it's probably worthwhile. At the very least, it would be a kind of back-up to defend inclusion - "I'm not saying LOTR has a DEM, I'm only reporting that so-and-so says there is." To my mind, that more closely follows general policy here of no original research, etc. IMO, your standards would be reasonable for creating a list page, with the very best of those included here. I think that satisfies everybody's who's chimed in their opinions on this. How about we work on sourcing stuff on this page and when we get a dozen or so, we move them to a list-page, remove the unsourced stuff (but append it on the list's talk page as a to-do kind of thing) and start discussing which examples we want to keep here? Matt Deres 17:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

LOTR(Lord of the Rings)

This event isn't really a Dues ex machina, I would think, as the reason why the eagles couldn't help before is explicable simply by the fact that Sauron was still alive and would have destroyed/obstructed the eagles before that point.--Vercalos 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

But that explanation isn't given in the book (IIRC); in fact, doesn't Gandalf say something to the effect that the eagles *won't* help because this isn't any of their business? Fact is, this eagle thing is just a more egregious example of a similar part the eagles played in the Hobbit - swooping in to save the day at the battle of five armies. Tolkien had written himself into a corner; he obviously didn't want Frodo and Sam to die, but couldn't find a more plausible way to save them. I think this is one of the purest DEMs we have in the list right now; I'd leave it in even if we cut the list down to only two or three examples. Matt Deres 13:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition of machina

While of course machina can mean machine, the correct translation here is crane, since that's what the classical dramatists used to lower down their gods. You can see that in http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=deus+ex+machina and http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=machin&ending=a The demiurge 12:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the classical language concerned, but something seems wrong overall because Wikipedia defined machina only as a crane. They should agree, I think. Also, the very word "machine" I think would mean something different to a modern audience to an ancient Greek audience, so crane may well be a better translation. Notinasnaid 13:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but then I think there is an abuse of the word "literally" at the beginning of the article. A literal translation and a colloquial translation are not the same thing and the difference should be specified. I just don't think it's an honest use of the word "literally" KristoferM 03:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just take out this recent addition, and leave the apparently uncontroversial "linguistic considerations" in place? Any objections? Notinasnaid 09:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of "literally meaning 'god from the machine' (colloquially 'god from the crane')"? I'm happy w/ that compromise.KristoferM 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, 'crane' is the better translation, even though most people who give the translation say 'machine'. The important fact is what the phrase actually refers to, which is the lowering of actors by a crane mechanism to the stage. The demiurge 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, no objections to the use of the 'crane' part. My objection is primarily to the use of the word 'literal'. Dictionary.com says, LITERAL - 6: (of a translation) corresponding word for word with the original. A LITERAL translation is word for word. "God from the crane" is not, and will never be, a LITERAL translation. The word 'machina' means 'machine'. Thus the opening statement of the article is false. 'Crane' doesn't fly by this definition. Is there a way we could include both without using terribly awkward wording? KristoferM 19:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I just removed it and added a bit to the linguistic section. We might as well keep the linguistic stuff in the linguistic section where we can explain it more fully. That was my purpose in making the section in the first place, but user 4.226.255.175 put it back, perhaps without reading the full article. The demiurge 22:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a lovely way to handle it.  ;) KristoferM 20:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Refactor?

Shall we refactor this page to have all discussions of possibly incorrect examples together? Hyacinth 19:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitchhikers Guide: The Heart of Gold

While I have no intention of unnecessarily extending the list with example after example I was wondering if this was worthwhile. Douglas Adams has admitted that he somewhat wrote himself into a corner when he threw Arthur and Ford out of the Vogon ship. It was all a symptom of writing the radio-scripts between shows, and his well know disregarding of deadlines. ("I love deadlines, I love the wooshing sound they make as they go by.") He has described how he hated improbable resolutions of the kind, 'And in one bound jack was free' (ie. A DEM) and so he wanted to play arround with this. He realised that he needed something wildly improbable, and so actualy decided to use a device that exploited this to the full (And actually became a key plot device) So the Heart of Gold interestingly was a DEM in its invention, but actually hid this fact by using its sheer improbability to its advantage.--JamesGlover 00:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)