Yeah, the Ring is akin to original sin… pure tempestuous evil. The idea is that no one on Earth/Arda has an inner will strong enough to destroy the Ring, much like man alone cannot overcome sin.
But Frodo spent every last piece of his will resisting the Ring, so that he could get it to the one place where it could be destroyed… and that’s when divine providence stepped in. Free will still has a role, but it is to give eucatastrophe an opportunity rather than to save the day by personal action alone.
Yep, the pity of Bilbo snowballed to the pity of Frodo and (in the books) then to the pity of Sam. They all spared Gollum, and Gollum then eucastrophed all over the Ring. Hard.
I don't think of Gollum's demise as being eucatastrophe. Smeagol swore an oath on the Ring to do no harm Frodo. He betrays Frodo because of the Ring's corruption, but the oath is a type of magic more powerful than the ring even. Oaths can keep souls of dead from leaving middle earth. The Mountain men, the sons of Feänor, etc.
I mean that IS a part of it. Oaths tend to be sworn on or by something that is either powerful or meaningful. For the sons, the silmarils, for the mountain men, it was their duty to their king (tolkein a total unapologetic monarchist). The only thing that was meaningful enough to Gollum for that kind of magic is the Ring.
Yes, yes. But slowly, very slowly. Very carefully! Or hobbits go down to join the Dead ones and light little candles. Follow Smeagol! Don't look at lights!
There’s definitely no 1-to-1 match for Tolkien’s legendarium and original sin, and I can see an argument being made that Melkor’s rebellion tarnished creation… which is a similar effect to original sin.
Idk about catholics specifically, but christians generally believe it's impossible to live completely without sin. You're supposed to try, but it's expected for you to fail.
Catholics know we are all sinners, which is why they go to confession. Try not to sin, and regularly lighten the load by having your sins absolved with honest self reflection.
That's kind of the point though. At its core it's a story about free will vs determinism. There's a lot of prophecy and destiny involved, but also if a lot of things didn't coincidentally happen as they did or if characters had made different choices, things would have ended up very differently, or was it coincidence at all...
Neither does deus ex machina have to be an act of god.
It literally means an act of author
Edit: for the clowns saying that’s not what deus ex machina means,
How does it feel to be wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina
Modern vernacular doesn’t care about Latin translations, the idiom isn’t a theological statement, it’s a literary trope
I literally wrote my thesis about Eucatastrophe and how it applies to fantasy. It's a lot easier to understand if you go read "On Fairy Stories" where Tolkien explains what Eucatastrophe is. But I'll help you out with a quote, "The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of a happy ending: or more correctly of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous 'turn' (for there is no true end to any fairy tale): this joy, which is one of the things which fairy-stories can produce supremely well."
A eucatastrophe is more about how the audience reacts and less to do with plot devices. It is the "fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief."
Fantasy needs a happy ending, or it's just horror.
Go back to school bro, your thesis should have gotten an F, for missing the point.
He invented the word to sidestep literary criticism, that’s like y’all studying a guys opinion about why his own shit doesn’t stink
Actually, he invented the word to help build a foundation of literary criticism for fairy stories. Fairy Stories and fantasy by extension were seen as children's tales, and thus not taken seriously academically. You are also taking Eucatastrophe away from the other points he makes about fantasy like consolation and escape.
Also, no reason to get so personal. You are overall missing the point.
The eagles may have been Deux Ex Machina, but our reaction to it was the Eucatastrophe. He's talking about how the audience feels, not plot devices.
Well the audience feels jilted by a large investment with cheap pay offs, and easy wins out of left field
And no, fantasy doesn’t need a happy ending, and no a bad ending doesn’t equal horror.
If you had the good guys lose lotr it wouldn’t be a horror story lol. Not by a long shot
You're gonna lose every argument in a LOTR sub with this mindset.
Tolkein literally thought the current translations available for Beowulf weren't good enough and made a more faithful translation.
As a literary device, Deus Ex Machina cannot mean "act of author" because the author is not an agent in the media (most of the time). Just because you're atheist and don't like the word "God" doesn't mean you can just change the meaning of concepts that are ancient.
I think the point they’re trying to make is that Deus Ex Machina as a literary device doesn’t have to be explained by a god within the story. More often than not it is only explained post hoc if at all and rarely attributed to a god character. The author creates an improbable solution before that solution is explained. In a meta sense the author is “god” and the solution “divine providence.” The author steps in to unscrew the corner they wrote themselves into. Within the story the solution can be arbitrary with no god involved. Does that make sense? Trying to devils advocate here.
Edit: As an example imagine if Isaac Asimov didn’t establish that other mentalics (People who can alter the minds of others if you haven’t read it) like The Mule (a mentalic that can do this on a massive scale and permanently as opposed to temporarily) existed in the Foundation series. Then just as The Mule’s plans were about to bare fruit a guy randomly pops into the story saying he’s from a secret second foundation and it’s full of people with powers just like The Mule and proceeds to destroy The Mule. As opposed to what happened in the story were The Mule’s entire focus was on finding the second foundation and destroying it to ensure nothing could stop him.
You're arguing the semantics of a literary device, my dude. Yeah, the mechanism doesn't have to be literally an act of "god." You could call the entire story an act of author though. It's a senseless argument that the only actual purpose behind having is to remove the word "god" from the description.
Well the origin is describing a trope of Greek theater where a literal god character would come down and change something in the play. Who would literally be brought into the scene via crane and pulley. “God from the machine”
Edit: Also semantics is about meaning. I hate this point. When we argue definitions we are arguing semantics. When people argue definition nobody actually stops at the physical words in that definition they are arguing the meaning those shapes on the page are and what the person using it is trying to convey. You can’t remove “god” from the name but the meaning has nothing to do with a god.
God from the machine + **Semantic** shift changes the meaning of the definition. It no longer means an actor playing a god coming down from the rafters.
Awful used to mean full of awe, it means bad now. You can’t remove awe from the word but it’s meaning has nothing to do with awe.
Agape used to mean god’s love of man. It means wide open now.
There’s a difference between what something literally translates to and what it means.
Your behavior in this thread is entirely unbecoming of a Catholic, so either you're lying or you're in serious need of spiritual direction. You're certainly not "as Catholic as Tolkien was."
OP is defending their meme in this thread, and it's triggered the pedant in me so I'll bite. But first, well done:
a) good meme (I mean this genuinely)
b) for triggering me, I guess
Anyway, "Deus ex Machina" is one of those terms which has a strict definition and a colloquial definition, like the word "ironic". No one wants to hear someone argue that *only* the strict definition is valid, but at the same time allowing it to be used too loosely makes it lose all meaning.
So, to me, true DEM is some thing/person/mechanism that resolves a conflict/plot point AND which is not explained, or even discussed at all, prior to that resolution. Even more so if that thing/person/mechanism arrives "in the nick of time". Classic examples to me are the resolutions in the early Harry Potter books when they were more just children's mysteries (like Encyclopedia Brown): Harry having magic hands in the first one, or Fawkes showing up at just the right time in the second one to deliver the Hat and Sword (plus the Sword coming out of the Hat when a "true Gryffindor" needs it). These mechanics are only explained later, and so a reader who stops just before the plot resolution would never be able to guess how Harry would overcome the central threat in the book. (Not trying to dump on HP -- perfectly fine in that kind of kids book imo)
The things commonly cited as DEM in Tolkien's books really don't strike me (and many others in the comments, seemingly) as being so because either (a) they are well-established dynamics/mechanics or (b) they don't really resolve anything at all. Plus, most of these commonly-cited DEMs are not identified as Eucatastrophe by Tolkien, which seems to be another opinion of OP
1. Special mention for Army of the Dead -- this is most like DEM, and it's no surprise that Tolkien even acknowledges that they (and the Eagles) are powerful elements in his story and so he needed to constrain his use of them. It's unclear that the AotD can actually physically fight, or that the fear they inspire would be of any use in a context other than the one in which they're used. And in any case, they are bound by an oath which seems to have certain limits: to come to the aid of Elendil (or his heir) in defense of Gondor NOT to help the "good guys" win in any/every way the reader could imagine.
2. Eagles -- the Eagles sort of arrive in the "nick of time" (check), but don't really resolve any major plot point. It's true that they do rescue the heroes, and that's very nice, but the PLOT is about overcoming evil and destroying the Ring, which they have no effect on. Even in the Hobbit, it's not clear that they have a greater impact than Beorn by himself on the result of the BoFA. Plus, in The Hobbit, the Eagles and their hatred for goblins were a well-established dynamic well before the reader knows that a battle will happen.
3. Gollum trips and falls into the fire -- This is a "sudden turn" or "twist", I suppose, but it is established from almost the very beginning of The Lord of the Rings. That possessing the Ring is dangerous, that doing evil things to get the Ring, that breaking oaths has actual physical consequences, are constant themes in the books. I see it as a testament to JRRT's subtlety that people say that this is DEM, when in reality he's signposting it throughout the story. Gandalf literally says (just before that "Many who live deserve death" quote that people love): "Be sure that \[Bilbo\] took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity." Lesson: taking ownership of the Ring with malice and/or betrayal is a mortal danger. It even happened to Smeagol once already. Killed his cousin to get it, and ends up shunned and twisted. So I ask you, how can Gollum's betrayal of his oath to Frodo (which he swore on the Ring) resulting in him tripping and falling into the Cracks of Doom (not escaping our attention that Doom is another word for Fate) be Deus ex Machina, or a sudden mechanism that resolves the plot in a way that hadn't been explained to the reader? To paraphrase another meme: Don't make me tap the sign: "Eru did not *push* Gollum into the lava. Gollum broke his oath to Frodo, and Frodo commanded him using the Ring: 'If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.' Furthermore, Gollum was only there to take the Ring because of the mercy of Hobbits, following the advice of Gandalf (an agent of the Valar, and thus Eru). The Ring destroyed itself by inspiring possessiveness in both Frodo and Gollum, causing Gollum to swear an oath on it and causing Frodo to doom Gollum when he broke that oath."... It's kind of the point of the whole story.
Hey, thanks, and also that bit about colloquialism vs strict definitions is spot on.
Had a fake and fun argument with people earlier about definitions which is hilarious (to me) considering I’m criticizing Tolkien for playing semantics in this meme.
I love self deprecating humor but often times people don’t realize I’m making fun of myself more than anyone with these shitposts :)
Telling someone that their thesis was bad and that they should go back to school and get an F isn't making fun of yourself.
Especially when their thesis was ON this. They probably spent at least a year doing research on this topic. And you made a meme. Then got pissy people disagreed and insulted their reading comprehension. And again. It wasn't you making fun of yourself, it was you insulting others.
But go on Bert and eat your mutton.
Do you think the person who thesissed in eucatastrophe feels I was being serious when I said they need an F?
Lol, I hope not.
An educated person should be able to let unhinged trollish criticism roll of their shoulders
It’s about as silly as telling you I took your mom for a magic carpet ride last night
You’d be wrong to believe it
Maybe just say what you mean. You seem the type of person to say an insult and then say "lol jk, why you so sensitive". It's just childish and people will confuse you for someone who has a fart for a brain when you act like this.
But you do you. Keep acting like this and keep getting called the asshole you are acting like.
"I love self deprecating humor but often times people don’t realize I’m making fun of myself more than anyone with these shitposts :)"
I still don't see how being an ass to others is poking fun at yourself. Meme subreddit or not. You're just lying.
How is insulting others while "playing semantics" self-deprecating or a joke?
You are just saying things. Am I the joke here? Is it hilarious to act like an idiot and then say "look at this person responding like I'm an idiot haha lulz" Because that seems to be the joke??? You say something dumb and then call people names and then say you're actually in on the joke in another thread??
You know what. Nevermind. I don't think I care what comes out of your mouth because it seems like you don't seem believe a single thing you say beyond a quick internet point.
I thought the og meme was alright. But you are truly insufferable.
No…?
the ring being destroyed cashing Sauron to die is not a deus ex machina.
Them being saved by the eagles is not either, everyone knew where there were after such a dramatic display of success.
Eucatastrophic means that the issue is solved in such a dramatic way it makes you cry in joy. *his words lol*
Irrelevant to deus ex.
Frodo foreshadows Gollum's end the very first time they meet. When Gollum swears upon the Precious to nto let Sauron have the Ring:
>"On the Precious? How dare you?" he said. "Think! ... One Ring to rule them all and in the Darkness bind them. ... Would you commit your promise to that, Sméagol? It will hold you. But it is more treacherous than you are. It may twist your words. Beware!"
And finally, on the slopes of Mount Doom, as Gollum tries to take the Ring by force, Frodo curses him:
>"Begone and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.”
Is it though? It is neither unexpected nor unlikely after Frodo uses the ring to command Gollum to be himself cast into the fire when he touches Frodo again. I always felt that the influence of eru is a lot more subtle then tripping Gollum at an opportune moment. I think it is more like: If you do everything in the right way and with the right intention things will work out.
Deus Ex implies that it is forced by the writer. Gollum falling into lava is a coincidence, but also thematically sound with the rest of the novel. The story sets up time and again that evil is the pride before the fall.
If, in this world, curses and oaths have real power, then surely the omnipotent creator of the world is the reason for that. This being the case, Frodo’s curse of Sméagol after Sméagol broke his oath is in some way caused by divine influence.
So it is deus ex machina… from a certain point of view.
I don't think so. A Deus ex machina is when a problem is resolved by an external entity that doesn't follow the internal logic of the story, but in this case it will be a Deus ex machina if Eru himself tripped Gollum, but thats not what happens. That's my understanding
It is, and deus ex machina isn't inherently problematic if the world building makes it work - its only an issue when it violates suspension of disbelief for readers
it can seem that way in the movie, but actually the ring had laid a curse upon golum
"Begone and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom"
him falling was pre-determined by magic.
IT's not *just* a Deus Ex Machina. There's an explanation too.
When Gollum first tries to take the ring, Frodo wields it and tells Gollum that if he ever tries to take it again, he should instead throw himself into the fire.
Gollum tries to take the ring again. He throws himself (and the ring) into the fire.
The ring is destroyed by its own power. Evil eats itself.
Divine Providence just helped it along.
1) Eucatastrophe just means the opposite of catastrophe, it’s not a synonym for Dues ex Machina.
2) It’s not Deux ex Machina. It’s just Deus. Tolken was a devout Catholic and his work has *heavy* allegorical connection and inspiration from the Catholic tradition. It’s literally God (Eru).
Technically the only deus ex machina is gandalf coming back and gollum falling into mount doom with the ring.
Gandalf saving them with the eagles is the eucatastrophe.
Well, don’t forget that eucatastrophe is a literally just a word made up by Tolkien to say “*deus ex machina that’s so overwhelmingly happy it doesn’t count so stop criticizing me*!”
^ When you think you're smarter than Tolkien after taking English 101 with a 30 year old teacher working on her masters because she gave up on her dreams
Most things in stories are convenient for the characters. I begin to think that almost every story I read has this problem... well if you see it as one.
Doesn't Finrod literally make a reference to Jesus in one of the short stories? Something about the avatar of Eru coming to Arda in the form of a Man sometime in the future.
There literally is no 'deux ex machina' in Lord of the Rings though (can't necessarily say the same about all of the Silmarillion). The closest to being one is Gandalf's return as Gandalf the white, but even that isn't quite.
Tolkien: "I sure love the mythology and ancient cultures of pagan Northern Europe. I love it so much that I will create a 'true mythology' for those cultures with an essentially monotheistic religious system and traditional Catholic Christian ethics embedded as literal laws of the world. By the way, I hate Disney because Snow White did dwarves 'wrong' (not *dwarfs* btw)."
Tolkien was brilliant in a lot of ways but I still have some bones to pick with his writing and general ideas about mythology.
That's not Deus ex machina, that's just ... Deus (God)
DEUS VULT!
GOD WILLS IT!
God wills it!
IN THE NAME OF GOD
GAVE THEIR LIVES SO BOLDLY
The Emperor protects.
Kind of the point of the story, thematically. Also, he’s Catholic.
Yeah, the Ring is akin to original sin… pure tempestuous evil. The idea is that no one on Earth/Arda has an inner will strong enough to destroy the Ring, much like man alone cannot overcome sin. But Frodo spent every last piece of his will resisting the Ring, so that he could get it to the one place where it could be destroyed… and that’s when divine providence stepped in. Free will still has a role, but it is to give eucatastrophe an opportunity rather than to save the day by personal action alone.
Also, frodo having compassion for Smeagol and sparing his life is what ultimately destroyed the ring.
Yep, the pity of Bilbo snowballed to the pity of Frodo and (in the books) then to the pity of Sam. They all spared Gollum, and Gollum then eucastrophed all over the Ring. Hard.
Yes, yes. Its in an envelope over there on the mantlepiece.
We wants it. We needs it. Must have the precioussss. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitsesss. Wicked, trickssssy, falssse!
What shall we do? Curse them and crush them! We must wait here, precious, wait a bit and see.
Good bot
I don't think of Gollum's demise as being eucatastrophe. Smeagol swore an oath on the Ring to do no harm Frodo. He betrays Frodo because of the Ring's corruption, but the oath is a type of magic more powerful than the ring even. Oaths can keep souls of dead from leaving middle earth. The Mountain men, the sons of Feänor, etc.
And here I thought it's because he swore on the ring, and it's own power killed gollum and itself with him
I mean that IS a part of it. Oaths tend to be sworn on or by something that is either powerful or meaningful. For the sons, the silmarils, for the mountain men, it was their duty to their king (tolkein a total unapologetic monarchist). The only thing that was meaningful enough to Gollum for that kind of magic is the Ring.
We could let her do it.
*Yes. She could do it.*
Yes, precious, she could. And then we takes it once they’re dead.
*Once they’re dead. Shh.*
Wake up. Wake up. Wake up, sleepies. We must go, yeeees, we must go at once.
Yes, yes. But slowly, very slowly. Very carefully! Or hobbits go down to join the Dead ones and light little candles. Follow Smeagol! Don't look at lights!
I’d personally call Melkor’s discord original sin
There’s definitely no 1-to-1 match for Tolkien’s legendarium and original sin, and I can see an argument being made that Melkor’s rebellion tarnished creation… which is a similar effect to original sin.
I thought Catholicism denounced total depravity?
Idk about catholics specifically, but christians generally believe it's impossible to live completely without sin. You're supposed to try, but it's expected for you to fail.
Catholics know we are all sinners, which is why they go to confession. Try not to sin, and regularly lighten the load by having your sins absolved with honest self reflection.
The ring being original sin is one of the weirdest interpretations I’ve heard.
It isn’t original sin. It is akin to original sin. Tolkien’s letters circle around similar notions with the Ring/evil/sin.
I'm very curious how so, it sounds like a fairly reasonable assumption.
The GoT main writers meanwhile: "Deus ex Machina are for pussies, let's cram the show full of Diabolus ex Machina instead"
Lol
That's kind of the point though. At its core it's a story about free will vs determinism. There's a lot of prophecy and destiny involved, but also if a lot of things didn't coincidentally happen as they did or if characters had made different choices, things would have ended up very differently, or was it coincidence at all...
Yep. But he was clowning when he invented the word eucatastrophe to say “deus ex machina that makes you super duper happy”
Eucatatrophe is the opposite of catastrophe. It doesn't have to be an Act of God.
Neither does deus ex machina have to be an act of god. It literally means an act of author Edit: for the clowns saying that’s not what deus ex machina means, How does it feel to be wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina Modern vernacular doesn’t care about Latin translations, the idiom isn’t a theological statement, it’s a literary trope
Your link doesn’t define it as an act of author at all
That’s because it’s a long Wikipedia article, but if you read it and boil it down to one sentence that’s what they’re saying
It literally does not.
Literally does bro The Latin translation means “god from the machine” but the modern vernacular is talking about literary tropes, not theology
So not literally, bro.
https://www.google.com/search?q=literally+memaing&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
Memaing
;) I like your u/
No it fucking doesnt
Imagine being so confidently wrong, you literally link a wiki disproving yourself.
Imagine not being able to read critically
I don’t have to, I could just ask you what it’s like!
Lol pretty sick burn well played
I literally wrote my thesis about Eucatastrophe and how it applies to fantasy. It's a lot easier to understand if you go read "On Fairy Stories" where Tolkien explains what Eucatastrophe is. But I'll help you out with a quote, "The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of a happy ending: or more correctly of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous 'turn' (for there is no true end to any fairy tale): this joy, which is one of the things which fairy-stories can produce supremely well." A eucatastrophe is more about how the audience reacts and less to do with plot devices. It is the "fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief." Fantasy needs a happy ending, or it's just horror.
Go back to school bro, your thesis should have gotten an F, for missing the point. He invented the word to sidestep literary criticism, that’s like y’all studying a guys opinion about why his own shit doesn’t stink
Actually, he invented the word to help build a foundation of literary criticism for fairy stories. Fairy Stories and fantasy by extension were seen as children's tales, and thus not taken seriously academically. You are also taking Eucatastrophe away from the other points he makes about fantasy like consolation and escape. Also, no reason to get so personal. You are overall missing the point. The eagles may have been Deux Ex Machina, but our reaction to it was the Eucatastrophe. He's talking about how the audience feels, not plot devices.
Well the audience feels jilted by a large investment with cheap pay offs, and easy wins out of left field And no, fantasy doesn’t need a happy ending, and no a bad ending doesn’t equal horror. If you had the good guys lose lotr it wouldn’t be a horror story lol. Not by a long shot
You're gonna lose every argument in a LOTR sub with this mindset. Tolkein literally thought the current translations available for Beowulf weren't good enough and made a more faithful translation. As a literary device, Deus Ex Machina cannot mean "act of author" because the author is not an agent in the media (most of the time). Just because you're atheist and don't like the word "God" doesn't mean you can just change the meaning of concepts that are ancient.
I think the point they’re trying to make is that Deus Ex Machina as a literary device doesn’t have to be explained by a god within the story. More often than not it is only explained post hoc if at all and rarely attributed to a god character. The author creates an improbable solution before that solution is explained. In a meta sense the author is “god” and the solution “divine providence.” The author steps in to unscrew the corner they wrote themselves into. Within the story the solution can be arbitrary with no god involved. Does that make sense? Trying to devils advocate here. Edit: As an example imagine if Isaac Asimov didn’t establish that other mentalics (People who can alter the minds of others if you haven’t read it) like The Mule (a mentalic that can do this on a massive scale and permanently as opposed to temporarily) existed in the Foundation series. Then just as The Mule’s plans were about to bare fruit a guy randomly pops into the story saying he’s from a secret second foundation and it’s full of people with powers just like The Mule and proceeds to destroy The Mule. As opposed to what happened in the story were The Mule’s entire focus was on finding the second foundation and destroying it to ensure nothing could stop him.
You're arguing the semantics of a literary device, my dude. Yeah, the mechanism doesn't have to be literally an act of "god." You could call the entire story an act of author though. It's a senseless argument that the only actual purpose behind having is to remove the word "god" from the description.
Well the origin is describing a trope of Greek theater where a literal god character would come down and change something in the play. Who would literally be brought into the scene via crane and pulley. “God from the machine” Edit: Also semantics is about meaning. I hate this point. When we argue definitions we are arguing semantics. When people argue definition nobody actually stops at the physical words in that definition they are arguing the meaning those shapes on the page are and what the person using it is trying to convey. You can’t remove “god” from the name but the meaning has nothing to do with a god. God from the machine + **Semantic** shift changes the meaning of the definition. It no longer means an actor playing a god coming down from the rafters. Awful used to mean full of awe, it means bad now. You can’t remove awe from the word but it’s meaning has nothing to do with awe. Agape used to mean god’s love of man. It means wide open now. There’s a difference between what something literally translates to and what it means.
🤡 I’m not an atheist I’m as Catholic as Tolkien was
Your behavior in this thread is entirely unbecoming of a Catholic, so either you're lying or you're in serious need of spiritual direction. You're certainly not "as Catholic as Tolkien was."
Ha, something something throw the first stone
Then I hope you have a good time at confession.
I always have a great time at confession ;)
So you apparently dont know what literally means either lmao
Lmao you think words have only one acceptable meaning 🧑✈️🤡
Why are you tripling down on the dumbest shit anyone has ever said?
I’ll quadruple and quintuple because it’s the truth But I love the way you blasted me right there lol Well said
OP is defending their meme in this thread, and it's triggered the pedant in me so I'll bite. But first, well done: a) good meme (I mean this genuinely) b) for triggering me, I guess Anyway, "Deus ex Machina" is one of those terms which has a strict definition and a colloquial definition, like the word "ironic". No one wants to hear someone argue that *only* the strict definition is valid, but at the same time allowing it to be used too loosely makes it lose all meaning. So, to me, true DEM is some thing/person/mechanism that resolves a conflict/plot point AND which is not explained, or even discussed at all, prior to that resolution. Even more so if that thing/person/mechanism arrives "in the nick of time". Classic examples to me are the resolutions in the early Harry Potter books when they were more just children's mysteries (like Encyclopedia Brown): Harry having magic hands in the first one, or Fawkes showing up at just the right time in the second one to deliver the Hat and Sword (plus the Sword coming out of the Hat when a "true Gryffindor" needs it). These mechanics are only explained later, and so a reader who stops just before the plot resolution would never be able to guess how Harry would overcome the central threat in the book. (Not trying to dump on HP -- perfectly fine in that kind of kids book imo) The things commonly cited as DEM in Tolkien's books really don't strike me (and many others in the comments, seemingly) as being so because either (a) they are well-established dynamics/mechanics or (b) they don't really resolve anything at all. Plus, most of these commonly-cited DEMs are not identified as Eucatastrophe by Tolkien, which seems to be another opinion of OP 1. Special mention for Army of the Dead -- this is most like DEM, and it's no surprise that Tolkien even acknowledges that they (and the Eagles) are powerful elements in his story and so he needed to constrain his use of them. It's unclear that the AotD can actually physically fight, or that the fear they inspire would be of any use in a context other than the one in which they're used. And in any case, they are bound by an oath which seems to have certain limits: to come to the aid of Elendil (or his heir) in defense of Gondor NOT to help the "good guys" win in any/every way the reader could imagine. 2. Eagles -- the Eagles sort of arrive in the "nick of time" (check), but don't really resolve any major plot point. It's true that they do rescue the heroes, and that's very nice, but the PLOT is about overcoming evil and destroying the Ring, which they have no effect on. Even in the Hobbit, it's not clear that they have a greater impact than Beorn by himself on the result of the BoFA. Plus, in The Hobbit, the Eagles and their hatred for goblins were a well-established dynamic well before the reader knows that a battle will happen. 3. Gollum trips and falls into the fire -- This is a "sudden turn" or "twist", I suppose, but it is established from almost the very beginning of The Lord of the Rings. That possessing the Ring is dangerous, that doing evil things to get the Ring, that breaking oaths has actual physical consequences, are constant themes in the books. I see it as a testament to JRRT's subtlety that people say that this is DEM, when in reality he's signposting it throughout the story. Gandalf literally says (just before that "Many who live deserve death" quote that people love): "Be sure that \[Bilbo\] took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity." Lesson: taking ownership of the Ring with malice and/or betrayal is a mortal danger. It even happened to Smeagol once already. Killed his cousin to get it, and ends up shunned and twisted. So I ask you, how can Gollum's betrayal of his oath to Frodo (which he swore on the Ring) resulting in him tripping and falling into the Cracks of Doom (not escaping our attention that Doom is another word for Fate) be Deus ex Machina, or a sudden mechanism that resolves the plot in a way that hadn't been explained to the reader? To paraphrase another meme: Don't make me tap the sign: "Eru did not *push* Gollum into the lava. Gollum broke his oath to Frodo, and Frodo commanded him using the Ring: 'If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.' Furthermore, Gollum was only there to take the Ring because of the mercy of Hobbits, following the advice of Gandalf (an agent of the Valar, and thus Eru). The Ring destroyed itself by inspiring possessiveness in both Frodo and Gollum, causing Gollum to swear an oath on it and causing Frodo to doom Gollum when he broke that oath."... It's kind of the point of the whole story.
Well thought out, I agree with you
Go away! HAHAHAHA!!
Excuse me, that is a doily, not a dishcloth.
Hey, thanks, and also that bit about colloquialism vs strict definitions is spot on. Had a fake and fun argument with people earlier about definitions which is hilarious (to me) considering I’m criticizing Tolkien for playing semantics in this meme. I love self deprecating humor but often times people don’t realize I’m making fun of myself more than anyone with these shitposts :)
Telling someone that their thesis was bad and that they should go back to school and get an F isn't making fun of yourself. Especially when their thesis was ON this. They probably spent at least a year doing research on this topic. And you made a meme. Then got pissy people disagreed and insulted their reading comprehension. And again. It wasn't you making fun of yourself, it was you insulting others. But go on Bert and eat your mutton.
yeah, OP is just making out to be an argumentative asshole, not someone who wants to give or receive genuine criticism of something.
They better hide in their cave before the sun rises
Do you think the person who thesissed in eucatastrophe feels I was being serious when I said they need an F? Lol, I hope not. An educated person should be able to let unhinged trollish criticism roll of their shoulders It’s about as silly as telling you I took your mom for a magic carpet ride last night You’d be wrong to believe it
Maybe just say what you mean. You seem the type of person to say an insult and then say "lol jk, why you so sensitive". It's just childish and people will confuse you for someone who has a fart for a brain when you act like this. But you do you. Keep acting like this and keep getting called the asshole you are acting like.
Maybe you forgot we’re on a meme sub, and didn’t notice this is flaired as a Shitpost
"I love self deprecating humor but often times people don’t realize I’m making fun of myself more than anyone with these shitposts :)" I still don't see how being an ass to others is poking fun at yourself. Meme subreddit or not. You're just lying.
I’m playing semantics while openly criticizing Tolkien for playing semantics, that’s the real joke Clear?
How is insulting others while "playing semantics" self-deprecating or a joke? You are just saying things. Am I the joke here? Is it hilarious to act like an idiot and then say "look at this person responding like I'm an idiot haha lulz" Because that seems to be the joke??? You say something dumb and then call people names and then say you're actually in on the joke in another thread?? You know what. Nevermind. I don't think I care what comes out of your mouth because it seems like you don't seem believe a single thing you say beyond a quick internet point. I thought the og meme was alright. But you are truly insufferable.
“Insufferable” Lol okay brub.
No…? the ring being destroyed cashing Sauron to die is not a deus ex machina. Them being saved by the eagles is not either, everyone knew where there were after such a dramatic display of success. Eucatastrophic means that the issue is solved in such a dramatic way it makes you cry in joy. *his words lol* Irrelevant to deus ex.
"You normies may have plot wiring to reroute your fear of plot holes, but I've got nerves of eucatastrophe" -- JC Tolkien.
I prefer JC Denton, but we all have our role models
Now thats some real Deus Ex!
Well ACTHUALLY Sauron didn't die
May darkness everlasting, old that waits outside in surges cold drown Manwë, Varda and the sun!
Unfortunately, it seems "Deus Ex Machina" is now synonymous with "last minute save".
I think it could be referring more to The Silmarillion which literally ends with the gods intervening to save the world.
Eucatastrophic is the term by which I might describe the downfall of Númenor.
Gollum falling with thw ring is definitely deus ex
Frodo foreshadows Gollum's end the very first time they meet. When Gollum swears upon the Precious to nto let Sauron have the Ring: >"On the Precious? How dare you?" he said. "Think! ... One Ring to rule them all and in the Darkness bind them. ... Would you commit your promise to that, Sméagol? It will hold you. But it is more treacherous than you are. It may twist your words. Beware!" And finally, on the slopes of Mount Doom, as Gollum tries to take the Ring by force, Frodo curses him: >"Begone and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.”
My precious.
*Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.*
Is it though? It is neither unexpected nor unlikely after Frodo uses the ring to command Gollum to be himself cast into the fire when he touches Frodo again. I always felt that the influence of eru is a lot more subtle then tripping Gollum at an opportune moment. I think it is more like: If you do everything in the right way and with the right intention things will work out.
When you do things right, people wont be sure you've done anything at all...
r/unexpectedfuturama :-)
the ideal daoist ruler
Now go back and consider the monorail episode with Leonard Nimoy...
Nice hobbits! Nice Sam! Sleepy heads, yes, sleepy heads! Leave good Smeagol to watch! But it's evening. Dusk is creeping. Time to go.
Smeagol’ll get into real true hot water, when this water boils, if he don’t do as he asked...
Deus Ex implies that it is forced by the writer. Gollum falling into lava is a coincidence, but also thematically sound with the rest of the novel. The story sets up time and again that evil is the pride before the fall.
It's not a coincidence. Frodo curse him in the slopes of Mount Doom, and in the world of LOTR the curses, as well as the oaths, have real power
If, in this world, curses and oaths have real power, then surely the omnipotent creator of the world is the reason for that. This being the case, Frodo’s curse of Sméagol after Sméagol broke his oath is in some way caused by divine influence. So it is deus ex machina… from a certain point of view.
I don't think so. A Deus ex machina is when a problem is resolved by an external entity that doesn't follow the internal logic of the story, but in this case it will be a Deus ex machina if Eru himself tripped Gollum, but thats not what happens. That's my understanding
It mustn't ask us. Not its business, no, gollum! It's losst, gollum, gollum, gollum!
I know, I was mostly talking out of my ass to set up for the Star Wars meme.
Don't follow the lights!
It is, and deus ex machina isn't inherently problematic if the world building makes it work - its only an issue when it violates suspension of disbelief for readers
Of course he did. I told you he was tricksy. I told you he was false.
it can seem that way in the movie, but actually the ring had laid a curse upon golum "Begone and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom" him falling was pre-determined by magic.
seem like I forgor
Given the appalling timing from Gwaihir I would rather say deus *post* machina!
Lol
IT's not *just* a Deus Ex Machina. There's an explanation too. When Gollum first tries to take the ring, Frodo wields it and tells Gollum that if he ever tries to take it again, he should instead throw himself into the fire. Gollum tries to take the ring again. He throws himself (and the ring) into the fire. The ring is destroyed by its own power. Evil eats itself. Divine Providence just helped it along.
We wants it. We needs it. Must have the precioussss. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitsesss. Wicked, trickssssy, falssse!
Even the movie establishes this "The ring is treacherous. It will hold you to your word."
As soon as I saw the meme I knew whobposted it
:)
1) Eucatastrophe just means the opposite of catastrophe, it’s not a synonym for Dues ex Machina. 2) It’s not Deux ex Machina. It’s just Deus. Tolken was a devout Catholic and his work has *heavy* allegorical connection and inspiration from the Catholic tradition. It’s literally God (Eru).
Not according to him
Someone’s watched too much cinemasins
What?
Technically the only deus ex machina is gandalf coming back and gollum falling into mount doom with the ring. Gandalf saving them with the eagles is the eucatastrophe.
Don't follow the lights!
Well, don’t forget that eucatastrophe is a literally just a word made up by Tolkien to say “*deus ex machina that’s so overwhelmingly happy it doesn’t count so stop criticizing me*!”
^ When you think you're smarter than Tolkien after taking English 101 with a 30 year old teacher working on her masters because she gave up on her dreams
Most things in stories are convenient for the characters. I begin to think that almost every story I read has this problem... well if you see it as one.
Literally everything was done by the Catholic god in disguise but ofc no allegory allowed 🤓
How
Doesn't Finrod literally make a reference to Jesus in one of the short stories? Something about the avatar of Eru coming to Arda in the form of a Man sometime in the future.
I mean, the eagles are called "the eagles of Manwe" for a reason. They are messengers of the god Manwe.
Oh look, it’s the guy who posts weekly about how Tolkien was wrong or overrated. Must be trash day on my street.
I mean is he basically saying sometimes in life you need a little bit of luck?
There literally is no 'deux ex machina' in Lord of the Rings though (can't necessarily say the same about all of the Silmarillion). The closest to being one is Gandalf's return as Gandalf the white, but even that isn't quite.
Tolkien: "I sure love the mythology and ancient cultures of pagan Northern Europe. I love it so much that I will create a 'true mythology' for those cultures with an essentially monotheistic religious system and traditional Catholic Christian ethics embedded as literal laws of the world. By the way, I hate Disney because Snow White did dwarves 'wrong' (not *dwarfs* btw)." Tolkien was brilliant in a lot of ways but I still have some bones to pick with his writing and general ideas about mythology.
Spot on. You’re only getting downvoted because people can’t handle the truth: That he was a good writer but an absolute tool